The U.S. Citizenry Is in the Process of Taking Back Its Democracy
It’s gratifying to see the robust quantity and quality of the comments to my recent post: Ideologies that Further Environmental Sustainability Are Actually Good. Many of these remarks point to the failing U.S. democracy, i.e., the sad fact that the ballots Americans cast mean little if anything in an environment in which law-makers are exclusively concerned with doing favors for the moneyed interests that brought them into office.
Examples of the impotence of the common American can be found in dozens of different arenas, only one of which is renewable energy. A Gallup poll of 1,022 people revealed that a whopping 76 percent of Americans think the U.S. should put more emphasis on developing solar power, yet in Washington we find a stultifying push-back against state renewable portfolio standards. Going outside of the clean energy space we come across even more egregious examples, e.g., 89% of Americans want more comprehensive background checks for prospective gun owners, but the concept is consistently voted down in Congress.
Personally, however, I’m optimistic that my country can back-fill the huge chasms that have formed in its democracy. What makes me so confident? Angry Americans, which are far more numerous than anyone would have guessed even six months ago. Remember when Jeb Bush was a viable candidate, with a following of business-as-usual candidates? Now he’s a footnote.
And it’s not just progressives that are pushing for change; in fact, the tea party people are at least as furious about the situation with political corruption as we are.
As a result of all this, I predict the imminent demise of Citizens United and the other laws that hold in place the death-grip that our largest corporations have over our Congress—and I do so based purely on my observation of the activity in many different states all around the country. Last year, I wrote about the work of Peter Dreier, professor of politics and chair of the Urban and Environmental Policy Department at Occidental College, here in Southern California. In this piece, he discusses the wickedly effective backlash that Americans have unleashed against the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the “Citizens United” case.
Dr. Dreier writes:
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010 – equating money with free speech – unleashed a flood of money from billionaires and corporations, much of it through hard-to-trace “super-PACs” and so-called “social welfare” organizations. In the wake of that ruling, Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock defended his state’s Corrupt Practices Act, which banned corporate campaign funds, all the way to the Supreme Court. The court overturned the Montana law 5 to 4, undermining the ability of states and cities to restrict corporations from trying to buy elections. Although Bullock lost that fight, Montanans admired his populist ideals and elected him governor in November. That same day, Montana voters also supported Initiative I-166, which endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, by a 74.8 percent margin. In Colorado, voters endorsed a similar ballot initiative, Proposition 65, with 73.8 percent of the vote. Voters in more than 120 cities and towns in Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts and California passed similar measures. Public opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose Citizens United and believe that corporations, and corporate money, have too much influence in politics.
74.8 percent. Three out of four.
My prediction is as follows:
- The will of the people, which has been ignored for so long, will be upheld this time, based on the fact that the people will have adequately communicated to their representatives: Either get this done or you’re out. You’ll be back selling used cars or whatever you did before you were elected.
- This will serve as a huge restorative force for American democracy, not only directly, by removing some of the corporate lucre from the political process, but also by reminding people that they do, in fact, have a voice. Nothing succeeds like success; you can quote me (and Alexandre Dumas) on that.
Craig,
Your reasoning is so biased that although you think you know “what’s wrong with American democracy”, and no matter how much passion you put into your indignation, it’s all pointless unless you can actually identify how you intend to go about achieving what you want, without killing the thing you say you’re are trying to save.
Opinion polls are meaningless if designed to achieve a predetermined outcome. Legislation must be specific and enforceable.
It’s easy to gather a lot of popular support for vague emotional rhetoric based on generalizations, but that evaporates when the electorate realizes that legislation can’t create perfection.
If any nation should take heed of attempting to enforce overly idealistic social legislation, it’s the USA.
The most disastrous constitutional amendment based on idealism and the idea that a law could change human nature by restricting freedom of the many to save harm to the few, created Prohibition.
The damage done to American democracy, and US society was immense, and achieved exactly the opposite of it’s intended purpose. The US has continued with a law enforcement prohibitionist approach to other health issues such as drugs etc.
Each time zealots try to “improve” the constitution by outlawing or restricting things the don’t like, great harm results to US democracy and US society.
The US Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, promoted freedom of speech and by doing so upheld and strengthened the greatest of the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Just as in “Roe v Wade” , there will always be opponents of the rulings of the Supreme Court and attempts to reimpose restrictions on freedom. These freedom fearing puritans always come clothed in the righteous garb of “restoring the peoples rights” or “taking back democracy” !
In truth, they have no interest in democratic representative government, or for that matter the freedoms of their fellow citizens. They simply want the rules changed so that their agenda and vision of how society should be organized become enforceable.
It’s kind of sad to note that you describe those elected representative who don’t share your opinions, as “back selling used cars or whatever you did before you were elected” !
Selling cars may not be the most noble of professions, but in denigrating the office holders, you are also displaying contempt for the majority of electors who voted for those representatives.
In doing so you reveal the arrogance that blights all elitists convinced of the delusion that they, and they alone, are more qualified to know what’s best for the “people”, far better in fact than the people themselves !
The State of Montana is an excellent example of how high minded laws, are simply ineffective. The Montana Attorney-general in defense of Montana’s nearly 100 year old law banning campaign contributions from corporations, railed against the amount of corporate money and influence from corporate sources in the state’s political affairs from covert, or disguised sources often posing as “community groups”. He feared that if the laws were overturned the covert would become overt ! (It should be noted that hasn’t occurred).
It would appear that Montana’s law is more observed in the breach than reality.
Nor is Tim Fox adverse to all forms of political contributions. He is a recipient of substantial funding from the NRA, which is under5stanble as he’s a staunch advocate of the right to bear arms. He also receives substantial financial support ( both overt and convert) from the Christian right, including fundamental religious groups of whom he is a member.
None of the activities should be taken to detract from Tim Fox as a public office holder. There is no thing in his background to suggest that Tim Fox is not anything but an upright, honest, dedicated elected official.
Despite his many virtues, I would suggest that Tim Fox and the Justices of Montana Supreme Court, (an elected body without an appellate level) many of whom share his support for “intelligent design” may just be a little,..ah… parochial.
Craig, I don’t doubt your sincere desire for better governance, and a better society. However, I plead with you to reconsider making another uniquely American blunder in trying to achieve a “perfect ” state.
The principles of free speech are so difficult to acquire and uphold, and so easily eroded by popular righteous sounding rhetoric.
Have more faith in your nations political resilience. In Citizens United the US Supreme Court courageously defended the right to free speech, even when it’s unpopular. That’s when it’s most important. It’s only by defending the right to free speech of those you oppose or even detest, that you display a commitment to the principle.
Yes, I do know what’s the matter with the failing US democracy, and so do you. It’s the corruptive influence of money, and please don’t try to say that you somehow don’t get this.
I love the robust comments, but sometimes it’s better and more honest to be succinct.
Craig,
I certainly don’t agree that US democracy is “failing”, (well not anymore so than at anytime in the last 240 years) .
Nor do I believe that the “corruptive influence of money” is anymore of a threat than at anytime in US history.
The US is a nation built on wealth and the “American Dream” has always been about prosperity and commercial success. A simple study of the history of US politics will prove that.
Succinct ? Well Craig, that can be a virtue, but then again as Frank points out maybe the real problem is advocates reducing every issue to simplistic slogans.
Re: the “corruptive influence of money,” you’re at liberty to believe whatever you want. Of course, this comes at the cost of your segregating yourself from the viewpoints of the vast majority of people living in the developed world.
Craig,
“corruptive influence of money,” is a cliche like “world peace” or ” get politicians out of politics”, such slogans sound ideal and high minded, but while unarguably desirable, lack practical reality.
One of the problems with a “call to arms” and extremist advocacy is that it unnecessarily alienates more people that it attracts.
I’ll agree there are times for extreme measures, but mostly it’s better to practice the more gentle and effective policy of inclusion and persuasion.
The problem with ranting on about the evils of oil companies etc, while running for public office, is some is likely to ask the candidate how they traveled. No matter how the candidate replies, they look hypocritical to all but their most loyal supporters.
In the end, such candidates are always marginalized and if elected find themselves being forced to compromise to attain enough support to accomplish anything.
Thus even the most idealistic candidates become participants in the political process and find themselves politicians, or find themselves leading an ever smaller, but louder group of followers.
In the UK we are watching two successful and sincere conservative politicians representing different sides of a debate over the important issue of Britain’s future in the EU.
Both men sincerely believe their policies will produce the best result for the nations future. The issue is complex, and every sector of society has a vested interest in the consequences of the decision.
None more so than what you would call corporate UK. The Banking and financial sector which is a huge part of the UK economy has every right to partake in the campaign since the decision may directly impact on this sector in ways not easily understood.
The fight between the pro-exit forces led by Boris Johnson and against exit supporters led by the PM David Cameron who believes he can do a deal to remain in the EU on acceptable terms, displays the versatility of British democratic governance. ( The leftist Labour Party has been rendered more or less impotent by it’s hypocritical opportunism).
As usual, I find myself in the middle and undecided how to vote in the upcoming referendum.
Most of my colleagues are supporting the PM, although with some reservations. Perhaps if he had got a better deal for the EU things might be different, but I find myself more and more attracted to leaving the EU, and weathering the initial storm that will hit the Banking and finance sector.
Please see: http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/04/20/its-not-impossible-to-make-broad-and-wonderful-changes-to-our-civilization-it-happens-all-the-time/
Craig,
The huge amounts of money spent by large corporations on election campaigns would have little effect if the voters paid more attention to principals and fairness and were less influenced by mindless repetition of meaningless election slogans. Thus, the problem is not solely with the Citizens’ United decision. Moreover, there is much that can be done to blunt the undo influence of corporations without enacting a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens’ United.
I am also concerned about possible undesirable effects which could result from reversing Citizens’ United. Legislation and constitutional amendments often have unanticipated effects. Before considering a constitutional amendment, I would favor legislation which would require political announcements to include information so that people would know the source of the funds for them in a way that made sense.
The way we choose political leaders is also less than optimal. Even debates are of limited value. Politicians are chosen not so much on their ability to weigh options and make rational decisions but rather on their ability to get people excited and to mouth quick rebuttals to other positions.
It would help to have adequate civic education in our schools so that students would learn the history, purpose, and proper functioning of democratic governments.
Craig:
I notice one commenter opined; The problem with ranting on about the evils of oil companies etc, while running for public office, is some (one) is likely to ask the candidate how they traveled. No matter how the candidate replies, they look hypocritical to all but their most loyal supporters.
If/when a candidate is asked such a leading question I say they should take the opportunity to say they traveled via auto or some other fossil fueled conveyance because there were no better alternatives due to the control the fossil industry has had over politics and that they are hoping for changes that candidates like Bernie Sanders is calling for.
Exactly right. I have come across this specious argument dozens of times, i.e., that it’s hypocritical to drive a car and advocate against oil at the same time; it’s so asinine that I just let it slide when I saw it here.
Graig,
Asinine ? As an owner of a dozen or so donkeys and three retired mules, we all resent that stereotype!:).
But I believe my point is still valid. The general public are entitled to know what a candidate stands for, not just what they are against.
Even though I own a number of EV’s and have spent more than 19 years building, selling and promoting EV’s, I am aware of the limitations of the technology and the need for further development to gain acceptance and adoption by the general public.
I’m also aware that a Tesla still needs industrial oil products to function. Paint, electrics, ceramics, tyres etc, even the black top highway are all products created by the oil industry.
But let me make one thing clear.
I did not say it’s hypocritical to campaign for alternate energy R&D or advocate the development and use of practical alternatives to oil and gasoline !
my contention is a perception of hypocrisy may attach to those advocates who loudly voice a hatred of oil companies, yet freely enjoy the products those companies produce, while relying upon the products manufactured by oil companies to provide anti-oil company advocates the facilities to deride oil companies for being despoilers of the environment!
That perception of hypocrisy must be reinforced when those same advocates demand the Oil Industry’s voice be silenced.
I write this smug in the knowledge that today I’m am taking two of my elderly mules to an exhibition of historic farm animals for school children. The mules will travel in style occupying a horse float normally used to transport thoroughbred show horses.
My fully Electric Liberty Range Rover will tow the horse float to the school fair grounds, and back, more efficiently than a gasoline or diesel model.
Craig, I don’t mean any disrespect and I don’t want you to misinterpret my comment, but iit occurs to me that if you’ve heard “hating oil companies while relying on transport using vehicles is a little hypocritical” dozens of times, then aren’t you confirming my contention this is a widely held public concern ?
Doesn’t it seem just a little arrogant for any sincere advocate to dismiss such concern with terms like “specious” and “asinine”?
Maybe Americans are different, but I don’t believe the average voter trusts those who wish to shut down debate, silence opposition and dismiss public concern (even if unfounded) with arrogant and supercilious dismissal.
I think your response encapsulates the crux of this debate. In your enthusiasm and genuine passion you’ve become dismissive (I’m sure unintentionally)of equally genuine concerns. (not even bothering to understand the context or the exact nature of those concerns).
That’s really the crux of the debate. The Justices of the US Supreme Court did not support corporate power in Citizens United, they simply upheld the greatest of the freedoms contained within the US Constitution. In doing so, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of an inclusive, more tolerant society where even “specious” or “asinine” opinions may be aired.
(Our “Asses” and “Donkeys” are all “rescue” animals that have been the victims of humane mistreatment. These wonderful creatures may no longer have any economic use, but their existence enriches us beyond money).
The fact that it’s a widely held public belief is testimony only to the fact that there are many people incapable of rational thought living among us. Keep in mind that you are speaking to someone who lives in a country in which Donald Trump is a serious presidential candidate.
As long as congress feels that they can and must buy an election they will represent money rather than votes.
This defines the status quo and suggests several pathways to a change.
Breath on the Wind,
“This defines the status quo and suggests several pathways to a change “.
Such as ?
Sigh. Yes, I don’t like Citizens United. One of the other things I don’t like is that I have never seen an actual summary of what we would use to amend the constitution to “overturn citizens united”. Is it desirable that corporations not be able to voice their point of view? If they are to be allowed to voice their views, how do we place reasonable limitations on their ability to do that. I think they should be limited, but not entirely silenced.
Currently, the wealthy interests are running the country. When entities donate the majority of funds to elect someone, you can bet that someone is going to listen really hard to those people. Are they listening to the rank and file ordinary citizens? No. That’s just a simple fact. Does congress do what citizens want? No. They do what their backers want. This is fact. Well, sometimes they do what citizens want, but it is rare. There are studies that support this.
Corporations are not people, and they should not be endowed with the rights that people have. People are accountable for their actions. Corporations are rarely held accountable in any meaningful sense. Accountability and Banking? That’s absurd. Banks can launder BILLIONS of dollars in drug money, and they are fined MAYBE 10% of their profits from the laundering business (let alone any criminal charges).
Its all a big mess, but we do need to start dealing with it.
David,
You are correct corporations aren’t, ” Natural Persons ‘, so the can’t run for office, or vote.
However, since corporations are legal entities in the sense they pay tax, be sued, and prosecuted both criminally and civilly they have standing as “corporate citizens ” and participants in in the political dynamic.
Just like Trade Unions, Greenpeace, the Serra Club etc, Corporations enjoy the protection of the First Amendment.
The First Amendment is a bit like being pregnant. It’s all or nothing, you can’t be just a little bit pregnant.
US society, and the US economy depends on the success and prosperity of US Corporations. Did you know that nearly the entire US retirement and superannuation industry relies upon the Oil Industry to fund American retirees?
This figure alone is staggering. By 2020 the US will have over 75 million people of retirement age (nearly 24%). These citizens rely on the profits of Corporate America to live. Unlike the young, older citizens vote.
Corporate America has it’s supporters among many sectors of society. Naturally candidates for public office are sensitive to the opinions of those who can affect the economy.
But take heart, corporations are remarkably even handed when it comes to political donations. Studies over the last 100 year show most corporations donate to both major parties on a pretty even handed basis (hedging bets).
In fact, the same studies reveal that in adjusted terms, corporate donations have actually decreased in recent decades.
“The First Amendment is a bit like being pregnant. It’s all or nothing, you can’t be just a little bit pregnant.”
This is not true. There are limits to first amendment speech. These limits are usually around speech that directly harms people.
ExxonMobil’s funding of climate denial will be remembered. Like the “Greatest Generation”, except in reverse, we will all be remembered as perhaps the most evil generation. We knew better, but we were complacent.
I’m not an oil company hater, my father worked for Exxon, but its time to put oil to a better use than just burning it. Unfortunately, coal doesn’t seem to have better uses.
I’m with you 100%, FWIW.
David.
I think it’s always wise to read the text of the First Amendment to derive it’s context.
One of the original framers of the constitution explained the importance of the context during the first challenge to the First Amendment.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
James Madison wrote in 1799,
“The practice in America must be entitled to much more respect. In every state, probably, in the Union, the press has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and measures of public men, of every description, which has not been confined to the strict limits of the common law “,
In other words, it’s the “the” in the phrase “the freedom” which is important since it conveys the context of free speech being limited to conveying ideas, emotions, and concepts. It does not permit the advocacy, communication, or conspiracy to commit crimes or acts of violent mischief.
(although that would’ve described most of the early revolutionary leaders !:)”.
Over the years many attempts have been made to limit this, the foremost of American Freedoms. Although some were partly successful, later challenges reversed those restrictions and have steadily enhanced and reinforced this important, if awkward, amendment.
The rights guaranteed under this amendment will always be more important than whatever issues may arise from time to time.
I sometimes wonder if the Koch brothers are paying people to work at home making comments on the internet. (And now I’m wondering if they pay by the word.)
The only issue here is whether we want to live in a democracy or or a plutocracy (or as some prefer to call it, an oligarchy). There is no way we can expect the congress to represent us if they are spending several hours a day making their obligatory phone calls to their “sponsors” to make sure they are voting in a way that they will be assured of receiving their next contribution.
LOL!!! don’t think I haven’t had that thought.
One thing that worries me about the Constitutional amendment solution is that amending the Constitution can be a very drawn-out process. It could take years. A LOT of damage can be done to our country in those years by the unchecked power of the super-wealthy.
Four things…
Voting – –
Think about the response to the will of the people in an ideal democratic republic.
If a concept had universal support, there’d be a virtual certainty of legislation upholding it. Conversely, if an idea was so unpopular that almost no one agreed with it, the chances of supportive legislation would be virtually nil. A fairly straight line would connect these two extremes, with legislation generally tracking public opinion.
Princeton University recently published a detailed study of twenty years on legislation and the will of the people in the US by economic segment.
Looking across those two decades, this study clearly and conclusively verified two realities. These realities have long been both keenly felt and generally understood, but rarely so sharply and undeniably illustrated…
The first reality: Our democratic republic has remained highly responsive to the wealthiest interests within our nation, and even to the wealthiest of foreign interests.
If there was no support for the idea among that 10%, supportive legislation stood a near zero chance of passage. That relationship was near linear, until about the 50% support mark. There, the relationship loosened but still remained strong between the 10%’s opinion and legislation.
The second reality: For the least wealthy 80% of our citizenry, political influence upon the actions of our governing leadership over the last two decades has been statistically insignificant.
No matter how firm the opinions of the lower 90% of the public, the chances of aligned legislation passing was about 30% across the board. Public opinion – either for or against – has had a “minuscule” and “statistically insignificant” effect.
Elections, like Term limits, are of decidedly limited utility, when nearly all candidates are pre-vetted and/or pre-bought before they even get close to winning any significant office.
Want improvement? Work to end the bribery, in all its many forms – from revolving door to campaign contribution. That’s the most important and central issue that controls all others.
As long as cash reigns as king, we’ll more and more suffer beneath the most vicious greed and craven cowardice imaginable.
The greatest threat to our national security is therefore here at home – it’s the very flood of bribery capital that has taken our state and national Capitols by storm.
Though he spoke of another national malady and domestic threat, the words of Abraham Lincoln come to us this day and illuminate the danger of inaction against the fixated and methodical army of corporate lobbyists – 11,000 strong and pouring out bribery at an average of $6 million per congressperson in 2009 alone (and that was before SCOTUS opened the floodgates with the infamous five’s decision on “Citizens United” vs. the Federal Elections Commission)…
Lincoln said, “At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
Good government – a government of the whole people, for the whole people, and by the whole people – is the only hope ‘We the People’ will ever have to defend our Public Commons and advance our Common Good. Good government won’t come from people who hate government.
You may remember (though the consolidated corporate media rarely shows it, for good reason) playing the character of Howard Beale in the film Network, the actor Peter Finch advises his audience to get up out of their chairs, go open a window, and stick their heads out and yell as loud as they can, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
Of course, we need to be more organized, creative and persistent than that, but these here are surely vital keys:
Truth – Non-Violence – Cooperation – Direct Action – Perseverance
Those five keys combined may be not be enough, but they’re each indispensable.
Money Power – –
In the 5 to 4 SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling, “Justice” Roberts wrote, “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”
Talk about spinning in the grave? If our nation’s founders heard about Roberts’ twisted interpretation, we could harness all their grave-spinning as a major energy source.
We’re not talking about social offensiveness here; we’re talking about lopsided political power. What Roberts fiercely refuses to acknowledge is that our Constitution’s protection of Freedom of Speech and Assembly is not, and never has been, properly applied to MONEY!
If corporate money is political speech, how much louder than you or me is the single corporate entity, ExxonMobil?
In 2012, all the federal elections combined – for president, house and senate – cost about $6.2 billion (that was about $21 per citizen), and ExxonMobil, by itself, profited $44.8 billion that year alone. That means ExxonMobil, all by itself, could have paid for all the campaign spending for all the candidates in all the federal elections in the country with just 14% of its 2012 PROFITS!
The same goes for ‘personal’ money. If money to be regarded in law as Free Speech, then the elite few (and their corporate objects) will scream through bullhorns while the voice of ‘We the People’ is reduced to a smothered and gasping whisper.
Bribery is predictably at the roots of all the deepest evils in American politics, and the CU v FEC and McCutcheon rulings is a boatload of fertilizer for those roots.
There is a cavernous divide between the ultra-rich and the rest of us in the US today. It’s wider and deeper than at any time since the raging inequity that pushed our nation into the depths of the Great Depression. The Gilded Age of the Robber Barons holds little against our present state.
Though he spoke of a different sort of internal power, and in a different era, Lincoln warned us that our nation’s destruction, if it happens, would come from within.
Consider the fixated and methodical army of lobbyists, eleven thousand strong, and pouring out an average of over six million dollars per congressperson, in 2009 alone (and that was before SCOTUS opened the floodgates with the infamous five’s decision on “Citizens United” vs. the Federal Elections Commission)… The reality of that army obliterates any doubt about the mechanism behind the control of our legislatures. That army makes the mere notion of a democratic republic into a ridiculous farce.
If ideas based on logic and sanity are to have a chance in this game (the stakes of which could not be higher), we must stop the bribery.
“Corporate Personhood” – –
Slavery was the old legal fiction that falsely claimed that a person is property.
“Corporate personhood” is the new legal fiction that falsely claims that property is a person.
It’s the same lie told in the opposite direction.
Having failed to sustain the legality of slavery, the elite now seek to make their paper creations into our masters – arguing that these mere paper creatures of unjust law should now possess all of our cherished human birthrights, on top of already enjoying significant special shields against liability and tax law that humans don’t receive.
When people try to argue in favor of this twisted form of “equality under the law” keep in mind that a corporation is taxed based only on its domestic profit (that’s its ‘claimed revenue’ minus ‘expenses’), while genuine flesh and blood persons are required to pay tax based on total gross income.
How’s that for having their cake and eating ours too?
Imagine only paying tax on what elite economists like to call your “disposable income” – which is what you have left after paying for food, shelter, clothing, medical expenses, childcare, transportation and insurance…
Imagine paying taxes based only on what you don’t spend to survive.
Hope vs. Fear – –
Let me convey both my fear and my hope on the topic of sustainability.
My fear… The elite employ shrewdly servile advisers whose strongest motivation is to protect the profitable status quo. This they will do until what they regard as the approach of the last survivable moment.
Further, that because of that very bias, their judgment will be skewed so as to delay that decision far beyond the actual rational thresholds. Indeed, the deepest aspect of my fear is that this fatal delay may already have occurred.
My hope… A significant percentage of the people now living in every society will soon organize around truth and non-violence. These many of us will cooperate to engage in massive and widespread direct action to counter and overwhelm the forces preventing wise progress. This cooperation will persevere to evolve and implement new paradigm and a new power structure.
My fondest hope is that the resulting change will endure, for the benefit of all humankind, and for the healing of the broad web of life that will always be necessary for our existence.
Cameron,
Sorting through the eloquence of your castigation of corporations and those wealthier than yourself, let’s examine the truth of your principle claim.
1) Corporate (and the rich) control all legislation and legislators.
Hmmmm, but here’s the problem with that statement. Either it’s untrue or Corporations and the rich are amazingly altruistic !
If your claim correct how did the following widely diverse pieces of legislation come into existence ?
Sherman Act 1890
Clayton Act 1914
Federal Trade Commission Act 1914
Volstead Act 1919
Federal Trade Commission Act
Robinson-Patman Act of 1936
Celler-Kefauver Act1950
Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act1976
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Endangered Species Act
National Forest Management Act
Coastal Zone Management Act.
The National Environmental Policy Act
the Clean Air Act
Clean Water Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLA (Superfund) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
National Labor Relations Act
National Labor Relations Act
Civil Rights Act 1964
Age Discrimination in Employment Act 1967
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Americans with Disabilities Act
Family and Medical Leave Act
Equal Pay Act 1963
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
Fair Credit Reporting Act
Truth in Lending Act
Fair Credit Billing Act
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act 1977
Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act 1986,
Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 2009
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The above is just a small sample of hundreds of Federal Acts limiting or restricting corporations. There are many thousands more passed by State Legislatures.
If corporate power was all pervasive, none of these laws would exist.
Nor is your alarm at the amount of money spent on elections accurate !
Honest Abe wouldn’t be surprised by the expense of elections, since in his time bribery and corruption was widespread and indeed commonplace in the electoral process.
The high point for electoral donations (in adjusted terms) was during the 1890’s. Numerous studies have revealed that corporate donations remain fairly evenly divided between the two major parties (having a bet each way) thus nullifying any real effect.
So it would appear that your hysterical claim that US “democratic republic” , ( I think you mean elected representative government)is in grave danger, would appear to be unfounded and without valid evidence.
marcopolo, I find it telling that your laundry list of purportedly entirely anti-corporate laws (else why list them) begins in the 1890 and 1914, and mostly shows legislation before the 1970’s.
Apparently you failed to notice or consider my 3rd and 4th paragraphs which clearly state, “twenty years” and “two decades” in reference to the study out of Princeton.
In addition to that glaring and irrelevant cherry pick you’ve committed, all readers again may bear witness to your predictable penchant for ad hominem (“hysterical”) and straw man tactics (“Corporate (and the rich) control all legislation and legislators”).
Further, in your ad hominem and straw man laced reaction – including to my identical numbers on campaign spending in another post here (http://www.2greenenergy.com/2016/04/15/fossil-fuel-death/) – you make the claim that all elections for US House and Senate seats and the Oval Office in 2012 cost a total of $40 million. Some mighty artful cherry picking is necessary to arrive at that tiny total – a sum which must exclude media spending, for example.
I wonder if it’s that $40 million figure of yours that excuses the claim of a high point in the 1890’s.
More than all that (which is already quite enough), your vague claim that “Numerous studies have revealed corporate donations remain fairly evenly divided between the two major parties” flies in the face of the fact that – just as one example out of many – from beginning of the 2000 election cycle to 2006 alone, the major oil corporations supplied $52 million in campaign contributions. Of this cash pile, 80% was given to Republican campaigns. I wonder if your fondness of lists will spur you to specifically cite more than a couple of those “Numerous studies” of yours.
I also wonder if any of those “Numerous studies” in any way support your conclusion that an even cross-party division of corporate donations would nullify their effect. Is that really what you intended that readers should believe?
Oh, good grief Cameron,
I selected Legislation which I felt were landmarks. Obviously as time progresses the system changes from one of landmark legislation, to administration by Federal Agencies concerned with implementation and enforcement.
The process also involves challenges and ruling through various courts including on a constitutional level, the US Supreme Court.
In the US, unlike most other modern nations, corporate law is mostly the province of individual States. I didn’t feel it necessary to cite all the laws and regulations concerning corporate activity passed through 50 different legislatures each year !
I have no idea where you get your information about Federal funding, but I like to begin with information supplied by the Federal Election Commission and add relevant information from widely diverse sources such as the Center for Responsive Politics and The Economist (excellent article “Why American elections cost so much Feb 9th 2014”.).
US Federal Election rules allow basically four categories of funding.
A) Natural persons contributing up to $200.
B) Natural persons contributing more than $200.
c) Registered Political Action Committees (PAC).
D) Candidate’s personal funds.
In addition, Presidential candidates can receive some funding from the public purse.(but with fairly onerous conditions).
Citizen’s United ruled that corporations, trade unions and similar organizations could undertake “independent ” contributions, either by contributing to PAC’s or by direct advertising, as an exercise of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
(the bit about trade unions always seems to get missed out by leftist commentators.)
So why will nearly $6 billion be spent in the 2016 election ?
The figure is smaller than nearly $7 billion spent in 2012, because curiously Donald Trump isn’t a big media spender.
US elections are hugely expensive because the are really several elections in one. (Parliamentary systems don’t have primaries).
But where does the $6-7 billion come from, and how is it spent ?
The answer is the importance of PAC’s. PAC’s fall into a number of different categories. Pac’s, Super Pac’s, “501(c)(4)s”, etc
It’s to these organizations where most of the “funding” is channeled and from there distributed. National party committees can draw unlimited funds from PAC’s. Candidates committees receive funds from individuals.
Currently, registered corporate PACs number approx 1,462 while Trade Unions number approx 2912, with another 1063 Trade Organization PAC’s.
Because of this complex, and little understood organization, debate still rages as to what exactly is the influence of corporate spending ?
You claim that Oil Companies (a vague term) spent $52 million on elections from 2000 to 2006. I’m not sure what that means, but let’s assume that’s two Presidential and Senate elections and three house of reps ?
Considering that the total spent in those elections could be as high as $12 billion plus, it seems a fairly miserly figure for such a huge industry, less than 0.5% ?
Here’s some other points to consider:
1) No one would deny the right of Trade Union to support political candidates, both financially and actively. However, what is not commonly realized is that while Corporations and their employees spread their donations fairly evenly between the two major parties, Union PAc’s overwhelmingly assist Democrats.
In 2008, Democrats received 55% of the $2 billion contributed by corporate PACs and company employees, (Center for Responsive Politics). Labor unions were responsible for $75 million in political donations with 92% going to Democrats.
According to the WJC trade unions spent more than $5 billion on political campaigns between 2005 and 2011.
The Corn Ethanol Industry easily outspends the Oil industry in political donations by about 5 to 1. (82% Democrat), but that fact seems to always get overlooked !
But how is “campaign” funding really defined ? Can an ad paid for by oil company supporting the abolition of the ethanol mandate, be interpreted as support for the GOP ? Or just a simple plea for its own interests ?
The issues become more and more partisan, less and less clear, and more about the political persuasion of the reader of the advertisement as to how the ad is interpreted.
For those reasons, the US Supreme Court wisely ruled in favour of Free Speech for all, and in doing so upheld the spirit of the First Amendment.
Can you support your conclusion that an even cross-party division of corporate donations would nullify their effect? Is that really what you intended that readers should believe?
marcopolo, you stated, “{T}he US Supreme Court wisely ruled in favour of Free Speech for all, and in doing so upheld the spirit of the First Amendment.” In context it’s therefore plain that you regard money as speech.
It’s been laboriously detailed across decades how that misconception – when elevated to the status of law – results in an imbalance of political influence of a kind and severity that has proven fatal to republics in the past, and is an obvious and grave malady within our government now here in the US.
This is why clear majorities of both democratic and republican voters want both Citizens United vs. FEC and the McCutcheon ruling overturned or rendered moot by a constitutional amendment recognizing the facts that a) money is not equal to speech and that b) only natural persons (like, with a bellybutton) possess birthrights under our Constitution. It’s also why our sock-puppet leadership does little to implement the will of the people in that regard.
Perhaps you’re in favor of an elitist oligarchy where the paper creatures of the ultra-weathy hold controlling influence over “public servants.” Certainly that will be the result of your ‘money equals speech’ assertion, if it’s allowed to continue to hold sway here in the US, but it’s clearly demostrated that assertion is both un-American and insufferable as policy.
Cameron,
Once again you assert a number of propositions, and claim them to be fact.
No constitutional change to the First Amendment would gain support for even a fraction of American voters. The American people are far too shrewd.
Money in American politics is neither new nor “un-American” ! Politics at it’s best represent all the dynamics of society. Money ( and wealth) is very definitely a part of US society, in fact one could say it’s a very significant part.
No, unlike you, I believe in all voices being heard within the political debate. I include corporations, wealth individuals, along with trade unions, community organizations, leftists, come one come all.
This is because I trust to the good judgement of my fellow citizens to elect the sort of government they want. Not the government I want necessarily, but the government chosen by the majority.
As I have demonstrated in my other posts, your claims that the US government is controlled by a secret cabal of Corporations and “elitist oligarchy” is a fantasy !
Your terminology and contempt you display for your nation’s Constitution, and the commonsense and abilities of your fellow citizens, is redolent of the resentment,ire petulance displayed by leftists when they can’t get their own way.
It can’t admit your manifesto lacks appeal or your presentation is unconvincing, someone else must be to blame !
The “people” must be to stupid, or “hoodwinked ” by an all pervasive sinister conspiracy, that’s only you can decipher.
Naturally, these sinister forces must be silenced ! You must curtail free speech in order to preserve “freedom”.
Of course Corporations and wealthy individuals (leading citizens) possess influence in the political and social dynamic. But so do many other groups, some to a much greater degree.
Why is it only the corporate and wealthy voices you want prevented possessing influence ?
Cameron,
Can you support your conclusion orporate donations should be excluded, continuing Trade Union and leftist organizations funding intact ?
No system is perfect, but in reality when corporations support both major parties it mitigates the influence on the legislator.
Legislators listen to constituents, or to be more precise, listen to influential sources within their electorate. Each member of the House of Representatives represents approx. 733,103 people.
(Senators represent 10’s of millions).
Obviously, It would be impossible for members to talk to each of their constituents individually. Even in the UK where Members of Parliament represent,on average, only 72,400 electors, while enjoying five year terms, the task is still onerous.
For even the most diligent politician, such these logistics make maintaining the illusion of granting access to every constituent an impossibilty.
In reality, modern representative government represents only prominent competing forces within the political and social dynamic.
A Congressman representing a Farm State will listen to the leaders of the Farming organizations, Agricultural Companies, Media and local politicians and influential community groups.
A politician representing an industrial State, will be more inclined to listen to Unions, Welfare groups, Media, business leaders and party bosses.
The concept of buying a Senator or Congressman is very popular, but largely a myth. No amount of advertising or campaign funding can save a politician once the voters have stopped listening.
Unpopular and even detested politicians can still get elected because although the voters may not like them, they are respected more than their opponents. As long as people are still listening, even if some are outraged, the politician has a chance, but when the voter no longer cares, the politicians career is over ! No amount of funding or patronage will reverse the process.
Reaching out to millions of electors is a very expensive business. The logistics are very daunting (especially if primary’s are included). The 2 year term for Congress is out of date, and needs extending to at least four years.
In an odd sort of way, the more contributions a candidate can attract has become the measure of a candidates qualification. That may or may not be very democratic, but it does mean that candidates for national office must have convinced enough voters to part with money to support them.(This has been true in American politics for 200 hundred years).
Does that make them the best candidate? Certainly not, but it does make the party more confident of the chance for election success.
Candidates can often offset a lack of donations by proving to have solid “grassroots” support from community, or special interests groups able to offset cash funding with volunteers, social media, action groups, protests etc to eager to support a candidate of they believe will best represent their veiws.
These groups often support candidates who also receive campaign contributions from large Corporate donors. Thus Warren Buffet, Boeing Corp, the AFL-CIO and the Feminist Majority Foundation, all support the campaign for Hillary Clinton.
It’s certainly not ideal, and certainly differs from the idealistic Walt Disney, “Mr Smith goes to Washington” concept of US politics. But it does work, Not only does it work but it’s more closely attune with the current American Social/political dynamic.
Cameron, here’s my question to you . While you express your outrage that corporations (and the rich) donate and participate in the US political process, why do you never speak about the massive donations and influence of Trade Unions, AFL-CIO etc ?
Why do you never speak of the massive donations from the RFA ?
From your own calculations Oil Industry donations are less than 0.5%. AFL-CIO and RFA donations would dwarf that figure many times over !
So perhaps you might care to take this opportunity to dispel the notion that you are simply using an attack on the First Amendment to cripple those you perceive as political opponents ?
You wrote, “Can you support your conclusion orporate donations should be excluded, continuing Trade Union and leftist organizations funding intact ?”
…wow, marcopolo… Can you spell ‘desperate naked flaming straw man tactic dancing in circles’…?
Show me – and our readers – where I ever made such an assertion.
Nowhere, never happened.
Instead, I said “bribery, in all its many forms – from revolving door to campaign contribution.”
Thank you for playing. Please take a brief moment to sweep up the fragments of your shattered credibility on your way out.
Cameron,
Actually, I asked you a simple question and invited you to provide a simple and direct clarification of your position.
I note you haven’t actually replied to my question, instead hedged around by talking about bribery etc.
I ask sincerely, so that we can both be sure of our positions.
I will repeat my question as simply as possible. (A simple yes or no would suffice) ;
If you were successful in having Citizens United reversed, would you accept that not only Corporations be excluded but all contributors including such organizations as, Trade Unions, Serra Club, AFL-CIO, Greenpeace, RFA etc ?
It’s a simple question.
There is a colossal chasm yawning widely between asking a question and inserting words into a persons mouth as a straw man tactic, marcopolo.
Having been caught yet again building a straw man, you now attempt to pass that off as a question.
Again, I said “bribery, in all its many forms – from revolving door to campaign contribution.”
I drew no distinction between one source of bribery and another, and intended no distinction. The answer to the question you’ve only just asked is evident.
You guys might want to let this go, seeing as you’re at an impasse. It’s just a suggestion; if you wish to carry it on, please feel free.
FWIW, I’m personally at an impasse with Marcopolo on a lot of things. I think of him as smart but morally defective, meaning that he doesn’t appear to assign any value to our society’s making efforts to fix its woes. If we all behave as he suggests, we won’t have a civilization here in 50 – 100 years.
Cameron,
Yeah, I thought so. You just can’t give a straight forward, honest answer can you ?
By using the terms like “bribery” you cunningly avoid excluding campaign involvement by organizations you favour, while defining involvement of support for your political opponents as “bribery’ or other dishonest practice.
It’s for fear of people like you that the framers of the constitution ratified the Fist Amendment, and the US Supreme Court upheld it’s protections.
Craig,
Yes, you are quite right. there comes a stage where informed debate just becomes an argument and that’s best avoided.
I appreciate your intervention.
However, I’m hurt by your description of me as “morally defective”.
(I appreciate the distinction in your definition, but don’t believe it accurate ).
I certainly do strive to assist efforts to ” fix the woe’s ” that beset society.
Maybe I don’t always agree with you on the best and most effective method of achieving that goal, but that doesn’t make me “morally defective” just objective and practical.
I think a lot of energy and effectiveness in bringing about environmental progress is wasted by advocates more interested in pursuing irrelevant political or ideological agendas.
I believe this to be counter-productive since it detracts and weakens public acceptance for more humble, but more practical and achievable progress.
If I may indulge in a sweeping generalization as an illustration;
Given the proposition that ” breeding of cattle,sheep and goats for human consumption is harmful to the bio-sphere because of increased emissions of methane from the animals digestive process”
Your answer would be:
Campaign to ban the consumption of meat, and demand a reorganization of society to conform to not only an environmental objective, but a sectarian moral tenet.
In contrast, my answer would be (and is) :
To research and develop a practical method (technology) of altering the digestive system of ruminants to eliminate emissions of methane.
I agree this is a simplification, but it’s only intended to illustrate the difference in our approach.
Where we both agree is that the environmentally harmful emissions must be prevented. Where we disagree, is I believe attaching additional irrelevant political or philosophic objectives, becomes counter-productive.
I believe in examining the impassioned rhetoric of advocates, by testing veracity of their claims, the practical ability to implement their demands, and their personal commitment to practical action.
Do you really think that makes me, “morally defective” ?
Dude: We’ve been through this dozens of times over the last four years. I have nothing to add to what I’ve written previously, and, no offense, I have other things to do in my life.
Please feel free to keep up the fracas with whomever here who, for whatever reason, wants to argue.
A significant issue is the anonymous quality of the big donors to the mostly deceptively named PACs. If they were required to list all their donors plus name their top donors in all their ads, it would help a lot.
Furthermore, as evidence of their disproportionate influence, nearly every congressperson spends several hours DAILY on the phone with people on their donor list. They’re not allowed to do this from their offices, so they stroll over to a nearby building specifically designed as a call center where they can chat with them and ask for ‘opinions’ and assure they are being considered. Guess what? If you are a small donor they aren’t going to be calling you.
When wealthy individuals are heavily influencing the congress, this becomes much less a democracy, and much more a plutocracy.
Ben Wheeler ,
You appear to have a strange concept of how a Congressperson spends their time !
Because of the absurdity of 2 year terms, most members of congress find themselves in perpetual election mode. For House Members serving on House committees, time is very limited. Much of their working day is spent juggling appointments, and traveling.
They must also ensure they attend national function, as well as important functions back in their home state and district. Even very large private donors to a Congressperson can number in the thousands, so unless the donor is also represents a potential block of votes, Congresspersons simply don’t have time for lengthy briefings from anyone except very close political allies.
Individual wealth can buy some level of political patronage, but not as much as you imagine. America has millions of wealthy citizens, but only 465 members of Congress.
Large organizations, Trade Unions, Industry groups, political organizations, Civic groups, special interest groups such as Serra Club, Greenpeace, Feminist Majority Foundation, all contribute massive funding to political campaigns.
All these organizations offset any influence by even Corporate donors, let alone individual donors, no matter how wealthy.
In answer to your second question. the reason voting is secret is to stop any possible intimidation, for the same reason political donations are kept secret to protect donors from potential intimidation.
Most members of the US Congress are hardworking people who seek a career in public service for the right reasons, and perform thankless job to the best of their ability.
A minority have personalty defects that lead to make mistakes, while others are just feather-bedding, corrupt weasels bereft of any talent or morality except cunning and self-preservation !
But that’s true of US society, so I suppose that makes Congress truly representative ! 🙂
I have read several articles on the topic that say an average congressperson spends about 4 hours a day on the phone soliciting donations. Here is an excerpt from one of them…
A PowerPoint presentation to incoming freshmen by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, obtained by The Huffington Post, lays out the dreary existence awaiting these new back-benchers. The daily schedule prescribed by the Democratic leadership contemplates a nine or 10-hour day while in Washington. Of that, four hours are to be spent in “call time” and another hour is blocked off for “strategic outreach,” which includes fundraisers and press work. An hour is walled off to “recharge,” and three to four hours are designated for the actual work of being a member of Congress — hearings, votes, and meetings with constituents. If the constituents are donors, all the better…
Congressional hearings and fundraising duties often conflict, and members of Congress have little difficulty deciding between the two — occasionally even raising money from the industry covered by the hearings they skip. It is considered poor form in Congress — borderline self-indulgent — for a freshman to sit at length in congressional hearings when the time could instead be spent raising money…
Congress members make the dreaded calls from a room in the office of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, or a similar one at the headquarters of the National Republican Congressional Committee. After votes in the House, a stream of congressmen and women can be seen filing out of the Capitol and, rather than returning to their offices, heading to rowhouses nearby on First Street for call time, or directly to the parties’ headquarters. The rowhouses, where Larson said he prefers to make calls, are typically owned by lobbyists, fundraisers or members themselves, and are used for call time because it’s illegal to solicit campaign cash from the official congressional office…
— You can read the full article at the following link. If you don’t trust this source, just google it and you’ll find dozens of more articles on the same topic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/08/call-time-congressional-fundraising_n_2427291.html
—If you’re a John Oliver fan, here’s his take on it…
http://latest.com/2016/04/john-oliver-exposes-the-shocking-amount-of-time-congress-spends-raising-money/
Hi Ben,
Thank you for your interesting articles, and although I think they maybe a little exaggerated, it does reinforce the problem of 2 year terms.
No sooner a Congressperson is elected than he is forced to start preparing for the next election (including raising money ).
IMO, this situation would be improved by extending the term to 4 years.
Of course there are Congresspersons from very safe districts, with strong ties to a funding base who can afford to concentrate on advancement in the House while highly professional campaign staffer’s take care of fundraising.
In a nation of 323 million people, and a GDP of $18 trillion, it’s inevitable that the cost of mounting election campaigns is hugely expensive. There may be no solution, this may just be the price of US democracy.
I think lengthening the term of the House would significantly lessen the pressure throughout the entire federal system.
Otherwise, it seems very difficult to devise a better method. Each suggestion sounds great until it’s put into practice and proves impractical.
In a new Bloomberg Politics national poll, 78 percent of those responding said the Citizens United ruling should be overturned, compared with 17 percent who called it a good decision.
Hi Ben,
Well gosh, I didn’t realize that ! A Bloomberg Poll eh !
Well in that case there’s no point in holding a referendum, a lot of time and money could be saved just by asking the right questions to two our three hundred people sitting at home answering a Bloomberg Poll while waiting for Days of our Lives, or was it Bloomberg’s on line poll ?
Hey ! That’s a good idea, why bother with elections at all ? Just get Blomberg to conduct a poll ! now that would save money…
Seriously Ben, on issues like this polling isn’t very useful. A few years ago Australia conducted an expensive referendum on changing whether the Constitution should be changed to allow a republican form of government. The supporters of a republic were very confidant as the fervor for a republic was adjudged to be well supported by young voters.
All the major opinion polls were very positive for the republic, with celebrities etc super confidant. but something went wrong in the polling booths, and the proposal was massively rejected by the electorate, even among young voters.
What people say in a poll, or the pub, isn’t really what they will do come election day.
It also depends on the nature of the question. If you asked the question “Do you want amend the constitution to limit free speech ” not even 5% of Americans would agree.
If you asked the question, ” Do you want to get ‘big money’ out of politics, the overwhelming reply would be positive. That is until in the ensuing debate voters realized implications involved in attempting to do so.
It’s a complex issue. Proponents like Cameron would like to see Citizens United overturned. However, I’m sure he wouldn’t like to see Trade Unions, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, etc also banned from taking part in elections, or supporting candidates.
That’s what decided the US Supreme Court. If you ban one group, where do you stop ? Either Free Speech belongs to everyone and every organization, or it belong to no one.
It’s not perfect, but then nothing is really. Most things in human affairs are just better than the alternatives.
Big news! Polls aren’t always accurate (but sometimes they are).
Ok, I confess, I have a whole lot more confidence in the results of a major polling company than your personal (with no references given) OPINION regarding the public’s opinion.
Ben,
There’s an interesting Bloomberg article about the difficulties in polling.
http://www.bloomberg.com/…/flaws-in-polling-data-exposed-as-u-s-campaign-.
But you’re quite right, opinions are merely speculation, I guess in the end only one poll counts and that’s an election.
marcopolo, as you persistantly insist that I answer your question about something I never said, namely (your words) “…[C]orporate donations should be excluded, continuing Trade Union and leftist organizations funding intact…”
…let me put your mind to rest…
Yet again, what I said was this: “Want improvement? Work to end the bribery, in all its many forms – from revolving door to campaign contribution. That’s the most important and central issue that controls all others.”
Notice that I drew no distinction as to the source of the bribery.
As that fact reamins insufficient for your curiosity, I will expand and emphasize the following for you: I don’t care who does the bribing, or how the bribery is accomplished; both parties to the bribery must be prosecuted and punished severely enough to act as a deterrant to others contemplating the same. I’ve suggested elsewhere that a 25 year prison sentence is a good starting point.
I’ll thank you to make no more ‘straw man’ attempts to insert words into the mouths of others. It’s a weak and absurd tactic, and is beneath a person of intellect.
Cameron,
Well, I thank you for your reply, but you still haven’t defined what you mean by ” bribery “. I’m not trying to be obtuse, just trying to avoid misunderstandings.
As far as I know the act of bribing or corrupt dealing with any public or even corporate official is, and always has been, illegal. (Federal penalty 15 years).
But it depends on your definition of “Bribery” and what you consider an act of bribery. (One persons bribery may be another’s idea of legitimate support).
The First Amendment doesn’t protect any person from a charge of bribery, or any corrupt practice. There is nothing in the decision rendered in Citizens United that gives protection from charges of bribery or corrupt practice.
I certainly concur that corruption of any officer, in any walk of life, is reprehensible and should be illegal. ( I’m not a fan of excessive penalties)
So,it would appear that we find ourselves in furious agreement!:)
I may be wrong, and please correct me if I’ve misread you, but you seem to be implying a much wider definition than defined by law.
Are you saying all campaign contribution are inherently a form of bribery ? Are you also saying that support for a candidate whether financial or otherwise, is a form of bribery since it’s inherent that the legislator may feel under a tacit obligation to give preference to the requirements of the donor ?
So without all the rancour, I would be genuinely interested in clarifying what you really mean, and how it relates to Citizens United.
As I see the problem, (and something I hope we can all agree) is how to devise formula that can allows free and open political comment, with active participation by all parties in the political dynamic, without restricting “free speech ”
One way is to limit involvement in the political process to only participants who are natural persons. This would eliminate corporations, but must also eliminate Trade Unions, RFA. Greenpeace etc. Such an action might not prove practical, or even desirable, since these organizations would simply operate covertly or through appointed “natural persons”.
So, if you wouldn’t mind, could you clarify your definition of what you believe constitutes “bribery” and how the decision in Citizens United granted permission for such acts ?
An Act and Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
A Rational and Equitable Tax Code, for a Rational and Equitable Nation
The purpose of this act is to repeal and replace the entirety of all Federal, State and county and municipal tax
codes, to repeal and replace the Electoral College, to repeal and replace all Federal, State, county and municipal
laws governing election campaign finances and lobbying expenditures, and to precisely and permanently define
specific legal terms within U.S. law.
Synopsis: Only humans are people. No tax exempt organizations. Once you get enough to live, from each dollar
more you pay 15.1 cents – a dime to Washington, three cents to your state, a cent to your county, a cent to your
city, and a tenth of a cent for honest elections. Rational savings and loan interest is enforced. Hoarding is taxed. All
sane adults can vote. Lying officials get sued. Bribery is outlawed.
Section 1: Person & Taxpayer Definitions, Taxable Funds, Tax Rates & Exemptions, & Restriction of Usury
a) A “person” shall be exclusively defined in all U.S. law as a natural person of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.
b) A “Taxpayer” shall be defined as any person residing in the U.S. for at least three months of the calendar year, and as
any corporate entity, partnership, foundation, non-profit or religious organization, being party to a gift or transaction that
yielded “Taxable Funds” during the calendar year within the United States and its territories and possessions.
c) “Taxable Funds” shall be all revenue, and any gain in monetary value, that every “Taxpayer” receives in exchange for
any product and/or service, by virtue of ownership of any asset (to include rents and inheritance), resulting from the
business use of any natural resource, and including all funds received from any investment and/or interest on savings and
loan instruments, any gift or act of charity, and including any person’s wealth exceeding 10,000 times “Subsistence
Income” (defined in Section 1f). Exemption: One primary residence, attached land and furnishings transferred at death by
Living Trust to one or more heirs, which total transfer is assessed at not more than 50 times “Subsistence Income.”
d) Tax rates shall not exceed the following: From each calendar year’s annual total revenue in “Taxable Funds” each
“Taxpayer” shall pay 10% to the U.S. federal government, 3% to the U.S. states, U.S. territories or U.S. possessions in
which they reside for 90 days or more per year, and/or maintain any business offices with staff of 100 or more, one
percent to each county and municipality in which they maintain a residence where they reside 30 days or more per year,
or a business office with a staff of 50 or more. Any individual possessing wealth in excess of 10,000 times Subsistence
Income shall pay 1% of that excess to the U.S. federal government, and 0.1% to each state, county and municipality in
which they reside for 90 days or more per year. In no case shall these rates be waived except as provided in this section.
No tax rate herein shall decrease or increase except by approval of 2/3 of all eligible voters nationally. All additional tax,
tolls, fees, and other charges by government entities not included in this Act shall neither be assessed nor payable.
e) Persons convicted of deliberate concealment of funds for the purpose of tax avoidance shall serve 5 years in prison.
f) One annual tax exemption shall be granted to each person and each corporation for the amount of funds received up to
the “Subsistence Income”, and this “Subsistence Income” shall be annually revised by the “Change in Costs.” The
“Change in Costs” is hereby defined as the percentage change in the total annual value of all goods and services
purchased annually by 20% or more of all US persons of middle-income. Middle-income is hereby defined as $60k to
100k yearly, and this range shall be adjusted annually by the “Change in Costs” percentage referenced in this paragraph.
This “Change in Costs” percentage shall be the exclusive gauge of all cost-of-living adjustments under U.S. law.
This “Subsistence Income” shall be the federal minimum wage and poverty line for all applicable laws, and shall be equal
to the amount of US currency (averaged across all U.S. states, U.S. territories and U.S. possessions) necessary to
provide one person and one dependent person with all items, services and expenses within the following four
subparagraphs:
1) Nutrition, clothing, shelter of a quality and quantity sufficient to maintain excellent health, and furnishings,
appliances and technology sufficient to remain in keeping with the average lifestyle of middle-income US persons
2) Utilities and HVAC (electricity, gas, communication, internet access and indoor climate control); finance and
maintenance of a personal automobile; insurance (Life: $500k per person; Personal Property: $250k; Auto: $50k;
Liability: $500k; Homeowners Fire/Flood/Earthquake: reconstruction of one primary residence not more than $750k
(or holistically assessed value-equivalent local relocation for original property in a storm surge zone). Relocation,
reconstruction and other coverage values shall be adjusted annually for “Change in Costs” (referenced in Section 1f)
3) Competent child care and quality medical care in keeping with the average lifestyle of middle-income US persons
4) Annual Social Security contribution adequate to maintain that Subsistence Income through thirty years of
retirement from age 65 to age 95, as adjusted for the forecast “Change in Costs” (referenced in Section 1f above)
g) The last exemption is granted to each person 18 or older, and each corporation, for funds received not exceeding the
annual “Subsistence Income” for that tax year that is continually held in savings instruments for a period not less than five
years from each deposit. This exemption shall continue for twenty years after each taxpayer’s first savings deposit.
h) All necessary measures to preserve and maintain the Social Security Administration, and to continue its payment of
retirement benefits, shall by this Act be mandated under the US constitution.
i) There shall be no maximum income level for assessing Social Security contributions, and said contributions shall be
mandatory for all US persons receiving not less than the “Subsistence Income” defined in this act. Except those paid as
lawful benefits to recipients or those directly necessary to securely maintain the administration of these funds and to
maintain payments to benefit recipients, no expenditure, lending or allocation of these funds shall be permitted. For the
purposes of this Act, Social Security contributions shall not be considered a tax, toll, fee or charge. Except as specified in
Sections 1f, 1h and 1i of this Act, no change in the Social Security Act, FICA or SECA is hereby specified or mandated.
j) No fees shall be charged on retail savings balances, and interest paid shall not be lawfully permitted beneath 10% APR
compounded monthly. Interest and fees on consumer loan balances shall not lawfully rise above 20% simple interest.
Section 2: Use of Taxpayer Funds to Enforce Election Integrity, Electoral College Abolished, Suffrage
Guaranteed
a) The entire revenue of a separate flat and universal tax shall equally and wholly fund all campaigns for public office and
for ballot measure in each Federal, State, county and municipal election. This tax shall be payable each calendar year at
the rate of 0.1% of “Taxable Funds” (defined in Section 1c) for that year, and shall be accrued in a trust fund
dedicated solely to provide all qualified candidates and ballot measures (as specified in Section 2g) all of the following:
1) Equal funding, radio and cable airtime, web and print-space for the mandatory and personally recorded platforms
and campaign messages, equal police protection (and Secret Service protection for Federal races), transportation
and staff, and equal funding, radio and cable airtime, web and print-space arguing each side of all ballot measures;
2) Equal and mandatory participation in five prime-time broadcast debates of one hour each, with equal numbers of
randomized and unfiltered questions from the public, from the media and from each other. Complete transcripts of all
debates shall be provided to all constituents.
Note: To illustrate the viability of publicly funded campaigns, a study by a major U. S. accounting firm added the costs of
all the elections of all the public officials everywhere in the United States, from local representative to President, in a
recent national election year. They divided that sum by the country’s population. It would have cost each American less
than a penny a day, to buy all the elections in the country that year.
b) The Electoral College shall be hereby rendered null and void. All offices of public trust in municipal, county, and state
and federal governments shall be elected by popular referendum across the whole area they shall serve. Conviction
by jury trial of public deception, or of neglect or betrayal of their oaths, platforms or pledges, during candidacy or in while
office, shall constitute breach of the public trust, punishable by banishment from public office and five years in prison.
c) In all election platforms and pledges, and in the conduct of all elected officials while in office, all constituents of each
elected official shall be guaranteed equal representation, and shall equally enjoy the vigorous defense by each elected
official of all the birthrights and liberties enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a document that was
conceived and authored in our great country, and ratified by 148 nations, but not by our own U.S. Senate).
d) Voting shall not be denied to any living constituent over 18 years of age not judged to be mentally incompetent.
e) Elections for public office shall require a three-fifths mandate for victory, and shall use an Instant Runoff Ballot that
requires voters to select second and third choices where ever such options exist, with an instant runoff between the top
two candidates until that three-fifths majority is attained.
f) No election commission or other institution, entity, person or legal structure shall have or attempt to exercise the power
to exclude any candidate, ballot measure or party from any election debates or from any public ballot.
g) The threshold for ballot measures, and for candidacy for all constitutionally qualified persons, shall be a petition with the
valid signatures of 5% of voters in the district of the ballot measure’s origin or the candidate’s primary residence.
h) No candidate or ballot measure shall have as a campaign resource any funds or benefit not described in Section 2a.
Section 3: Enforcement of Honor in Government, Bribery Defined and Prohibited, and Punishment
Established
a) Apart from those funds collected and distributed in accordance with Section 2a, all gifts of funds, service or value from
private individuals or from corporations to candidates for public office, and to government officials, shall be punishable as
bribery (and no form of bribery shall be adjudicated to be analogous to free speech). Bribery under this section shall
include any form of remuneration, any business contract, and any donation to a preferred charity, and any employment for
the public servant, which occurs within twenty years after leaving office, and which, in the judgment of a jury in a court of
Law, shall have encouraged, incited or rewarded any conflict of interest or violation of public trust.
b) This section shall establish a mandatory 25-year prison term, without the possibility of parole, pardon or clemency, for
all individuals found by a jury in a court of Law to be guilty of participating on either side of said bribery, to include any
form of remuneration toward any campaign or to any candidate or public servant as defined in Section 3a.
I trust that provides sufficient explanation, marcopolo.
Cameron,
Thank you. Well, obviously you’ve been giving this a lot of thought.
It’s also obvious that you’ve never tried to write legislation, (still, I’ve seen trained lawyers do a lot worse !).
Reading through your dissertation, it would appear that you want to abolish the Electoral College, establish a complicated voting system, establish an undefinable and unworkable system of media control, impose tax a complicated new system of tax, etc.
You rely on a lot of vague, but meaningless terms;
“Rational savings and loan interest is enforced”. “Hoarding is taxed “. ” Lying officials get sued “. “Bribery is outlawed ”
Here’s where it gets difficult. What constitutes “lying” What’s “hoarding”? How do you define “rational” savings and loan interest?
You also wish to impose on the USA as a domestic law the UN charter of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
You define “Bribery” as ” any gifts of funds, service or value from private individuals or from corporations to candidates for public office and government officials. Including any form of remuneration, any business contract, and any donation to a preferred charity, and any employment for the public servant, which occurs within twenty years after leaving office.”
(I’m leaving “and no form of bribery shall be adjudicated to be analogous to free speech ” in the too hard basket :).
What your manifesto doesn’t make clear is how you intend to prevent support from non-corporate campaign support from organizations like trade unions, political parties etc. Nor does it make clear how you prevent Corporations and organizations simply making indirect support for candidates.
These organizations must have a legitimate right to take place in the organization of political life or government would be chaotic. (Government by non-aligned individuals doesn’t work beyond village level ).
It’s impossible to demand the media give equal time and coverage to every candidate, nor is it desirable. The media must be free to cover and express whatever opinion they wish. Censoring the media only leads to worse “corruption”.
What isn’t clear is how the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United affects most of your aims. (Items like the abolition of the Electoral College etc, would appear to be unrelated).
Your manifesto contains a wide range of changes you want to see to American society. Nothing is preventing you from persuading a majority of your fellow citizens to support your idea’s.
It’s obvious you lack formal training in the law, since what you have outlined is more of a ” wish list’ than a practical basis for legislation.
Please don’t take that the wrong way. Framing legislation can be incredibly difficult and complicated. Even lawyers with extensive experience have great difficulty writing effective legislation. (which is why we have so much lousy legislation, and courts to make sense of poorly framed laws).
It not just a matter of adopting “legalese” that makes good legislation, but clarity of description and precise, carefully thought through, definitions. Laws must be able to read in context with other statues.
But I sincerely thank you for explaining and sharing your manifesto, and applaud the time and effort that must have gone into thinking about these reform proposals.
Personally, I agree with your proposal to reform some aspects of the electoral system. I’ve never seen the usefulness of the Electoral College, or Primaries either. Both seem anachronistic and unnecessarily cumbersome. Nor do I understand why any American citizen can’t be elected to any office, regardless of origin of birth .
marcopolo, the following quotes you pulled from my response, I find it quite interesting that you assert:
“You rely on a lot of vague, but meaningless terms; ‘Rational savings and loan interest is enforced’. ‘Hoarding is taxed’. ‘Lying officials get sued’. ‘Bribery is outlawed'”
I find this notable because these quotes are from the labeled synopsis at the very beginning, while elsewhere in my response is found the following clear (not vague) detail for each section you quote from the synopsis:
(Rational savings and loan interest is enforced)
“No fees shall be charged on retail savings balances, and interest paid shall not be lawfully permitted beneath 10% APR compounded monthly. Interest and fees on consumer loan balances shall not lawfully rise above 20% simple interest.”
(Hoarding is taxed)
“Any individual possessing wealth in excess of 10,000 times Subsistence Income [defined elsewhere in the response] shall pay 1% of that excess to the U.S. federal government, and 0.1% to each state, county and municipality in which they reside for 90 days or more per year.”
(Lying officials get sued)
“Conviction by jury trial of public deception, or of neglect or betrayal of their oaths, platforms or pledges, during candidacy or in while office, shall constitute breach of the public trust, punishable by banishment from public office and five years in prison.”
(Bribery is outlawed)
“…all gifts of funds, service or value from private individuals or from corporations to candidates for public office, and to government officials, shall be punishable as bribery (and no form of bribery shall be adjudicated to be analogous to free speech). Bribery under this section shall include any form of remuneration, any business contract, and any donation to a preferred charity, and any employment for the public servant, which occurs within twenty years after leaving office, and which, in the judgment of a jury in a court of Law, shall have encouraged, incited or rewarded any conflict of interest or violation of public trust.”
Incidentally, I find it amusing that my tax proposal strikes you as “a complicated new system” when our existing tax code here in the US would fill more than 70.000 pages.
Further, it’s also amusing to me that you regard the following as “a complicated voting system” (by the way, Instant Runoff is implemented successfully in many jurisdictions)…
– “Voting shall not be denied to any living constituent over 18 years of age not judged to be mentally incompetent.
– “Elections for public office shall require a three-fifths mandate for victory, and shall use an Instant Runoff Ballot that requires voters to select second and third choices where ever such options exist, with an instant runoff between the top two candidates until that three-fifths majority is attained.
– “No election commission or other institution, entity, person or legal structure shall have or attempt to exercise the power to exclude any candidate, ballot measure or party from any election debates or from any public ballot.
– “The threshold for ballot measures, and for candidacy for all constitutionally qualified persons, shall be a petition with the valid signatures of 5% of voters in the district of the ballot measure’s origin or the candidate’s primary residence.”
Cameron,
Once again thank you for your reply.
In order to be brief, please let me explain what I mean by vague and imprecise. I’m trying not to be overly critical, because I realize you’re not a lawyer, and seem to be confusing legalese with what you want to say.
When you say ” Lying officials get sued” , this normally implies some form of civil litigation. Yet the definition you advance is prosecution under the criminal law. More importantly, you don’t clearly define the nature of what constitutes “lying” . (Juries can’t be allowed to guess at what the law means).
A clause such as “public deception, or of neglect or betrayal of their oaths, platforms or pledges, during candidacy or in while office, shall constitute breach of the public trust”, is just far too wide and easy for all kinds of interpretation.
Such a law would be unworkable, and lead to the courts being used as sort of second debating chambers. No politician would be free from vexatious prosecution by political enemies. No politician could change their mind, or adapt to changing circumstance, for fear of prosecution. No sane person would become a politician !
Likewise your definition of “hoarding” appears to have nothing to do with your definition, which seems to be about some form of wealth tax. (Illegal hoarding normally refers to excessive storage of produce, in order to create a shortage).
And with the greatest of respect, your definition of ” Rational Savings and Loan Interest ” is anything but “rational” !
I haven’t the time or space to explain how the banking industry works, but if implemented, your concept would ensure that the US Savings and Loan Industry would disappear immediately !
I agree that most tax systems get overly complex and bogged down in complicated regulations and laws. But complicating things further doesn’t help.
I’m still at a loss to see how most of your wish list has anything to do with Citizens United ?
However, I thank you for taking the time to share your ideas with me.
You’re welcome.