Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Murray Hill Inc. declares for Congress!

It was only a matter of days... but now there's a corporation running for Congress. Murray Hill Inc., which in everyday life is a creative consulting and design firm, has thrown its... um... not its hat, it doesn't have a head... or is it "their hat"... well, whatever.



And here's the statement: "Until now, corporations only influenced politics with high-paid lobbyists and backroom deals. But today, thanks to an enlightened supreme court, corporations now have all the rights the founding fathers meant for us. That's why Murray Hill Incorporated is taking democracy's next step-- running for Congress."

On the personal side, Murray Hill Inc.'s hobbies are capitalism, and its or possibly their favorite book is "Atlas Shrugged."

However, Murray is not the first corporation to take this momentous step. In 2008, Rich-CorporateSon Inc., a feisty Oregon institution incorporated by Portland's End Corporate Personhood Action Group, ran for Governor, and had a few of his proxies debate Thom Hartmann, with piano accompaniment. It's a long video but fun to watch with lots of good background on this important issue.

Read more...

Vote for "Constitutional Rights for People, not Corporations" at Change.org

The news and networking site Change.org runs an annual, national competition, Ideas for Change in America, in which you can vote for the best progressive ideas, as well as connect with groups working to make them reality.

Right now, an anti-corporate personhood amendment is running 12th in the category Government Reform and Transparency. It needs 93 more votes to make it to the final round.

You can vote here, find out more about the issue, hop to the Campaign to Legalize Democray's MovetoAmend.org site, and tweet or facebook about the vote.

Most of the ideas in Government Reform and Transparency relate to public funding of elections or amending the constitution or otherwise banning corporate usurpation of personhood rights--good minds on the same track, and hopefully supporting a long-term campaign against corporate rule!

Read more...

Californians: Make your calls for SB810 and single payer health care

The prospects for a national health care bill may be fading with the Republican Senate win in Massachusetts, but California has a chance to institute real health care reform by passing SB 810.

SB 810 would establish the California Healthcare System (CHS), a single-payer health care plan that would provide coverage for which all 37 million Californians would be eligible. This bill would mandate the combining under one administration, the CHS, exciting state-administered health care programs with the privately funded insurance industry, and the state's unisured. The CHS would, on a single-payer basis, negotiate with providers or set fees for health care services and would pay claims for those services.

This bill has broad support from many in the California Senate and Assembly, the California Nurses Association, National Nurses United, the healthcare community, labor groups, the California School Employees Association, medical students and many other groups. California is one of more than half a dozen states where single payer legislation will be considered this year. Let's take the lead on real health care reform, and hope that "as California goes, so goes the nation!"

Please take action today!

SB 810 was first introduced in the 2009 legislative session, but held in the Senate Appropriations Committee and never made it to the Senate floor for a vote and therefore didn't make it to the Assembly for a vote.

Now, on January 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 6 - 3 to pass it to the Senate for a vote. The full Senate is expected to vote no later than Friday, January 29.

Please take the time to call your state Senator and let them know that you support SB 810 because:

  • SB 810 will will establish healthcare for all Californians, and provide health security for California families
  • SB 810 will create thousands of good paying jobs in the state and generate critical revenues for California businesses.
Your State Senator needs to hear from you. And even though you may not be in the district of these following Senators, please call or email their offices and say you are asking for their support as a resident of the state that wants and needs a single-payer health care system for all Californians.

Senator Ron Calderon (Montebello)
Phone: 916-651-4030
Email: senator.calderon@sen.ca.gov

Senator Lou Correa (Santa Ana)
Phone: 916-651-4034
Email: senator.correa@sen.ca.gov

Senator Rod Wright (Los Angeles)
Phone: 916-651-4025
Email: senator.wright@sen.ca.gov

You can read an analysis of the bill here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0801-0850/sb_810_cfa_20100121_091013_sen_comm.html

Corporations make their voices heard by pledging financial support to the candidates they like. And don't forget that the Supreme Court just exponentially increased their influence. We have our voices--use your's today!

Read more...

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

A timely talk by Paul Cienfuegos in Portland OR February 26

from the Portland AfD chapter blog

The Alliance for Democracy and others have been working for some time to bring Paul Cienfuegos to Portland since he was here for the EconVergence in October. But his appearance is even more timely now in light of the US Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United vs FEC. The US Supreme Court has let loose the corporate treasuries on the political process in the United States. Never has it been more clear that continuing to win our political, environmental and economic battles one at a time will not work and that new approaches are needed.

Paul Cienfuegos has been advocating for a new way for a long time, advocating that we change our focus from particular issues and wrongs to looking at challenging the “right” of corporations to human rights. The question is: How do we do this?
Please write this event down and be there. Our futures and our democracy depend on learning our history and acting differently in the future.

Empowering the People: Paul Cienfuegos Lecture and Reception
Friday February 26th, 2010, 
First Unitarian Church, Eliot Chapel, 12th and SW Salmon, Portland
6:00 p.m. Doors open
; 7:00 p.m. Lecture by Paul Cienfuegos
; 8:30 p.m. Reception
Sponsored by: Alliance for Democracy, City Repair, Economic Justice Action Group, First Unitarian Church of Portland, Real Wealth of Portland and Transition Towns PDX

“Is a truly sustainable society achievable as long as corporate rights trump the rights of people?”

Americans already want better environmental protection, and they are willing to pay for it according to polls. But our elected officials continue to allow the rapid degradation of our environment. Americans are strongly in favor of bold legislative responses to the climate crisis, but our elected officials hem and haw. Why?

Because we, the people are no longer the primary constituents of the people we elect…corporations are! Why? Because corporate constitutional “rights” trump the rights of people.

And how do we tend to respond to this travesty? By continuing to struggle against one corporate harm at a time, one corporation at a time, mostly via the regulatory agencies. We cannot possibly win in these arenas.

We MUST change our tactics and start boldly challenging the constitutional RIGHTS of corporations to participate in American democratic processes. Only then can we achieve a truly sustainable society.

For questions, contact Hindi@cityrepair.org or call 503-267-2973

Read more...

Two more things to read today

All corporations are not created equal. Some are large, some are just the guy down the street, and some are struggling to be both sustainable and ethical. As proof, yesterday, a pretty stinging critique of the Citizens United decision appeared in, of all places, the Harvard Business Review, specifically this blog post, "The Supreme Court's Ruling: What Would Milton Friedman Say" by Justin Fox.

An excerpt:

The individuals who make up the electorate in the United States are, as Friedman described, beings of many facets — their actions and their views shaped by pecuniary self interest but also by values, beliefs, and loyalties that might conflict with that self interest. The ideal for-profit corporation, on the other hand, is out to do nothing but make as much money as it can "within the rules of the game." It is supposed to behave in a fashion that for an individual would probably be described as psychopathic. And if corporations are allowed to play a decisive role in shaping the "rules of the game," we have effectively put the inmates in control of the asylum.

Elsewhere, Steve Puma outlines the decision, with many links to background info, and discusses how it will affect sustainable businesses.

Read more...

Comic relief: "The last bastion of discrimination has come toppling down"

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Supreme Corp
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Read more...

A partisan Supreme Court

There are real-life implications to the Citizens United decision--we live with compromised regulations and a damaged economy as a direct result of corporate rule. Timothy Rutten argues that reality should have helped decide this case.

by Timothy Rutten. Posted at The Los Angeles Times January 24

This week's Supreme Court decision granting corporations the right to spend unrestricted amounts of money supporting or opposing candidates in federal elections is so strained in its reasoning and so removed from the realities of American life that it would be grotesquely comedic, were its implications not so dire.

We're all familiar, of course, with the disenfranchisement of corporate America. It's common knowledge that the interests of big business are routinely ignored at every level of society, and that the deprivation of rights suffered by those unfortunates who populate its executive suites is a continuing affront to the national conscience. That, at least, was the suggestion of the strident tone taken by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. "If the 1st Amendment has any force," he wrote, "it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens or associations of citizens for simply engaging in political speech."

You would think that the federal prisons were overflowing with corporate martyrs to freedom of expression. This is reasoning ludicrous on its face and radical in its dismissal of judicial decisions stretching back to Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. The notion that corporate rights and individual rights -- particularly those recognized by the 1st Amendment -- are congruent is absurd. Do corporations have a right to freedom of religion, or just to those liberties that advance commercial interests?

As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent: "If taken seriously, our colleagues' assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the government's ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by 'Tokyo Rose' during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

That's hardly the end of this decision's implications. Over time, it's bound to provide the rationale for overturning state and local electoral regulations based on federal law -- as those in Los Angeles are -- and will further undermine the influence of the parties at a time when U.S. politics seem increasingly chaotic.

That's true because, though corporate contributions to the parties continue to be regulated, expenditures made outside the parties on behalf of candidates now are unlimited. The predictable effect on parties is particularly odd from this court, given that one of the most distressing things about this decision -- considered in a sequence stretching back to Bush vs. Gore -- is that it demonstrates that this is a partisan court, willing to hand down sweeping decisions that ignore decades of jurisprudence based on five Republican votes.

That was not true of the activist court over which Chief Justice Earl Warren presided. At the time he was sworn in, Warren was the only member of the court appointed by a Republican president. Still, he inherited a group of justices deeply split over the overriding question of the day -- segregation -- and fashioned a unanimous rejection of legalized racial separation in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education decision. As The Times' Jim Newton -- Warren's biographer (and also my editor) -- has pointed out, "Before Fred Vinson, Warren's predecessor, died, the court was deeply split over Brown. At least three justices (Tom Clark, Stanley Reed and Vinson) were inclined to uphold Plessy vs. Ferguson in defense of segregation, and two others (Felix Frankfurter and Robert Jackson) were stymied by the question of how to overturn such a long-standing precedent. Vinson's death, which Frankfurter referred to as his first solid evidence of the existence of God, cleared the way for that impasse to be broken. Thus Warren achieved a unanimity that elevated the opinion above partisan or sectional politics." Can that be said of any major decision handed down by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.'s court?

That nonpartisan character survived throughout Warren's tenure and that of his successor, the Republican Warren E. Burger. Two other landmark decisions of that period -- Griswold vs. Connecticut, which recognized a constitutional right to privacy, and Roe vs. Wade -- were decided by 7-2 majorities. In the former, one of the dissenters, Hugo Black, was a Democrat; the other, Potter Stewart, a Republican. In the latter, one of the minority justices, Byron R. White, was a Democrat, and the other, William H. Rehnquist, a Republican.

Our current ability to predict Supreme Court decisions by weighing the issues against the two parties' programs is worse than melancholy. It marks a new low in our nation's descent into corrosive partisanship.

Read more...

Good Read: 10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics

Ten ways to prevent or control the influence of big corporations on elections and policy development. There's something for everyone here, including a constitutional amendment against corporate personhood.

by Fran Korten. Posted at Yes Magazine January 25

The recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in politics just may be the straw that breaks the plutocracy’s back.

Pro-democracy groups, business leaders, and elected representatives are proposing mechanisms to prevent or counter the millions of dollars that corporations can now draw from their treasuries to push for government action favorable to their bottom line. The outrage ignited by the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission extends to President Obama, who has promised that repairing the damage will be a priority for his administration.

But what can be done to limit or reverse the effect of the Court’s decision? Here are 10 ideas:

1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of human beings. Since the First Amendment case for corporate spending as a free speech right rests on corporations being considered “persons,” the proposed amendment would strike at the core of the ruling’s justification. The push for the 28th Amendment is coming from the grassroots, where a prairie fire is catching on from groups such as Public Citizen, Voter Action, and the Campaign to Legalize Democracy.

2. Require shareholders to approve political spending by their corporations. Public Citizen and the Brennan Center for Justice are among the groups advocating this measure, and some members of Congress appear interested. Britain has required such shareholder approval since 2000.

3. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which provides federal financing for Congressional elections. This measure has the backing of organizations representing millions of Americans, including Moveon.org, the NAACP, the Service Employees International Union, and the League of Young Voters. Interestingly, the heads of a number of major corporations have also signed on, including those of Ben & Jerry’s, Hasbro, Crate & Barrel, and the former head of Delta Airlines.

4. Give qualified candidates equal amounts of free broadcast air time for political messages. This would limit the advantages of paid advertisements in reaching the public through television where most political spending goes.

5. Ban political advertising by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists, or collect most of their revenue abroad. A fear that many observers have noted is that the Court’s ruling will allow foreign corporations to influence U.S. elections. According to The New York Times, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) are exploring this option.

6. Impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) proposes this, calling it "The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act."

7. Prohibit companies from trading their stock on national exchanges if they make political contributions and expenditures. Another one from Grayson, which he calls "The Public Company Responsibility Act."


8. Require publicly traded companies
to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products. Grayson calls this "The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act."

9. Require the corporate CEO to appear as sponsor of commercials that his or her company pays for, another possibility from the Schumer-Van Hollen team, according to The New York Times

10. Publicize the reform options, inform the public of who is making contributions to whom, and activate the citizenry. If we are to safeguard our democracy, media must inform and citizens must act.

The measures listed above—and others that seek to reverse the dominance of money in our political system—will not be easy. But grassroots anger at this latest win for corporate power is running high. History shows that when the public is sufficiently aroused, actions that once seemed impossible can, in hindsight, seem inevitable.

Read more...

Actions on behalf of ending corporate personhood

As of this morning, 45,000+ individuals have signed the pledge at MovetoAmend.org, and the site has been updated with more FAQ's, and, most importantly, action items. As a steering committee group, the Alliance is very gratified by this response. If you've signed the pledge--thank you! And most importantly, please take the next step and start speaking out to protect our democracy.

So what can you do? If you're acting alone, a letter to the editor is a good way to share your views with your community. There are tips on the Move to Amend action items page, sample letters from the Alliance here, and talking points here.

Think also about how corporations have affected your community. Was there a time when your town backed off from defending a local ordinance because of the threat of a corporate lawsuit? Has your downtown disappeared because a big-box retailer has undercut local businesses? Making your letter specific to local concerns is a big help in getting it published.

Please send us your letters and we'll post them here for others to read--and thanks for speaking out!

Read more...

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Sample letters to the editor on Citizens United and corporate personhood

Use these as a model for your own writing. They were developed by AfD co-chair Nancy Price and Justice Rising editor Jim Tarbell. When your letter is published please let us know and we'll link to it or repost it here. Letter #1 begins here, and continues, along with letter #2, at the "read more" link.

Letter #1
Dear Editor,
In this era of health reform legislation manipulated by senators beholden to the insurance industry and pharmaceutical lobbyists, the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission opens the door for complete corruption of our democracy. Masquerading as a free speech case, it actually guts previous state and federal limits on campaign expenditures, especially the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold). Now corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy the election result they want and manipulate politics and policy in their self-interest.

This is all part of a legal agenda that includes eliminating restrictions on corporate campaign contributions. The right has been trying to take over the federal courts for over twenty years and this decision proves they have been successful at packing the Court with politicians in robes.

This Supreme Court ruling is being widely applauded by the Republican Party, which sees it as a boon to their fundraising efforts. With pivotal elections for control of the House, Senate and statehouses in November, corporations will use this decision to accelerate their take-over of our political system.

Many groups are organizing to confront this corporate offensive with campaigns to challenge the controversial legal doctrine of the corporations have personhood rights under the 14th Amendment and therefore the First Amendment rights to free speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens writing for the minority said: “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”

Corporations are not persons. It will only be by reclaiming control of our democracy that we can ensure a safe and healthy future for our families and ourselves. For information on the new Campaign to Legalize Democracy and movement to Amend the Constitution to strip corporations of all constitutional rights conferred piecemeal by the Court over the years, check out www.thealliancefordemocracy.org and www.MovetoAmend.org.


Letter #2
Dear Editor,
Ten years ago, people rallied to stop global corporate governance at the WTO in Seattle. Now, the recent Supreme Court ruling further entrenches corporate power and rule in our nation.

The Roberts Court majority of right-wing, pro-corporate ideologues, in their recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, opened the door to unlimited corporate campaign spending in state and federal elections. This comes when Wall Street banks were the biggest campaign donors in the country. If we think corporate-friendly politicians have handed a boondoggle of cash to their Wall Street friends during the recent banker-caused financial crisis, just count what they contribute to their Wall Street-friendly candidates this election year to buy the results they want to manipulate politics and policy in their self-interest.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the dissent for the minority: ”Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

We can not allow the Supreme Court’s expansion of free speech rights under the First Amendment to further entrench corporate power in the law of the land. Nor, can we allow the controversial legal doctrine of “corporate personhood” that gives corporations protection under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights go unchallenged. Corporations are not persons. They are artificial entities. We must make clear that the American people are in charge of their government, and not the corporate elite and their corporate-friendly courts.

The only way to establish citizen control of our democracy is to pass a constitutional amendment to deny corporate personhood, thereby stripping corporations of all constitutional rights conferred on them piecemeal by the Court over the years. Go to www.thealliancefordemocracy.org for information on how to join the national uprising putting people in power, not the monied elite. Thanks for joining in.

Read more...

Alliance for Democracy's statement on Citizens United v. FEC

Today we join the national cry of outrage over the U.S. Supreme Court opinion allowing unlimited corporate money for political campaigns and affirming the rights of corporations as “persons”

Today’s Supreme Court opinion in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, a campaign finance law case, opens the floodgates to allow unlimited corporate spending to influence state and federal elections and further entrenches corporate power in our nation.

This 5-4 decision overturns previous Court decisions that limited corporate money in politics. In lifting the previous federal ban on corporate “independent expenditures,” the court has overridden laws in 22 states banning “independent expenditures” by corporations and unions. Now corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money to buy the election results they want and manipulate politics and policy in their self-interest.

“The Constitution was written to protect real people, not to give corporations the power to challenge our fundamental rights and enacted laws,” said Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy Co-Chair. “With this decision, a business-friendly Supreme Court majority is further eroding the very basis of our democracy by allowing corporate money to dominate the political process. Corporate political speech is a lot louder than that of ordinary persons. This is a critical time for our democracy and many are alarmed.”

The Alliance welcomes the observation by Justice Stevens in his dissent with Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor concurring, that

“The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”

However, this should apply to all Constitutional rights conferred on corporations by the courts through the doctrine of corporate personhood. It is these court-conferred rights which have robbed, “we, the people” of our ability to govern ourselves without interference by the monied-power of corporations.

Corporations are not persons. They are artificial entities. And as Stevens et al make clear,
“Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office.”

The Supreme Court’s expansion of corporate free speech rights under the First Amendment further entrenches corporate power in the law of the land. It is a stunning setback for American democracy and a crime against the rights of ordinary people.

“We join with our grassroots allies in the Campaign to Legalize Democracy in support of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remove personhood rights and protections from corporations for all time,” Price said, urging that concerned citizens visit the new website www.MovetoAmend.org and sign in support.

This opinion further entrenches the controversial legal doctrine of “corporate personhood” arising from the 1886 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Santa Clara railroad case. In this decision, the activist court asserted, without explanation, that the 14th Amendment, enacted to guarantee equal protection and constitutional rights to recently freed slaves, applied to corporations. As a result, corporations, artificial entities created by and subject to state laws, have successfully claimed many of the constitutional rights that real persons possess, even though the word “corporation” never appears in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Corporations have used the Constitution to challenge the constitutionally recognized rights of human beings, not just the First Amendment right to free speech but other protections under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself. The concept of corporate personhood, though absurd on its face, has been slowly gaining momentum since the mid-19th century, as the hard-won Fourteenth Amendment has been used effectively over the decades to expand corporate power rather than to protect the rights of ordinary people. Today’s Supreme Court ruling continues this misdirection.

The Alliance calls on the American people to stand up and take back our democracy which has fallen under corporate rule and end this corporate crusade to subvert democratically enacted laws.

One step is mandatory public financing of state and federal elections. Another step is a constitutional amendment to deny corporations First Amendment rights to political speech and to spend money in elections.

Ultimately, a Constitutional amendment is needed to deny corporate personhood and thereby stripping corporations of all constitutional rights conferred on them piecemeal by the Court over the years.

Read more...

After Citizens United: An urgent call to action

From the Campaign to Legalize Democracy; the Alliance for Democracy is a member of this coalition.

Urgent Call to action from Howard Zinn, Thom Hartmann, Medea Benjamin, Fran & David Korten, Bill McKibben, Bill Fletcher, Jim Hightower, Tom Hayden, Rev. Yearwood & many more...

Exxon. AIG. Enron. Blackwater. Edison. Halliburton. Diebold.

They've gone after our tax dollars. Our services. Our jobs. Our schools. Our military. Our votes. Our future.

Our freedoms. And the federal courts have helped them every step of the way.

Today, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.

Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

We Move to Amend.

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

  • Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
  • Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
  • Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

Adrienne Maree Brown, Ruckus Society
Alec Loorz, Kids vs Global Warming
Andrew Kimbrell, International Center for Technology Assessment
Andy Gussert, Citizens Trade Campaign
Anne Feeney, musician
Ben Manski, attorney, Exec. Director, Liberty Tree
Benno Friedman, photographer
Benson Scotch, former Staff Counsel to Sen. Leahy, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee
Bill Fletcher, Exec. Editor, BlackCommentator.com
Bill McKibben, founder, 350.org
Bill Moyer, Backbone Campaign
Brad Friedman, Publisher, The BRAD BLOG
Brad Thacker, Be The Change USA
Brett Kimberlin, Director, Justice Through Music
Brian McLaren, Christian activist & author
Carl Davidson, Progressive America Rising
Carolyn Oppenheim, Shays 2
Charlie Cray, Center for Corporate Policy
Dal LaMagna, founder, Tweezerman, Inc.
Dave Wells, formerly Board of Directors, Sierra Club
David Cobb, initiator of 2004 Ohio Recount
David Gespass, president, National Lawyers Guild
David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World
David Rovics, musician
David Swanson, AfterDowningStreet.org
David Wells, Jr., Nashville Urban Harvest
Dean Myerson, Executive Director, Green Institute
Diane Wittner & Margaret Flowers, Chesapeake Citizens
Dr. Jill Stein, candidate for Governor of Massachusetts
Ed Garvey, attorney at law, editor, FightingBob.com
Emily Levy, Velvet Revolution
Fran Korten, Editor, YES! Magazine
Frank Arundel, activist
Gary Zuckett, WV Citizen Action
George Friday, National Coordinator, IPPN
George Martin, United for Peace & Justice
Georgia Kelly, Praxis Peace Institute
Glen Ford, Executive Editor, BlackAgendaReport.com
Greg Coleridge, NE OH American Friends Service Committee
Howard Zinn, historian
Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western State Legal Foundation
James Gustave Speth, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos
Jan Edwards, writer
Jane Anne Morris, author, Gaveling Down The Rabble
Jeff Cohen, founder, FAIR
Jeff Milchen, founder, ReclaimDemocracy.org
Jeffrey Short, Ph.D., Pacific Science Director, OCEANA
Jerome Scott, League of Revolutionaries for a New America
Jill Bussiere, Co-Chair, Green Party of the U.S.
James M. Cullen, editor of The Progressive Populist
Jim Hightower, author, columnist, and radio commentator
Joel Bleifuss, Editor & Publisher, In These Times
John E. Peck, Executive Director, Family Farm Defenders
John Nichols, Washington Correspondent, The Nation
John Rensenbrink, President, Green Horizon Foundation
John Stauber, author, Weapons of Mass Deception
Jonathan Frieman, social entrepreneur
Josh Healey, Youth Speaks
Josh Lerner, The New School for Social Research
Josh Silver, Executive Director, Free Press
Judith Pedersen-Benn, Unitarian Universalists for a Just Economic Community
Kai Huschke, Envision Spokane
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
Ken Reiner, inventor and founder, Kaynar Corp.
Kevin Danaher, Executive Co-Producer, Green Festivals
Kevin Zeese, Executive Director, TrueVote.US
Leah Bolger, CDR, USN (Ret), Bring the Guard Home! It's the Law.
Lewis Pitts, Lawyer, Legal Aid of NC
Lisa Graves, Executive Director, Center for Media and Democracy
Lori Price, Managing Editor, Citizens for Legitimate Government
Makani Themba-Nixon, Executive Director, The Praxis Project
Margo Baldwin, Publisher, Chelsea Green
Mark Crispin Miller, author, Fooled Again
Mary Zepernick, Program on Corporations Law and Democracy
Marybeth Gardam, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Matt Nelson, Just Cause
Matt Rothschild, Editor, The Progressive
Medea Benjamin, co-founder, Code Pink
Michael Albert, Z Communications
Michael Bonnano, OpEdNews
Michael Marx, Corporate Ethics International
Michael Shuman, attorney, economic, author of "The Small-Mart Revolution"
Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace
Mimi Kennedy, actress, activist
Miriam Simos, Starhawk, activist and writer
Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy
Nick Pavloff, Jr., Gulf of Alaska Aleut from Kodiak Island
Norman Solomon, author, co-chair, Healthcare Not Warfare campaign
Patrick Reinsborough, SmartMeme
Paul Saginaw, founder, Zingerman's, Inc.
Prof. Peter Gabel, School of Law, New College of California
Prof. Victor Wallis, Managing Editor, Socialism & Democracy
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
Rep. Michael Fisher, House of Representatives, Vermont
Rev. Edward Pinkney, Black Autonomy Network Community Organization
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, President, Hip Hop Caucus
Richard Mazess, Prof. Medical Physics, UW-Madison, CEO of Lunar Corp & Bone Care Intl.
Riki Ott, Executive Director, Ultimate Civics
Robert McChesney, professor, co-author, The Death and Life of American Journalism
Ronnie Cummins, founder, Grassroots Netroots Alliance
Sally Castleman, Election Defense Alliance
Sam Smith, Editor, Progressive Review
Sarah Manski, CEO, PosiPair.com
Shahid Buttar, Rule of Law Institute
Ted Glick, climate change activist
Ted Nace, author, Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power
Thom Hartmann, nation's #1 nationally syndicated progressive talk show host
Tia Oros & Christopher Peters, Seventh Generation Fund for Indian Development
Tiffiniy Cheng, Executive Director, A New Way Forward
Tim Carpenter, Executive Director, Progressive Democrats of America
Tom Hayden, activist
Ward Morehouse, chair, National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Corporations

* organizations listed for identification purposes only

Read more...

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Comic relief: Dr. Seuss at Copenhagen

The BBC's Radio 4 Now Show, featuring Marcus Brigstocke and troupe, applies the rhetorical styling of Dr. Seuss to the Copenhagen climate summit.

The picture doesn't change, so just enjoy the vocals.

Thanks to Maggie Zhou of Mobilization for Climate Justice.

Read more...

Massachusetts' special election fallout

Was it fair?

A Brad Blog follow-up on the integrity of the elections noted that Democrat Martha Coakley conceded early in the night, despite votes being left uncounted and reports of some voters being handed ballots "pre-marked" for her opponent, Scott Brown. Brad reports that

...a group of election integrity experts, after having posted an "Orange Alert" yesterday about the serious e-voting concerns in today's election, have sent an open letter to Sec. of State Bill Galvin, along with a public records request PDF, calling for the retention of all election materials, such as voted, spoiled, and unvoted ballots, as well as all of the easily-tampered-with memory cards and electronic databases, etc., to ensure they are all secured and available for inspection by the public after the close of polls.
Meanwhile, progressives feel used and frustrated. The state's democratic activists are having a hard time coming up with a contender for 2012.

And what about health care reform? Brown was elected on a "stop the bill" platform, but the House could pass the Senate's version of the reform bill without a peep from the 41st senator. This is only a step in the wrong direction if single payer activists take it as a defeat and stop working toward systemic change that will guarantee care for all. Here's a good guess: while many voters were wary of the cost of the health care bill, very few of them know that a single payer system will offer more care for less cost. We have our work cut out for us.


Read more...

Citizens United decision could be Monday, January 25

There was no Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. FEC today. Odds are very good it will come out on Monday.

Read more...

Tell your senator to protect consumer finance regulation! Don't kill the Consumer Financial Protection Agency!

Last month, the House of Representatives narrowly passed legislation to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. This agency would police bank practices on credit cards and mortgages and establishes new regulations for derivative trading and for credit rating--both of which, when left to the banks to mis-manage, helped precipitate last year's economic collapse and bank bailout.

The bill is not a cure-all. After the financial industry spent $5 billion over the last ten years playing politics to dismantle regulation and oversight, it would be unrealistic to expect that this bill is anything more than the first step in the right direction.

But even this first step toward controlling the casino economy is now in danger, as the banking lobby takes aim at the bill in the Senate.

Today banking industry lobbyists and the US Chamber of Commerce will be visiting senators to encourage them to kill the bill.

Please call your senators today and tell them to support the Consumer Financial Protection agency. This is a bread-and-butter issue that they should stand behind--if they're representing their constituents and not the banks.

Remember, a call carries more weight than an email, but if you can't call, please click here--edit your email to reflect your views-- and make your voice heard!

Read more...

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

AfD joins Campaign to Legalize Democracy

Alliance for Democracy has joined the coalition Campaign to Legalize Democracy. We are proud to stand with other grassroots and national organizations in the effort to take back constitutional personhood rights from corporations. The campaign has established a website, www.MovetoAmend.org, which will go live when a decision in Citizens United v. FEC is issued by the Supreme Court.

How will the court decide? We don't know--but any decision that validates the sham notion that corporations are, for political purposes, "people" with the same free-speech rights as human beings will cause substantial harm to our already-fragile democracy.

A broad decision, one that in the words of Justice Ginsburg, finds a corporation is, "endowed by its creator with inalienable rights," could overturn both federal and state campaign finance reform laws and increase corporate influence on elections exponentially. Pay to play politics triumphs, and citizens become even more disempowered and cynical.

Watch for a decision as soon as Wednesday, January 20. Check www.MovetoAmend.org for actions, information, and updates. And visit the AfD Corporate Person Home Page for up-to-date:

  • information and links on this case and the issue of corporate personhood<
  • Analysis and observations from the media
  • Videos on the case and implications for democracy

Read more...

Will Diebold steal Ted Kennedy's seat – and the Senate?

The second of two articles...see the Brad Blog's report just below this on our blog for more potentially bad news for the majority of Massachusetts voters, who, we hope, expect a fair election regardless of whether they're for Brown, Coakley or Libertarian candidate Joe Kennedy.

by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman. Posted January 18 on Free Press

The same types of machines that helped put George W. Bush in the White House in 2000, and “re-elect” him 2004, may now decide who wins the all-important “60th Senate seat” in Massachusetts. The fate of health care and much much more hang in the balance.

As Bay Staters vote to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, most will be marking scantron ballots to be run through easily hackable electronic counters made by Diebold/Premier.

A paper ballot of sorts does come through these machines. But the count they generated was seriously compromised in the Florida 2000 election that put George W. Bush in the White House. Similar machines played a critical role skewing the Ohio 2004 vote count to fraudulently re-elect him.

In 2004, Lucas County (Toledo) Ohio, incorrectly calibrated Diebold scantron machines left piles of uncounted ballots in heavily black districts in the inner city.

The Free Press also found that on optiscan machines in Miami County, Ohio the reported totals were significantly higher than the actual number of people who signed in to vote.

Ironically, the cheated candidate in that election was Massachusetts’ now-senior Senator John Kerry. Kerry is circulating email appeals warning that this election is a "jump ball" in which "shady right-wing organizations and out of state conservatives have descended upon the state in droves."

But Kerry himself has infamously said nothing about the theft of the 2004 election. Neither he, the Democratic Party, nor the Obama Administration have done anything to change a system in which elections can be stolen by the very-well-funded Republican-owned companies that make and administer the vote-counting machines. A dozen election protection groups from around the country have now issued an "orange alert" warning that the Massachusetts vote count could be "ripe for manipulation."

Thus Kerry’s new colleague could be “selected” by the same means that deprived him of the White House.

According to Selectman Dan Keller of the western town of Wendell, some Massachusetts communities -- including his -- do have hand-counted paper ballots.

But most of the state relies on Diebold scantron counters which can be manipulated in numerous ways, including switching calibrations and moving ballots from precinct-to-precinct or county-to-county, thus reversing intended votes from one candidate to another.

According to Brad Friedman at BradBlog LHS Associates sells and services many of the machines being used in this special election. Though the vast majority of elected officials in Massachusetts are Democrats, control of the vote count can be a grey area where voting machines are involved, especially given Sen. Kerry’s 6-year stupor over the stolen 2004 election, a record of inaction amply matched by the Democratic Party and Obama Administration.

According to Friedman, LHS “has admitted to illegally tampering with memory cards during elections,” and has a Director of Sales and Marketing who has been “barred from Connecticut by their Secretary of State.”

The stakes in this election cannot be overstated. The deceased Senator Kennedy’s seat holds the key to a filibuster-breaking 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate. State Attorney-General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, is a supporter of the Obama health care plan, and an opponent of atomic power.

Coakley’s opponent, conservative Republican State Senator Scott Brown, has been running a Tea Bagger-style “populist” campaign.

Poll results differ substantially as the campaign winds down, but all show a close race. Thus Diebold, a thoroughly tainted player with deep Republican roots, could hold the key to the election by shifting the outcome in just a few key precincts.

After internet-based reporting broke the story of the stolen 2004 election, thousands of election-protection activists turned out to monitor the 2008 vote count. Among other things, careful exit polling was done to provide a close reality check on official vote counts. Poll monitors interviewed voters and carefully scrutinized voting procedures and how ballots were handled and counted.

Often overlooked are voter registration manipulations, which were used in Ohio and elsewhere to strip hundreds of thousands of voters of their right to cast a ballot. In Ohio alone, more than 300,000 legally registered voters were electronically removed from the voter rolls between the 2000 and 2004 elections. Most were in heavily Democratic urban areas.

In 2008, the Free Press found that the number of purged Ohio voters jumped to more than a million.

Thus the fact that the electoral apparatus in Massachusetts is apparently in the hands of Democrats may not matter. Private vendors like LHS and Diebold have the actual control over the final numbers.

In Massachusetts, a recount only occurs if the final results are less than half of one percent, and as election reform activist John Bonifaz points out, Massachusetts does not require random audits of the computerized vote counting machines to compare the computer results to the optical scan ballots marked by the voters. Bonifaz notes that in the Al Franken-Norm Coleman Minnesota Senate race in 2008, “everything was ultimately hand-counted.” The problem in Massachusetts hinges on whether the race is close enough to trigger a recount, which candidates can petition for within thirty days.

Exit polls remain the gold standard for election integrity throughout the democratic world. But in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls indicated that the election results were reversed and that Kerry actually won. Jonathan Simon, election integrity expert, points out that the exit polls in 2008 in Minnesota “…had Franken winning by 10%! This is a huge disparity, not remotely reflected by the recount.”

“Could the exit poll have been that badly off? Or could a large number of ballots, 200,000 or so, been swapped out before the recount? Here is where the chain or custody, or lack thereof, comes in. These ballots were not exactly under heavy surveillance during the month-long period between election day and recount completion,” Simon said.

What will matter in Massachusetts is how thoroughly election-protection advocates are able to scrutinize voter certification, access and ballot security. Billions of dollars---and much more---are riding on the outcome of this election. Those who believe it cannot or would not be stolen are simply in denial.

Given the Democratic Party’s astonishing lack of leadership on so many issues, it is entirely possible that Scott Brown could legitimately beat Martha Coakley in this election.

But it is also possible that the outcome could be manipulated by the companies in control of the registration rolls and vote counts. It will be up to citizen election protection activists to make sure that doesn’t happen yet again.

Read more...

Easily hacked voting machines will be used in Massachusetts's special election today

The first of two articles to give a "heads-up" to Mass voters in today's special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.


by Nathan Barker and Brad Friedman. Posted January 15 on Gouverneur Times

BOSTON, MA - Next Tuesday's Special Election for the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts looks to be coming down to the wire. Surprising pundits in what had previously been thought to be a cakewalk for State Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate hoping to fill the seat of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Republican state Senator Scott Brown has come on strong in the final days of the campaign.

But as the election looms, tempers flare, money is poured into the contest from all sides, and Democrats sweat out what should have been a safe seat for them - a Democrat named Kennedy has held that particular seat for more than the last 50 years - questions about whether the election results can be trusted have already emerged in a race where the stakes couldn't be higher.

As the 60th "filibuster-proof" Democratic U.S. Senate seat hangs in the balance - and the party's healthcare reform bill and other key legislative hopes along with it - fears are mounting that the final vote tallies could be as questionable as they were in the recent NY-23 Special Election for the U.S. House. Perhaps even more so.

The electronic voting systems used in Massachusetts are notoriously plagued with problems and vulnerabilities, and are in violation of federal voting system standards. Moreover, they are sold, programmed, and maintained by a company with a disturbing criminal background.

The outcome couldn't be more important, and the race, according to a number of pre-election polls, couldn't be closer. Coakley began running in September, 2009 with a strong lead over Brown, her main opponent. But that trend has significantly changed in the last month leaving Coakley with a thin 2 point margin over Brown, according to a recent poll from Republican pollster Rasmussen. Another more recent survey, from a Democratic-leaning outfit, gives Coakley a more comfortable 8 point edge over Brown.

Still, the very real possibility that a Republican could win the seat has many in Washington sweating on the eve of the Special Election. All three candidates - Joseph Kennedy (no relation to Ted), a Libertarian running on the Independent Party ticket could also throw a wrench into the works - and their supporters are pulling out all the last minutes stops. But could we see another repeat of last November's U.S. House Special Election in New York, where questions still persist about the tabulation of the race and the failed and faulty voting systems that voters were forced to use?

The Diebold electronic voting machines to be used in more than 90% of the state's districts are the same demonstrably unreliable ballot scanning systems that were seen being hacked in the Emmy-nominated HBO documentary Hacking Democracy. The rest of the machines used in the Bay State are made by Sequoia Voting System, Inc., the same manufacturer whose machines were "misconfigured," to switch votes in Erie County, NY's Nov. 3, 2009 election and which have failed, and even been hacked, in a number of cases around the country.

Making matters worse, the company who sells, services and programs the Diebold optical-scan paper ballot systems to be used next week, LHS Associates, has a disturbing criminal background, and has admitted to tampering illegally with voting systems during past elections.

As seen in the climactic finale of Hacking Democracy, due to undocumented "interpreted code" in the system, included by Diebold in violation of federal voting system guidelines, the Diebold Accuvote op-scan system is easily hacked and votes can be flipped in such a way that the tampering would likely never be discovered.

The vulnerability, easily exploited by Finnish computer security expert Harri Hursti in the film, resulted in flipped results for a mock election held in Leon County, FL several years ago. At the time, news of the hack sent shockwaves throughout the e-voting industry, and among state and federal election officials. But the federally certified machines were never decertified by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, despite the discovery of the code in violation of federal standards. That code, allowing this simple exploitation, still remains on the systems to be used in next week's special election in Massachusetts.

The key to the exploit is access to the scanner's memory cards. Those sensitive cards contain the programming instructions for how the machines should read paper ballots as they pass through it. They also track the tally of votes. In Hursti's hack, he was able to make a slight change to the memory cards' programming instructions which flipped the results in such a way that only a manual hand count of every ballot would have revealed the manipulation.

The machines and cards are often accessed by both election officials and the private vendors who program and maintain them. In Massachusetts, as in most of New England, an outfit by the name of LHS Associates services the machines.

The company has, to put it generously, a dubious record.

In 1990, Ken Hajjar, the Director of Sales and Marketing for LHS Associates - a childhood friend of company owner John Silvestro - was arrested and pled guilty to charges of selling narcotics. He was given a 12-month sentence, according to documents received via a public records request by the non-partisan election watchdog organization, BlackBoxVoting.org (BBV).

LHS Associates programs "every single voting machine in New Hampshire, Connecticut, almost all of Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine," BBV founder Bev Harris reported after releasing the documents.

Despite the dangers posed by accessing memory cards, LHS staff members have admitted to regularly opening up voting machines and swapping memory cards, during actual elections.

In 2006, Hajjar himself told Connecticut's Talk Nation Radio that his company considers such activities to be routine, even in jurisdictions where accessing memory cards is strictly in violation of election procedures.

"I mean, I don't pay attention to every little law," Hajjar admitted to TNR's Dori Smith. "We would have a whole bunch of machines in the trunk in the car and we hope the phone doesn't ring, but if it does, somebody tells us where to go, we replace the machine and then we go on our merry way."

One such illegal memory card swap by LHS took place in Montville, CT, during the recount of the 2nd Congressional District race in 2006.

Hajjar found himself in further hot water in 2007 when, after he'd left bizarre and obscene comments on a story concerning Diebold at The BRAD BLOG, he was barred from working at all in the state of Connecticut by Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz.

Failures of Diebold's voting systems have become legendary. In 2004, the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) quietly issued an advisory that the Diebold GEMS tabulator system features a "vulnerability... due to an undocumented backdoor account, which could [sic: allow] a local or remove authenticated malicious user [sic: to] modify votes". The advisory would not be publicly reported until late 2005.

In 2006, Princeton University found it was able to easily implant a vote-swapping virus onto the company's touch-screen voting system memory cards that could pass itself from machine to machine, flipping an entire election, across an entire county, without detection in the process. The startling hack was reported nationally, and even demonstrated live on Fox News. Still, little if anything was done by federal or state officials to prevent the situation from happening in jurisdictions where the same voting machines are still used today.

In 2008, the Diebold optical-scan system was discovered to have simply dropped hundreds of ballots from its final results in Humboldt County, CA. The failure was due to a years-old bug in the Diebold voting system, which officials in Humboldt hadn't been made aware of.

A subsequent investigation by California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen revealed a number of flaws in the voting systems' audit log functions. Voting machine companies have long maintained that any tampering with machines would be easily revealed by an examination of such logs. However, Bowen's investigation discovered that those logs - which are required to be "permanent" records of all activities on the machines - could be easily deleted and/or modified. Moreover, it was discovered that ballots themselves could be deleted from the system without notice in the logs, or even to system administrators. A Diebold spokesman would be forced to admit at a public hearing last year that all Diebold voting systems contain a number of the flaws discovered by the state of California.

As to the Sequoia systems used in parts of Massachusetts, the Gouverneur Times filed a lengthy exposé on that company's storied history of failures following the NY-23 Special Election debacle where their optical-scan systems failed in a number of counties, leading to confusion, and zero votes reported for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in a number of precincts.

In Massachusetts, the state mandates that paper ballots be preserved according to a secure chain of custody. However, the state has no threshold or automatic system to require a hand-count of those ballots. If the computer-generated tallies are accepted as legitimate, the actual paper ballots will never be counted or checked for accuracy unless one of the candidates files a petition. The petition filing must occur within 6 days of the election, requires at least 10 signatures per ward and "The petitioner must file a separate recount petition in each ward of a city or precinct of a town in which he desires a recount."

The only way to guarantee accurate election results in Massachusetts is for a candidate to request a hand-count of all paper ballots in each town in the state - within 6 days of the election. Otherwise, the results of what could be an exceedingly close election, for an extraordinarily important U.S. Senate seat, could end up going to the candidate who didn't actually receive the most votes.

Nathan Barker is a conservative editor and reporter for The Gouverneur Times. Brad Friedman is an award-winning freelance progressive investigative journalist, noted expert on issues of election integrity, and the creator of the The BRAD BLOG.

Read more...

Monday, January 18, 2010

Sweep in clean money politics: picket Joe Bruno's fundraiser tomorrow!

If you're in the Albany, New York area, take a stand for clean money politics at a picket tomorrow night outside a fundraiser for the Joe Bruno Legal Defense Fund. The picket starts at 5:30 at the Desmond Hotel in Colonie, New York, at Albany-Shaker Road off Wolf Road. Participants are asked to bring mops, brooms, and signs, the better to show that New York politics needs to sweep bribery out and clean elections in.

Bruno was convicted last month on federal charges of using his office to benefit himself. He has already spent more than $1 million he had in his campaign account to fund his legal bills.

But the fundraiser, which is being hosted by another New York Assembly member, is not just about one bad apple, say organzers.

"Joe Bruno may be the Poster Child for Corruption, but it’s not enough to convict Bruno. The contributors to Bruno’s defense fund obviously are trying to buy influence with the political machine," said Anton Konev, Albany City Councilmember.

Adds Chris Scoville, Capital District Organizer with Citizen Action of NY, “Public financing of elections would allow candidates to run competitive campaigns without taking money from special interests. This is the reform that makes all other reforms possible. If Maine, Arizona & Connecticut can have public financing of elections, why can’t New York?”

Details of this event, including a map, are online at
http://www.activistresource.org/13773

Read more...

Rep. Grayson files five bills to fight a wide pro-corporate decision in Citizens United

Rep. Alan Grayson is ready to fight political bribery--a term he's not afraid to use--with legislative action. The titles of some of his proposed bills spell out exactly what's in store for democracy if the Supreme Court upholds spurious ideas of corporations as people and money as speech.

by Arthur Delaney. Posted at The Huffington Post January 18

Anticipating a Supreme Court decision that could free corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced five bills on Wednesday to choke off the expected flood of corporate cash.

"We are facing a potential threat to our democracy," Grayson said in an interview with HuffPost. "Unlimited corporate spending on campaigns means the government is up for sale and that the law itself will be bought and sold. It would be political bribery on the largest scale imaginable."

At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether the government can limit corporate spending during presidential and congressional campaigns. The case is pitting Citizens United, a conservative group, against the Federal Election Commission. The FEC banned ads for Citizens United's film bashing Hillary Clinton during the 2008 election season.

Grayson introduced a handful of bills on Wednesday -- the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act, the Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act, the End Political Kickbacks Act, and two other measures.

The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act would impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act would require public companies to report what they spend to influence public opinion on any matter other than the promotion of their goods and services. The End Political Kickbacks Act would restrict political contributions by government contractors.

The other measures would apply antitrust regulations to political committees and bar corporations from securities exchanges unless the corporation is certified in compliance with election law.

"This case is basically about an effort to get around that. Citizens United took corporate money and tried to influence an election," said Lisa Gilbert of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "These are all pieces of good policy. I hope they draw attention to the potential frightening implications of Citizens United."

ABCNews reported on Wednesday that Democratic leadership is hard at work on a legislative response to the Supreme Court's expected ruling. Grayson told HuffPost that he had consulted with leadership before launching his preemptive strike.

Jeff Patch, a spokesman for the Center for Competitive Politics, an organization that advocates for lifting campaign finance restrictions, said Grayson's bills were too focused on corporate spending. "These are totally targeted at corporations, but Citizens United is widely believed to affect corporations and unions and nonprofits equally."

Grayson disagreed. "One year's profit for Exxon is greater than the entire political expenditure of all unions put together," he said.

Grayson added that he wanted to send the message that people are paying attention to the Supreme Court.

"This issue transcends the usual political arguments. I don't think the teabaggers would be very happy if our government was bought and paid for by a huge national corporation," he said.

The Supreme Court's ruling, which has been expected for months, could come as soon as January 20.

Read more...

Friday, January 15, 2010

Good Read: Giving corporations an outsized voice in elections

A commentary on Citizens United v. FEC analyzes the propositions behind the arguments in favor of allowing corporations to fund political campaigns and the recent history of this twist on corporate personhood.


by Monica Youn. Posted/published January 10 by the Los Angeles Times

Corporations are pitching a bizarre product -- a radical vision of the 1st Amendment. It would give corporations rather than voters a central role in our electoral process by treating corporate political spending as protected speech. If this vision becomes reality, businesses and other big-money players will spend billions either hyping their preferred candidates or running attack ads against elected officials who don't support their preferred agenda. Voters will be forced into a couch-potato role, mere viewers of the electoral spectacle bought and paid for by wealthy companies.

The Supreme Court's decision in the hotly anticipated campaign finance reform case Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission--which may be announced as early as Tuesday--will show whether a majority of the Roberts court is buying their argument.

The case may be the turning point in a concerted, decades-long ideological campaign--the "corporate free speech movement," as Robert L. Kerr and other scholars have chronicled. As far back as 1971, Lewis F. Powell Jr. (whom President Nixon would shortly nominate to the Supreme Court) sent a confidential memorandum to his friend Eugene Sydnor Jr. at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce arguing that corporate interests needed to take advantage of a "neglected opportunity in the courts." Because "the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change," the memo said, the chamber and other corporate interests should develop a cadre of constitutional lawyers to file lawsuits and amicus briefs to push a corporate-friendly legal agenda in the Supreme Court.

Corporations heeded this call to arms, generously funding the chamber's litigation arm and founding other think tanks. In hundreds of lawsuits and briefs, the chamber and corporations such as Exxon-Mobil and Nike have drilled in the pro-business party line that 1st Amendment protection should extend to corporate political spending--such as the corporate-funded movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton that is at issue in Citizens United. The case, which began on narrow grounds (did restrictions on corporate campaign ads apply to this film?) has become a test of whether restrictions on political speech by corporations should be ended altogether.

Only five years after Powell sent his memo, the Supreme Court in Buckley vs. Valeo struck down campaign spending limits on 1st Amendment grounds, with the rationale that such limits "impose direct and substantial restraints on the quantity of political speech." Two years later, in First National Bank of Boston vs. Bellotti, the court held--for the first time--that the 1st Amendment extends to corporate political spending, striking down a law that had prevented business corporations from spending shareholder funds to influence the outcome of state ballot measures. By then Powell was on the court, and he wrote the controlling opinion in Bellotti and was in the majority in both cases.

As 1st Amendment expert Linda Berger has pointed out, the Buckley and Bellotti cases planted the seeds of three new metaphors in election law: that money is speech; that corporations are people; and that elections are marketplaces. To equate corporate campaign spending with 1st Amendment-protected speech, you must accept all three. Each, however, is problematic.

First, although spending money may, in some circumstances, have some expressive value (such as clicking a web link to give $10 to a candidate), it does not follow that money is speech or that the 1st Amendment should shield such spending from regulation. After all, I can drive my car in a way that conveys a message--disapproval of a tailgating fellow driver, for example--but that doesn't mean that driving is speech, nor that the 1st Amendment renders traffic laws unconstitutional. When corporations and other monied interests spend vast sums to influence the outcome of an election, they're not trying to communicate an idea but simply to wield economic power and to bid for influence.

Second, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out at the Citizens United oral argument, a corporation "is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights." After all, corporations are legal entities created for doing business and given special advantages that aren't available to individuals or even other business entities, including limited liability and favorable tax treatment.

Thus, although corporations have certain economic rights--to enable them to conduct business--a corporation has no claim to the fundamental constitutional rights held by "We the People." Corporations already have ample means to express their "viewpoints"--by lobbying, testifying in Congress and conducting public education on issues--and those corporate employees who wish to advance the corporation's political agenda can contribute to the corporation's political action committee.

Third, and finally, one should not simply import economic free-market principles wholesale into the "free market of ideas." The operating assumption of free-market theory is that, in the long term, buyers' preferences will steer money to the best outcomes, so that those firms that offer the best goods and services will be rewarded with the greatest market success. However, this "invisible hand" assumption--that money follows or represents merit--has no application to elections, especially when corporations are involved. The amount of money a corporation can spend lacks even a theoretical connection to the intrinsic worth--or popular support--of its political agenda.

For decades, the Supreme Court stopped short of fully endorsing any of the three metaphors, heeding former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's warning that to treat corporate spending as the 1st Amendment equivalent of individual free speech is "to confuse metaphor with reality." Instead, as campaign finance law developed, the court struck a balance between the rights of campaigners--candidates, parties, PACs and corporations--on the one hand and the rights of the electorate to a representative, participatory and accountable government on the other.

But since Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito have replaced Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, concern for the 1st Amendment interests of the electorate seems to have been jettisoned. Since they joined the court, it has struck down campaign finance regulations in each of the three relevant cases it has heard, championing a 1st Amendment right to spend money freely in political campaigns without regard to the voter's right to a meaningful role in the electoral process.

With Citizens United due to be decided as campaigns for this year's elections get off the ground, political players are keenly aware that the court could open the floodgates to corporate cash. "We the People" can only hope the court steps back from the brink and instead recognizes that in a democracy, voters, not corporations, should be at the center of the political process.

Monica Youn directs the Money in Politics Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law.

Read more...

California reform organizations to co-chair Fair Elections Campaign

From the California Fair Elections Campaign:
California Fair Elections campaign announced that the League of Women Voters of California, the California Clean Money Action Fund, California Common Cause, and the California Nurses Association will co-chair the campaign to pass the California Fair Elections Act on the June 8, 2010 ballot. Authored by Loni Hancock and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the ballot measure would establish a voluntary pilot public financing program for the 2014 and 2018 Secretary of State races.

"We are thrilled to have the League of Women Voters, the California Clean Money Action Fund, California Common Cause and the California Nurses Association leading our campaign to pass the California Fair Elections Act which will enable our elected officials to stay focused on their priorities, rather than spending all their time fundraising," said Trent Lange, chairman of Californians for Fair Elections. "With more than three in four California voters saying they want to change the way elections are financed, it is clear that the California Fair Elections Campaign begins 2010 in a strong position."

"Nurses increasingly feel we cannot take care of our patients the way they deserve without curbing the influence of big money donors," said Zenei Cortez, RN, Co-President of the California Nurses Association. "Real health care reform will only be achieved when elected officials are representing voters, not industry lobbyists. That's why we support the California Fair Elections Act."

If passed, the California Fair Elections Act would impose strict reporting requirements and prohibitions on campaign spending for participating candidates. Participating candidates would be banned from raising or spending money beyond the limited public financing. Violators would face fines, possible jail time, and prohibitions from running for office in the future.

"We've known for a while that voters are mad as hell about big money in political campaigns," said Derek Cressman, spokesman for Common Cause. "Now Californians can do something about it by creating a system to allow candidates to run for office without begging for huge contributions, while having strict enforcement of campaign spending limits."

"From schools, to job growth, to health care, California has many serious problems to fix," said Janis R. Hirohama, President of the League of Women Voters of California. "We strongly support the California Fair Elections Act to get politicians out of the fundraising game so that they will focus on our state's priorities."

For more information please visit www.YesFairElections.org.

Read more...

Support TPS status for undocumented Haitians in the US

Update: The Obama administration has granted TPS status to an estimated 130,000 Haitians in the US, including those in custody and facing deportation. The reprieve lasts 18 months and will allow them to work legally.

We hope that you've taken time to contribute to the massive relief efforts underway right now following this week's devastating earthquake in Haiti. Remember that the need will be ongoing, just as it has been following natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina here.

Don't forget, too, that changes in political policy will speed rebuilding. One action you can take now is to urge President Obama to give Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to all undocumented Haitians currently living in the United States. This will give legal protection to thousands of people, allowing them to work legally and continue their support of family and communities at home. Homeland Security has announced they will cease deportation of undocumented Haitians, but TPS status will do much more to help individuals, families, and a country in crisis.

You can sign a petition to Homeland Security director Janet Napolitano from Change.org, or petition the White House through this site at Sojourners.

Read more...

'Protest and Rally outside of the Carbon Trading Summit

Video from Wednesday's rally and protest action outside of the 2nd Annual Carbon Trading Summit--protesting pollution for profit, with statements from organizers, singing, and testimony from Rev. Billy and the Church of Shop Shopping--"Somebody give me an Earthalulia!" The New York action capped five days of action and teaching as a followup to the failure of the Cophenhagen summit.

More at Mobilization for Climate Justice.



Follow the "read more" link for a press release.

In the wake of a controversial outcome at the Copenhagen climate talks, a diverse crowd of scientists, Faith congregation, activists, students, and concerned citizens converged in confrontation and protest at the 2nd Annual IGlobalForum Carbon Trading Summit today. The summit is the largest annual meeting place of corporations, banks, and lobby groups to further the agenda of a carbon trading scheme to address climate change. Activists rallied to oppose market-based trading of greenhouse gas emissions credits and call for real solutions to the climate crisis. Dr. Maggie Zhou of Secure Green Future Massachusetts was among the demonstrators who engaged in in nonviolent direct action and risked arrest in attempt to blockade a portion of the venue’s revolving doors to display a banner decrying carbon trading as a false solution.

“The same Wall Street bankers who gave us the global climate crisis are trying to own the sky,” stated Brian Tokar, director of the Institute for Social Ecology and an organizer of this week’s protest events. “Carbon trading is unjust, it will not work, and it is a false solution. It is a dangerous distraction from the urgent measures needed to prevent an ever-worsening destabilization of the climate.”

Speakers at the rally included Reverend Billy of the Church of Life After Shopping, who delivered a critique with the fire and brimstone of a televangelist; Bhaia Heller, Professor of Womens Studies at Mount Holyoke University and Father Paul Mayer, co-founder of the Climate Crisis Coalition and religious community leader.

Participants inside the Carbon Trading Summit will include executives from JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Duke Energy and more.

“I don’t trust these people to make decisions about the future of humanity,” said one young participant, who wished not to give her name because she will be risking arrest today. “If we follow through with market-based solutions like carbon trading, everyone will regret it. We need to stop believing the corporations’ false solutions and put all our collective energy into getting this conversation onto a track that’s useful.”

Dr. James Hansen, renowned climate scientist, was present outside the Carbon Trading Summit yesterday to voice his opposition to carbon trading schemes.

“Cap-and-trade is not a smart approach,” wrote Hansen his book Storms of My Grandchildren. Hansen has stated that current US climate legislation is “worse than nothing” because it relies on risky and ineffective cap-and-trade. He also declared that the failure to reach an agreement in Copenhagen was a better outcome than adopting the carbon-trade-based approach that was being negotiated.

“Carbon trade, which includes cap and trade and offsets are a dangerous distraction, economically risky, and prone to gaming and speculation,” stated Dr. Maggie Zhou, from Secure Green Future and Climate SOS stated. “Offsets allow polluters to simply pay someone else somewhere else to reduce their emissions on your behalf, which in the end does nothing to actually reduce emissions. The climate crisis simply can’t wait!

“Carbon trade is an insidious threat to human rights,” stated Dr. Rachel Smolker from Biofuelwatch and Climate SOS. “It turns rights to pollute the atmosphere, as well as forests, soils and agriculture practices that store carbon into commodities to be bought and sold as excuses for polluters. This is the greatest corporate grab on the “global commons” ever! It is disastrous for most of humanity.

Read more...

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Alert: Money trumps the human right to health and the public interest

Over many months, we've learned about the huge amounts the health care [sic] industry spent lobbying Congress and influencing the 2008 Congressional elections. Now, Brad Jacobson documents that candidate Obama was also heavily funded by the same interests. In "Obama Received $20 Million from Health Care Industry in 2008 Campaign" he reports that Obama "received almost three times the amount given to McCain" including $11.7m from health professionals, $1.4m from health services and HMOs, $3.3m from hospitals and nursing homes, and $2.1m from pharmaceutical and health product companies. The health insurance industry donated $712,317 as well.

As Jacobson writes, such contributions must account for the fact that candidate Obama advocated for universal health care and criticized mandated health insurance, while President Obama excluded single-payer advocates from White House healthcare summits and has strongly endorsed mandates.

ACT NOW - Don't hesitate
House members returned to Congress on January 12. Call your Representative to say you want the ERISA waiver, originally proposed in an amendment to the House Bill by Rep. Kucinich, included in the House/Senate negotiations on the final bill.

ERISA, the federal law that oversees employee benefit plans, including health insurance, can be used to challenge state-level singlepayer programs.

An ERISA waiver will allow state singlepayer healthcare legislation now underway specifically in California, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and elsewhere to move forward without a federal challenge at the behest of the for-profit insurance industry.

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121, or online Congressional directory here.

Thank you for taking action today!

Nancy, Peter, David, Rick, Barbara, Ruth W., Ruth C., and Lou
Alliance for Democracy's Committee for Single Payer Health Care

Read more...