Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who says rockers are dumb druggies?; Van Zandt speaks on US democracy
Topic Started: Dec 11 2011, 10:11 AM (440 Views)
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
He makes at least one very, very good point, which I have in bold.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-van-zandt/democracy-in-america_b_1139463.html

Quote:
 
There Is Only One Issue in America

I was obsessed with politics in the '80s. I've recovered and I'm feeling much better now thank you.

By the time I realized, as interesting as it was, I'd better stop this stuff and try to earn a living, I had discovered many of our social problems and quality of life issues could be traced to the same political source: our corrupt-by-definition electoral system. The solution to the problem was as easy to discover as the cause: The elimination of all private finance in the electoral process.

I was working doing most of my research in the area of our foreign policy since WWll, whatever fell under the umbrella of international liberation politics, but I examined and analyzed a fair amount of local issues as well.

I wanted to know how things work? Where's the power? Who's pulling the strings?

The economy of the world came down to the unholy trinity of guns, drugs and gasoline -- military industry, drugs (legal and illegal), and energy -- and now I would add agribusiness as the fourth controlling commodity, and always with the enabling bankers never too far out of sight making their profits far too often from wars and slave labor.

While that readily explained the suffering of the Third World, it didn't immediately answer why in America it was possible for so many people to be unhappy with our government's decisions, both foreign and domestic, when we're supposedly living in a democracy.

A quick analysis of our electoral process revealed the obvious answer. The simple fact is we do not live in a democracy. Certainly not the kind our Founding Fathers intended. We live in a corporate dictatorship represented by, and beholden to, no single human being you can reason with or hold responsible for anything.

The corporation has but one obligation, which is to increase profits for it's shareholders by any legal means necessary by the next fiscal quarter.

They have no moral, patriotic, social, environmental, generational or even sustainable responsibility. They have only a short-term economic mandate and their only responsibility to society is to stay within the law to accomplish it.

This doesn't mean corporations shouldn't exist or even that their directors are evil by their very DNA. It has been a legally acceptable basic flaw in the form of our capitalist system that allows corporations to operate without a moral compass or obligation to society -- but that's a discussion for another day.

The law is rarely a problem because the corporations' legal obligations are pretty much designed first and foremost for their maximum profit by the legislation created by the legislators belonging to our two national political parties, both of which are wholly bought, sold and controlled by Wall Street. The banks and the corporations. In other words the game is rigged. Feel like a sucker? We all do because we all are.

The manipulation, aided by a very willing media also owned by the corporations, has made things easier beginning with what has become the amazing Orwellian staple of every newscast, selling the public on the lie that the Dow has somehow become America's scoreboard!

We're all hypnotized, rooting for them like they're our home team at a football game, cheering for THEIR scoreboard mindlessly forgetting WE'RE THE AWAY TEAM!!

You think your congressman is working all day to get you a job? He may want to. He or she is probably not a bad person. They probably want to do the right thing. But they can't. Long-time Capitol Hill staff and campaign strategists tell me the average legislator spends one-third of their time (or more) every day raising money or on activities related to raising money.

Yes, they are "elected" which creates the mass delusion of democracy to keep the masses from rioting, but congressional races are costing millions of dollars and some Senate seats are going for tens of millions each, and they're predicting well over one billion dollars for the next presidency.

That's some democracy we've created there, isn't it?

Of the people?

By the people?

For the people?

What people?

Democracy in America is a sick joke and the masses aren't laughing anymore.

Yes, we can demonstrate. We can march. We can write and sign petitions to our Representatives. We can occupy.

And we should because it's healthy to vent, and we don't feel so all alone. But the truth is, other than the value of venting, we're wasting our time. It is naďve to expect political results from any of these activities.

Our representative can give us lip service. A lot of sympathy. Empathy even. But we don't pay their media bills, gabeesh?

We need to eliminate all private finance from the electoral process.

And let's not be distracted by "reforms." Let's spare ourselves the unnecessary discussions about transparent disclosure, or the conflict of interest of foreign countries buying favorable treatment, or protection after protection being gutted by dangerously diluted regulations, or trying to impose this limit or that limit, etc., etc., etc.

Campaign finance doesn't need reform. It needs elimination.

To accomplish this we must overturn Buckley v. Valeo, one of the two or three worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.

The ruling makes the extraordinary decision that money is protected by the First Amendment.

Presumably Chief Justice Gordon Gekko presiding!

These smartest guys in the room actually decided that spending money is the equivalent of free speech. You might wonder why no one in that smart room stood up and said wait a minute, if money is speech, isn't lack of money lack of speech?

You know, as in the rich get to talk, and the poor don't? How are the non-moneyed classes represented by this decision?


I guess nobody stood up then, but it's time to stand up now.

In fact, I am now introducing a new pledge to be signed by our legislators. Of both parties. Indies too. Everybody's welcome.

THE PLEDGE FOR A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA

(We'll need someone more educated than me to draw it up, or we can copy Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge, but it would go something like this.)

I, The Undersigned, pledge to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and eliminate all private finance from the electoral process, thusly restoring America to it's democratic principles. I may take corporate, PAC, SuperPAC, or Chinese money to get elected or reelected (martyrdom accomplishes nothing), but upon my election I will make campaign finance elimination one of my immediate top priorities.

Now somebody should be starting a new Third Party whose platform is dedicated to this one idea. Twenty-five years ago that's what I'd be doing right now.

But,the need for a Third Party aside, this idea applies for everyone. Just as much for the Tea Party on the right as the 99 Percenters on the left (the corporate oligarchy actually has no Party affiliation, it just looks Republican).

Both groups should adopt this issue. The Occupiers need not agree on anything else, because frankly nothing else matters, and a bit more focus on the root of our problems for the Tea Party certainly wouldn't hurt them either.

Let's see who's serious about representing the "people."

And you know what?

We might be pleasantly surprised at how many congressmen and senators sign this thing who would rather be doing something more dignified with their lives than spending half their time begging for money.

Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
An interesting point, but, as usual, where does one draw the line?

If corporations are not allowed to express political opinion, what about newspapers? After all they are, ultimately, corporations, right?

What about the Sierra Club?

What about unions?

Should they be silenced?

If not, then why silence Boeing, Microsoft or (gasp) Soros the Kochs?
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
I agree. The devil is in the details of exactly how do we go about this fairly, and how do we give anyone a voice? How many tweets they get?
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
How about a constitutional amendment?

http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.J.Res..pdf

Quote:
 
Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.

Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.

Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.

Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.


Prof Eugene Volokh blogs:
Quote:
 
What the amendment would do with the speech of nonprofits is not clear: Section 1 says constitutional rights “are the rights of natural persons” — which doesn’t include groups such as the ACLU, the NRA, the NAACP, and so on — but at the same time says that they “do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests,” a category that also doesn’t include such non-business-related nonprofits. So the proposal is ambiguous as to those groups.

But non-profits that are “established ... to promote business interests” — even when they are not funded by business corporations, but only by private individuals — clearly would be denied constitutional rights by the proposed amendment. So a non-profit aimed at promoting “business interests” would be stripped of the freedom of speech and of the press (and other rights), but a non-profit aimed at opposing those same business interests would retain those rights.


A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dan
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
I say we stop pouring money into elections and then use all that extra cash to raise wages and hire new people.

Or, if we add up how much is spent on elections and instead collect that money and put it toward the national deficit, how long does it take to get us back to zero debt?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
George K
Member Avatar
Finally
Dan
Dec 13 2011, 09:14 AM
I say we stop pouring money into elections and then use all that extra cash to raise wages and hire new people.

Or, if we add up how much is spent on elections and instead collect that money and put it toward the national deficit, how long does it take to get us back to zero debt?
About five thousand years.

Srsly - assuming that we sPend 3 billion per election. The debt is about $15 trillion.
A guide to GKSR: Click

"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... "
- Mik, 6/14/08


Nothing is as effective as homeopathy.

I'd rather listen to an hour of Abba than an hour of The Beatles.
- Klaus, 4/29/18
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
That's assuming we don't spend any more money ever again of course.

Realistically, we're past the point of thinking about getting rid of the debt - that will never happen.
Our concern at this point is just to keep it from spiraling out of control.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Quote:
 
Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.


I generally agree with the notion, but due process and rights to privacy (etc) also need Constitutional protection for business and other legal entities that are not natural persons.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
bears repeating...
Edited by ivorythumper, Dec 13 2011, 02:44 PM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Dec 13 2011, 02:42 PM
... due process and rights to privacy (etc) also need Constitutional protection for business and other legal entities that are not natural persons.
Disagree.

Draw up a trade secret protection act or national secret/anti-espionage acts if you want, but I see no Constitutional underpinning for "rights to privacy" for non-natural person legal entities.

As for due process rights, they apply to the people who own (or are trustees of) the non-natural person legal entities, not to the entities themselves. When it comes to properties ("stuff"), due process protects natural persons from having their stuff confiscated/destroyed by the state. There is no Constitutional underpinning for due process that applies to stuff that is not ultimately owned by a natural person.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Dec 13 2011, 03:40 PM
ivorythumper
Dec 13 2011, 02:42 PM
... due process and rights to privacy (etc) also need Constitutional protection for business and other legal entities that are not natural persons.
Disagree.

Draw up a trade secret protection act or national secret/anti-espionage acts if you want, but I see no Constitutional underpinning for "rights to privacy" for non-natural person legal entities.

As for due process rights, they apply to the people who own (or are trustees of) the non-natural person legal entities, not to the entities themselves. When it comes to properties ("stuff"), due process protects natural persons from having their stuff confiscated/destroyed by the state. There is no Constitutional underpinning for due process that applies to stuff that is not ultimately owned by a natural person.
So if you have or are a member of a business, corporation, union, school, home owners' association, etc you would be ok with the government being able to wiretap at will, have fishing expeditions through the corporate books without cause, and seize property owned by the legal entity for any reason?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply