Corporate Money Wins, Part 2

The last restrictions on major corporate political campaign donations were removed by the Supreme Court in January this year (see: http://songofhiram.blogspot.com/2010/01/corporate-money-wins.html).

The first flower of this New Age of Government For Sale has bloomed: Rupert Murdoch handed over a cool million to the Republican Party.

"The contribution from Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and other news outlets, is one of the biggest ever given by a media organization, campaign finance experts said." Read the full story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/us/politics/18donate.html?ref=media

To put things in perspective, every time Mr. Murdoch sneezes a couple of million dollars routinely spews out. While this particular donation isn't the biggest given by a media group, it does seem to be the first under the new rules, which makes it newsworthy.

Especially for News Corp outlets. How will Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, WSJ, etc. report this one?

Letters To Washington

Senator Bernie Sanders has introduced both a bill and an amendment that would require an audit of the Federal Reserve - despite its public sounding name, the Fed is a private corporation that has its multiple financial sector hands on the tiller of the America's seriously listing economic ship.

This entity is literally above the law. The Fed is a major government player that cannot be investigated, audited, or subjected to any federal oversight. Ron Paul made taming the Fed a major platform of his GOP presidential campaign. And now Sanders is getting closer to voting on legislation that would take the first steps towards that goal.

Below is the text of a letter I sent to both Colorado senators today:

Senator Bennet/Udall - I ask you to support Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in his efforts to pass either a bill or an amendment to audit the Federal Reserve (Fed).

If you are serious about financial sector reform, and showing that Congress is representative of the majority of American citizens, this must be your course.

It's painful enough knowing that a private corporation - the Fed -is legally distanced from private citizens and congressional oversight. And that this private corporation is in charge of the nation's money protocols, interest rates, etc., but it does not answer to the people.

No federal entity should be above the investigatory/audit functions of the Congress. Establish this right of the people by voting for whatever measure legalizes oversight of the Fed.

By not voting for this reform, Senator, you confirm your support of big financial corporations at the expense of the citizens of Colorado. How else to explain it?

Howard Zinn 1922 - 2010

"From the start, my teaching was infused with my own history. I would try to be fair to other points of view, but I wanted more than 'objectivity'; I wanted students to leave my classes not just better informed, but more prepared to relinquish the safety of silence, more prepared to speak up, to act against injustice wherever they saw it. This, of course, was a recipe for trouble." - Howard Zinn, You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train (1994).

It's hard to imagine a world without Howard Zinn, a singular human being and citizen of the planet. His penetrating and honest recounting of the hidden history of power in the USA and the world influenced millions. But now Zinn has died, in the fashion he lived much of his life - on the road, speaking and teaching.

The teacher has passed on, yet his lessons remain: imagining a better world was Zinn's message.

I never created the opportunity to hear him in person, something I now regret. This summer I read the graphic novel "A People's History Of American Empire," the latest iteration of themes first presented in Zinn's game-changing book "A People's History Of The United States." Highly recommended as an introduction to some real American history, with arresting visuals:

There will be hundreds of articles in the coming days, weeks and months reflecting on Zinn. Here's nice one from Fred Branfman at the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-branfman/howard-zinn-has-died-long_b_440480.html

The Only Rational Response

The only rational response to the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns.

Corporate Money Wins

Stunning news yesterday - the Supreme Court has opened the door for corporations to jump into political campaigns with both feet. Go here to read/watch a very clear explanation about the decision and the background of the case:http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/

Going forward, it's legally possible for these "persons" (as corporations long ago gained many of the same legal rights/protections as individuals) to openly spend money in elections - oops, I mean exercise their right of free speech - just like any other "person."

Of course corporations already dominate the political/government landscape - but now they can forgo those pesky rules about PACs, corporate money bundling, and other contributory efforts.

Individual citizens are still face a dollar limit on contributions to any single federal campaign. Corporate "citizens" - probably not.

I guess the "equal-opportunity" of the American system provides a solution: the interested citizens can set up a corporate entities to increase their electoral spending power - oops, I mean amplify their message. That seems simple enough! Then those citizens can successfully compete with messages being sent by their fellow citizens, named Goldman-Sachs, Haliburton, etc.

"Swift boat"-style ads are where corporations may now indulge freely. The overall effect on hearing both sides of an issue in the media - already a massive challenge - will be chilling. Writer/legal consultant Richard Goldberg on the tattered state of regulating money and elections:

As many have noted, this amounts to a significant gutting of our already tepid campaign finance laws, and it will allow corporations like Aetna—if they can find a political issue about which they feel strongly (can anyone think of one?)—to use corporate funds, derived from success in the economic marketplace, to defeat candidates in the political marketplace. That political marketplace, which was once called the "marketplace of ideas," may henceforth be called the "marketplace of whichever corporation can buy the most ads." This money will be spent nearly without regulation.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/17055/can-anything-fix-our-broken-campaign-finance-system-part-i

Journalist Greg Palast weighs in on the Supreme Court ruling. He explores some scenarios and analyzes the potential real-life results of the decision. His assertion that the Obama campaign of 2008 was majority-funded by individual citizen contributions has been proven wrong, but he raises pertinent issues - like the potential that foreign governments/mega-corporations, with a registered U.S. corporate arms (gotta love Joe Biden's Delaware, home of the corps), could spend without restriction on political campaigns.

The danger of foreign loot loading into U.S. campaigns, not much noted in the media chat about the Citizens United case, was the first concern raised by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who asked about opening the door to "mega-corporations" owned by foreign governments. (Ted) Olson (arguing in favor of the plaintiff) offered Ginsburg a fudge, that Congress might be able to prohibit foreign corporations from making donations, though Olson made clear he thought any such restriction a bad idea.

http://www.gregpalast.com/supreme-court-to-ok-al-qaeda-donation-for-sarah-palin/

Wow, really? It's a bad idea to restrict foreign interests from participating financially in our electoral system?

If that's the case, our system is broken. The two-party system of government "by the people, for the people" has been purchased by business interests - and one of the last see-through curtains shielding us from that reality has been removed.

Corporations are organizations of people - a small minority of our population with a majority of the money. Time for the majority population to figure out how to exercise influence. It won't be through a Democrat or Republican political party, although we can scare them into some action.

It's best to seek another path - let's think seriously about reforming the entire system so it benefits people, not companies, and creates safety and wealth benefits for all - not the minority.

Speaking The Truth - On The State Of The Democrat Party

"We have to be more defined as being on the side of the people and not on the side of interest groups that are so entrenched. And we can't do that by playing patty-cake with Wall Street, by caving into the demands of big banks, by playing footsie with insurance companies and by jumping in bed with the pharmaceutical industry." - Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D) on his political party.

Speaking the truth, usually unvarnished and clear-eyed, is Representative Dennis Kucinich's stock-in-trade. Thankfully, the voters of his Cleveland district keep returning him to Congress.

Rep. Kucinich, in this interview, outlines his view on the state of the Democratic Party - essential reading.

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/exclusive-kucinich-shreds-democrats/

"Only The Super Rich Can Save Us" - An Evening With Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader at the Tattered Cover Book Store, Denver, CO 10-1-09

Ralph Nader appeared at the Tattered Cover in Denver on Thursday, October 1. A standing-room only audience of about 150 were treated to a more relaxed (compared to his campaign style) but no less energetic citizen activist. Utilizing his particularly pointed style of dry humor, Nader mixed comic stories with serious analysis of the contemporary American civic scene.

He is on the road talking about his first fictional book, "Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us!" Most critics are calling the work a 21st-century "utopian" novel, in that it proposes seemingly far-fetched progressive solutions to contemporary issues.

In "Super-Rich," Nader imagines a coalition of billionaires and multi-millionaires who decide to move past philanthropy to power-shifting: taking up progressive causes that benefit all citizens. Using their wealth, the group operates in secret and funds various types of nationwide social activism, launches a new political party, and takes on the corporate business giants by playing their game - spending mega-amounts of money to achieve their goals.

Nader pointed out that every social justice movement in American history - such as the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage, the civil rights struggles - began as an idea. He hopes his fictional "idea" will start citizens thinking. "And," he added, "you'll never be afraid to ask a rich person for money again."

Nader began with some short remarks about the book. Then he moved into a lengthy question-and-answer session that touched on many topics, but mainly revolved around health care (Nader endorses SinglePayerAction.org) and the stranglehold that corporations - and embedded "corporate-think" - have on American society.

One questioner asked if Nader felt that the passage of any kind of "public option" in the current health care bills would possibly derail the single-payer, universal health care movement. Nader offered a definitive view: "The public option is dead...when the President says 'it's just a sliver' of the overall program to a shark tank like Congress...you have to read the code. What's happening now is just theater." He predicts there will be a "second round" of discussion in years to come, as the current bills do nothing to stop rising costs, both for premiums and care - and that the next wave will include calls for action from more ordinary citizens who will continue to suffer from the current system's multiple inequities.

Nader's use of real-life billionaires and multi-millionaires - Warren Buffet, Bill Cosby, Bill Gates, Yoko Ono, Ted Turner and more - as his book's socially-driven protagonists prompted questions. He mentioned that Turner ("frenetic" in Nader's estimation) and Buffet ("a man who says he and other super-rich should be taxed more") both gave him favorable mentions. Another real-life/fictional character was more "snippy - I can't say the name because I'm still dealing with the problem!" he said to spontaneous laughter.

Another asked if it was okay to promote progressive causes and make money from it, citing filmmaker Michael Moore's box-office successes. Nader said that Moore made millions from "Sicko", and asked Moore if he would donate $5 million to open a single-payer lobbying office in Washington. According to Nader, Moore declined. (Moore appeared the next day at Nader's Washington headquarters to threaten electoral opposition to congressional Democrats who don't support the "public option":http://www.singlepayeraction.org/blog/?p=1563.) Then Nader asked if anyone could guess his advance on his current book - which he revealed was "zero, nada, nothing." He said he wanted the book out quickly,without being hamstrung by publishing lawyers; taking no upfront money helped achieve that goal. He mentioned that publisher Seven Stories Press also has works by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn in its catalogue - those names brought applause from the crowd.

One attendee castigated Nader, saying that "Super-Rich" is an insult to the history of social equality movements and flies in the face of his own activism. The idea that people need monied messiahs, rather than their own skills and fortitude, struck him as ignoble and defeatist. Nader replied that a quick check of American history would show that many social movements had wealthy backers, especially at the outset when resources and funds were most needed. With more super-rich people than ever before, Nader opined that we only need about 1% of them to take this course of action.

On the subject of activism, a question was asked about the recent "Tea-Bagger" protests. In Nader's view, there is a group of ultra-conservative, single issue citizens - gun control, abortion rights, tax reform, closet racists - who need little excuse to gather and march. "You just have to send the bus, and they will show up," he said, noting that while the overall theme of the well-organized event was government spending, a quick survey of signs in the crowd showed that many arrived supporting their favorite single issue. "I'm glad they got out there - anything to get people into the streets and talking is good" he said.

Nader wrapped up saying that he had to leave to tape a media appearance for an Allen Colmes show. He noted that Fox News is about the only major media outlet that will have him on regularly - even though many of them are "right wing yahoos." "Fox thrives on conflict. MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS - they don't want conflict."

Do not miss hearing Ralph Nader speak if he comes to your town. His insights, ideas and actions have improved America - listening to him is definitely worth your time.

The New Illiteracy Takes Over

"The US government is more than willing to invest billions in wars, lead the world in arms sales and give trillions in tax cuts to the ultra rich, but barely acknowledges the need to invest in those educational and civic institutions - from schools to the arts - that enable individuals to be border crossers, capable of connecting the private and the public as part of a more vibrant understanding of politics, identity, agency and governance." - Henry A. Giroux

Truthout has published a highly recommended article by Henry Giroux - "The Spectacle Of Illiteracy and the Crisis of Democracy" - which examines American anti-intellectualism, ever-growing civic illiteracy, and how both are undermining the democratic foundations of the USA.

The American education system devalues important skills such as the ability to question and critically think through issues. The result is a "chronic...and deadly civic illiteracy" that renders individuals unable to connect personal troubles to larger societal issues; the country has "moved from a culture of questioning to a culture of shouting, and in doing so (has) restaged politics and power in both unproductive and anti-democratic ways." The current health care reform "debate" is but the latest example.

Giroux places the timeline of this disintegration - the inability to connect the personal with the public - against the rise of the corporation and militarism as major influences in American life. As he writes, "How else to explain the rage against big government, but barely a peep against the rule of big corporations, which increasingly control not only the government, but almost every vital aspect of our lives from health care to the quality of our environment?" Military/weapons industries dominate our economy and authoritarian violence and blood defines our American culture, from movies/television to video games to sports.

The lesson: teach your children...to question. Before it's too late.

http://www.truthout.org/091509A

Obama The Tyrant? No, Just The Current Team Captain

I recently had an interesting email exchange with a respected colleague who told me that I often failed to give the Obama Administration "credit" when it was due. Announcements about new Justice Department investigations, directives and "reforms" sparked that conversation.

There have been encouraging signs: modification of some of the worst Bush-era policies in the environmental area, and the recent Justice Department announcement about investigating CIA torture activities and revamping its Civil Rights Division. But as many have pointed out, rolling back extreme right policies to a new "center" that still tilts to the right is not progress; and the CIA torture investigation ground rules could ultimately lead to another round of "punish the little guys while the big guys go free" results that are the norm for these exercises.

Despite these positive moves, in the major arenas of government action - war, surveillance, assisting corporate dominance - Team American Empire (TAE) continues to roll down the field. First, an excerpt from one of the exchanges:

"...we could definitely have a conversation about the assertion that 'overall domestic surveillance and secret prisons are okay' with the current administration.

Obama has specifically reversed and rejected Bush-era interrogation policies that allow for secret prisons (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing), and before he was president he voted for a revised domestic surveillance program that put quite a few restrictions on what the government and private entities could and could not do (please give me examples that can show me what I’m missing).

I just don’t buy this notion that Obama somehow has a personal agenda to spy on Americans, take away their liberties, oppress citizens of other countries, and give every major corporation a big payday so he can retire happy."

(Drum roll, please) My response:

I do not believe that Mr. Obama has tyrannical or dictatorial ambitions.

He is the temporary team captain placed at the head of Team American Empire, a loose-knit collective with a single purpose: market domination and stability for financial profit. Team American Empire moves inexorably forward towards its goals via the combined efforts of the business community, its (often well-paid) cohorts in Congress and the revolving employment doors of government regulatory agencies. Every empire in history has followed the basic contours of this model. We are not re-inventing the wheel here.

The latest round of candidates for interim Empire team captain - Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, Mrs. Clinton – all had been vetted by the major monied class. Whatever their differences, none of that trio were proposing to shut down the biggest business projects of our day: armaments and oil. And all were oppositional or purposely vague on health care reform (although I would like to believe Mrs. Clinton would have pushed hardest for meaningful change).

The guy sitting in the Presidential seat now may have the best intentions in the world, but he got to that position by being a willing team player. The current occupant, in his first six months, has undoubtedly proved he can be counted on to lead Team American Empire.

So it matters little what Mr. Obama’s personal feelings on key issues might be. The actions have been taken. In the realm of unhindered domestic surveillance, he voted to extend FISA – call me reactionary, but why does the government need to screen every email in America? Make all the new “restrictions” on surveillance you want – private communications corporations are assisting the government effort to screen everything. Maintaining a domestic surveillance network is much more about political paranoia and retaining domestic power than identifying “terrorists”.

Secret prisons – for me, it’s common sense. The President says we’ll close them, and the CIA director says they will be decommissioned. But do you trust the guys in charge of government-sponsored secrecy? The CIA and President both stated they will continue to detain and hold people for questioning – are they going to put them up in hotels? The intelligence arms of the Empire are not being reined in – they are shutting down old facilities and setting up new storefronts, just like they have throughout the post-WWII period.

Even if I believed there is a “reform”, where’s the public accountability to prove these prisons are truly closed? There is no outside-the-government oversight. The mainstream media is manipulated by the government, who knows they will rarely (if ever) begin serious investigations of its pronouncements. So how am I assured that this chapter is closed – I have to trust the President? It is not up to citizens to seek out and prove this information – it is the government’s responsibility to prove accomplishment of its promises to the citizens.

The prime enterprise for Team American Empire today is total dominance - military and financial - of the Middle East. For all the talk of withdrawing troops, Mr. Obama has delivered on his promise to expand the wars/occupation/financial subjugation in the Middle East. Again, he’s not a personal tyrant – just the guy currently in charge of the ongoing (for decades to come) TAE game plan to make Middle East oil a sure thing for big energy companies. McCain or Clinton would have followed this same playbook exactly. And in the next election cycle or two, if our current electoral system is still intact (any bets?), someone else who has been carefully screened and approved will take Obama's place to captain Team American Empire.

I think it boils down to who you choose to believe when it comes to "reforms." I do not accept the "trust us" security/intelligence “reforms” of a publicly-funded government that willfully engages in financially/spiritually corrupting illegal wars for private profit.

For me, this is a an all-or-nothing game. As long as Team American Empire captain Obama keeps getting plays from the owners of industry and money – and the expanding wars, massive domestic surveillance machine, and the fight to preserve health insurance industry profits all point to that reality – there’s little joy in the occasional instance of moving a case of extreme right practice back to the (rightward-drifting) center.

Who Will Congress Listen To On Health Care Reform?

So who will Congress listen to when it comes to health care reform? The millions of Americans who want to talk about Medicare-For-All, or the combined lobbyists representing the pharmaceutical/health insurance/hospital corporations?

Average citizens can pick up a phone, write a letter or email, or attend a town hall meeting. The health care industries have spent nearly half-a-billion dollars in the first six months of 2009 to impress their views on Congress.

"That’s six lobbyists for each of the 535 members of the House and Senate, according to Senate records, and three times the number of people registered to lobby on defense. More than 1,500 organizations have health-care lobbyists, and about three more are signing up each day. Every one of the 10 biggest lobbying firms by revenue is involved in an effort that could affect 17 percent of the U.S. economy.

These groups spent $263.4 million on lobbying during the first six months of 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington-based research group, more than any other industry. They spent $241.4 million during the same period of 2008. Drugmakers alone spent $134.5 million, 64 percent more than the next biggest spenders, oil and gas companies."


Who does it look like our legislators are paying closer attention to - citizens or corporations? What's your take?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aqMce51JoZWw