Call, write, vigil, demonstrate this week
- Feel free to use AFSC national toll-free # to contact your congressperson and Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich: 1-800-473-6711.
Call today!
- TrueMajority will have a new website up later today permitting citizens to self-organize local actions at congressional offices, Federal Reserve banks, or other key locations. Organize an event in your own community or join one already planned.
Congress as soon as Friday will likely vote on a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. The Bush administration wants “clean” legislation with few if any strings or conditions — just a $700 BILLION blank check...at least...and a massive transfer of power and authority from the legislative to executive branch. This is a historic moment to ACT!
SAY NO TO A BLANK CHECK CORPORATE BAILOUT!
Groups across the country are demanding that any package to help Wall Street must:
Help Main Street
Help those who have had their homes foreclosed
Provide a stimulus package to taxpayers who will be paying off this massive additional debt for decades
Ensure that bankers and banking institutions are held accountable for their past financial decisions
Stipulate that no CEO of Wall Street corporations to be bailed out receives “Golden Parachutes,” pay raises or bonuses. CEO pay should be capped, if not reduced.
Guarantee that power and authority not be transferred from the legislative to executive branch. Given Wall Street’s financial meltdown and lack of recent Congressional oversight, needed now is greater public control of financial affairs.
Establish that any firm to be bailed out can’t lobby politicians or make political campaign contributions/investments
Include that future profits gained from bailed out companies be returned to the government.
Audit the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, which hasn’t had its books examined.
Below is an excellent letter written by Marian Lupo from Columbus.
NOTE: For those in the Akron area:
Vigil: No Blank Check Corporate Bailout of Wall Street
Thursday, September 25, Noon
1655 W. Market St., Akron
(UFCW building which contains office of US Rep. Betty Sutton)
--------------
To: Representative Kucinich, Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, By Fax: 202-225-5745; 216-228-6465
Please exercise your power and influence to address the below.
To: Senators Dodd, Schumer, Shelby and Representatives Frank and Boehner.
By fax: 202-224-1083; 202-228-3027; 202-224-3416; 202-225-0182; 202-225-0704
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008
I am writing today to you as a United States citizen regarding a matter of urgent concern. Although I do not reside in your district, I believe my letter captures the sentiments of millions of Americans who cannot write to you.
I strongly oppose bailing out the speculative, greedy, and irresponsible investment banking firms. My neighbors have lost their homes, and no one bailed them out.
I want you to audit the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private corporation, and which has never produced their financials for audit by Congress.
I also want you to revoke the legislation, passed under President Wilson, which created the Federal Reserve Bank. Congress needs to resume their Constitutional responsibilities for the U.S. currency.
Further, I want Paulson investigated – as well as the investment bankers who, in my opinion, are at a minimum criminally negligent.
My neighborhood averages 3 to 7 foreclosures a week. These are working people. Homes are vacant and not cared for now, because the banks are negligent. The banks do not even bother to mow the lawns, and they are bankrupting the city budget for code enforcement. My whole neighborhood has declined, and now children are getting into trouble because these houses present attractive nuisances.
It is a disgrace what the banks have done to the U.S. people. There is a sign down the street from me that advertises a very nice home for $13,500.
As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay to help everyone stay in their home – but not to salvage institutions that have destroyed my neighborhood and are destroying my country, or in any way whatsoever to compensate the people whose greed led to this debacle: they should be in prison.
Thank You,
Marian Lupo
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Constitution Day
Today, September 17, is Constitution Day. It was on this day in 1787 that the United States Constitution was signed.
The Constitution has been celebrate throughout our nation’s history in our schools, civil associations, religious institutions, and media as a profoundly democratic document. Afterall, it’s about We the People. What could be more democratic than that? Right?
Elements of the Constitution are inclusive. Many are not.
Several articles previously posted here have delved into this issue. In commemoration of this day, several are linked below.
A critical understanding of the Constitution is essential in any quest for true self-governance, justice, and peace. Social change movements in other countries in other places and/or in other times have not only worked for a change of faces (via elections) and a change of laws, but also a change of defining rules (i.e. removing undemocratic impediments in national Constitutions).
This last point is often overlooked here since it is assumed and culturally reinforced that the US Constitution promotes equality, justice and fairness — and contains provisions to easily alter it in places needing revision.
Analyzing the US Constitution is an essential step to understanding and eliminating impediments to real self-governance.
Below are three articles examining the undemocratic provisions of the US Constitution and suggestions for change. It’s followed by an article describing Ecuador’s proposed constitution granting inalienable rights to nature.
A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND
Second of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Spring, 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy [POCLAD]
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/DemocracyInMind.pdf
The U.S. Constitution: Pull the Curtain
First of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Winter 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD)
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/PullTheCurtain.pdf
The Case Against Judicial Review
by David Cobb
From “By What Authority,” a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law and
Democracy (POCLAD), Vol. 9, No. 2 • Fall, 2007.
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/JudicialReview.pdf
Published on Thursday, September 4, 2008 by The Christian Science Monitor
Ecuador Constitution Would Grant Inalienable Rights To Nature
by Eoin O'Carroll
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-7
The Constitution has been celebrate throughout our nation’s history in our schools, civil associations, religious institutions, and media as a profoundly democratic document. Afterall, it’s about We the People. What could be more democratic than that? Right?
Elements of the Constitution are inclusive. Many are not.
Several articles previously posted here have delved into this issue. In commemoration of this day, several are linked below.
A critical understanding of the Constitution is essential in any quest for true self-governance, justice, and peace. Social change movements in other countries in other places and/or in other times have not only worked for a change of faces (via elections) and a change of laws, but also a change of defining rules (i.e. removing undemocratic impediments in national Constitutions).
This last point is often overlooked here since it is assumed and culturally reinforced that the US Constitution promotes equality, justice and fairness — and contains provisions to easily alter it in places needing revision.
Analyzing the US Constitution is an essential step to understanding and eliminating impediments to real self-governance.
Below are three articles examining the undemocratic provisions of the US Constitution and suggestions for change. It’s followed by an article describing Ecuador’s proposed constitution granting inalienable rights to nature.
A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND
Second of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Spring, 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy [POCLAD]
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/DemocracyInMind.pdf
The U.S. Constitution: Pull the Curtain
First of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Winter 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD)
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/PullTheCurtain.pdf
The Case Against Judicial Review
by David Cobb
From “By What Authority,” a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law and
Democracy (POCLAD), Vol. 9, No. 2 • Fall, 2007.
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/JudicialReview.pdf
Published on Thursday, September 4, 2008 by The Christian Science Monitor
Ecuador Constitution Would Grant Inalienable Rights To Nature
by Eoin O'Carroll
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-7
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Starting to get it
Read today’s New York Times editorial entited Wall Street Casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
The last paragraph states:
“Making and enforcing new rules is necessary, but that will not be enough. The nation needs a new perspective on the markets, one that acknowledges the self-destructive bent of unfettered capitalism and its ability, unchecked, to wreak havoc far beyond Wall Street.”
The Times is starting to get it.
A new perspective on “the markets” is a good start, one containing these (and no doubt other) components:
capital being rooted much more to communities
people having a fundamental say in basic political AND economic decisions affecting their lives
financial structures accountable to elected officials and the public
recognition that economics, politics, society, and environment cannot and should not be treated as separate compartments to be thought about and acted upon independently from each other
acknowledgment that “the market” is not some invisible, untouchable, superior God-like force but a human-designed system which can be redesigned, refit, reshaped, remolded and recast to fit the needs of people, local communities, and the planet.
This new perspective must, of course, be followed up with new policies and practices reflecting these new perspectives. A new political movement is essential to make it happen — one focused on political and economic democracy.
Is there room in such a system for transnational, undemocratic, top-down business corporations (including financial corporations) which have been bestowed with constitutional rights to govern? The financial corpses through their First Amendment free speech “rights” made political campaign investments (some call them political “contributions” ) and lobbied public officials to gut financial controls and limits. Privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae years ago proved disastrous. The current financial system is unsustainable.
The Times is right. A new perspective is sorely needed. So are new policies and practices. Leading it all, however, must be people united in a political movement independent of political parties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
The last paragraph states:
“Making and enforcing new rules is necessary, but that will not be enough. The nation needs a new perspective on the markets, one that acknowledges the self-destructive bent of unfettered capitalism and its ability, unchecked, to wreak havoc far beyond Wall Street.”
The Times is starting to get it.
A new perspective on “the markets” is a good start, one containing these (and no doubt other) components:
capital being rooted much more to communities
people having a fundamental say in basic political AND economic decisions affecting their lives
financial structures accountable to elected officials and the public
recognition that economics, politics, society, and environment cannot and should not be treated as separate compartments to be thought about and acted upon independently from each other
acknowledgment that “the market” is not some invisible, untouchable, superior God-like force but a human-designed system which can be redesigned, refit, reshaped, remolded and recast to fit the needs of people, local communities, and the planet.
This new perspective must, of course, be followed up with new policies and practices reflecting these new perspectives. A new political movement is essential to make it happen — one focused on political and economic democracy.
Is there room in such a system for transnational, undemocratic, top-down business corporations (including financial corporations) which have been bestowed with constitutional rights to govern? The financial corpses through their First Amendment free speech “rights” made political campaign investments (some call them political “contributions” ) and lobbied public officials to gut financial controls and limits. Privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae years ago proved disastrous. The current financial system is unsustainable.
The Times is right. A new perspective is sorely needed. So are new policies and practices. Leading it all, however, must be people united in a political movement independent of political parties.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Challenging Measure T is an Opportunity
In most cases a challenge to a law promoting and protecting democracy is a challenge to democracy itself. That’s not totally the case with the legal challenge to Measure T, the 2006 citizen initiative enacted by voters in Humboldt County, California prohibiting out-of-county corporate political contributions/investments. The law is unique in the United States — asserting that local communities can protect their communities by enacting laws that run counter to the Supreme Court’s determination that corporations are “people” and possess First Amendment free speech rights.
The legal challenge by the pro-corporate Pacific Legal Foundation does, in one sense, threaten Humboldt County’s right to decide to prohibit out-of-county corporations from engaging in one form of political activity —namely giving money to political candidates and issue campaigns.
In another sense, the legal challenge presents an enormous opportunity. It’s an opportunity to shed light on questions that the corporate crowd would rather keep shrouded in darkness: “Should business corporations be treated under the law as people?” “Should business corporations possess greater power (since they have unlimited money and an unlimited life-span) than individuals in elections at all levels of government?” “Is democracy furthered by permitting business corporations to donate/invest in elections?” “Wasn’t the Bill of Rights meant to protect the weak individual from the government rather than the powerful business corporation from the people?”
Thus, the legal challenge by Pacific Legal Foundation against Measure T is, in a sense, a tremendous grassroots and legal opportunity:
to educate our fellow breathing persons on the innate power business corporations possess thanks to, in large part, Constitutional bestowed rights.
to organize the legal community to defend Measure T and by doing so help them legally challenge what is currently considered legal — just as in the past prohibition against women voting, slavery, and separate but equal were all considered legal.
Stay tuned.
---------------------------------------------------------
News and Announcements from
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
~ National Press Release - Please Forward Widely! ~
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, August 29, 2008
CONTACT: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, (707) 362-0626
Right Wing Legal Firm Takes on Humboldt County, California Over Local Democracy Law
EUREKA, CA - A groundbreaking law forbidding out-of-county controlled corporations from making political contributions in Humboldt County, CA elections was challenged in federal court this week. The Pacific Legal Foundation, an anti-government legal organization, filed suit on behalf of O & M Industries and Mercer Fraser Corporation over a local corporate reform and election integrity law. The Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Fair Elections and Local Democracy was passed by citizens' initiative in June 2006 with 55% of the vote.
Known locally as "Measure T," the initiative was run by a broad coalition of community organizations, individuals and local businesses concerned by the growing influence of corporate power in elections. Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a local grassroots organization, spearheaded the effort by writing the initial legislation and the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights campaigned for the law.
Upon passage, Measure T received national attention because it includes a direct challenge to "corporate personhood," which is the legal doctrine that allows a corporation to claim constitutional rights such as the First Amendment. Corporations have argued that the First Amendment protects their right to give political contributions.
"Money does not equal speech, and corporations should not be allowed to claim First Amendment rights - 'We the People' have an obligation to challenge unjust doctrines," said Democracy Unlimited Director Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap. "Measure T follows in the footsteps of the suffragists, the abolitionists and the Civil Rights activists who fought against segregation by challenging Supreme Court precedents that held unjust laws to be Constitutional."
“The County’s donation restriction runs the First Amendment through a shredder,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Damien Schiff in a press release. “The County’s ordinance is an outrageous assault on these free speech rights, because it targets aclass of employers to be shut out of the political process.”
"Not true," said Sopoci-Belknap, "Measure T specifically protects an individual's right to participate in elections. It ensures that owners of corporations will operate as individuals in the political process, just like every other citizen, rather than gaining undue influence through their corporations."
The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 to support pro-corporate causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies. It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded to support big business and oppose environmental and health protection policies and government regulation.
Measure T opponents repeatedly threatened to sue to overturn the law if it passed. Billionaire financier Robin Arkley Jr., who is one of California Governor Schwarzenegger's largest contributors, sent a memo to the County Board of Supervisors during the campaign warning them of a lawsuit after the measure qualified, and demanding they remove the measure from the ballot. Arkley's late father Robin Arkley, Sr., served on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"We are not surprised by this action, but we are certainly disappointed that the Pacific Legal Foundation has so little regard for the will of the people of Humboldt County," said Sopoci-Belknap. "Communities have the right and duty to protect our democracy. Voters enacted Measure T based on a legitimate concern that corporate influence in elections undermines the integrity of the process. Humboldt County has taken a stand for the rights of people and communities over the so-called 'rights' of corporations, and we ask other communities to stand with us."
For more information: http://DUHC.org
The legal challenge by the pro-corporate Pacific Legal Foundation does, in one sense, threaten Humboldt County’s right to decide to prohibit out-of-county corporations from engaging in one form of political activity —namely giving money to political candidates and issue campaigns.
In another sense, the legal challenge presents an enormous opportunity. It’s an opportunity to shed light on questions that the corporate crowd would rather keep shrouded in darkness: “Should business corporations be treated under the law as people?” “Should business corporations possess greater power (since they have unlimited money and an unlimited life-span) than individuals in elections at all levels of government?” “Is democracy furthered by permitting business corporations to donate/invest in elections?” “Wasn’t the Bill of Rights meant to protect the weak individual from the government rather than the powerful business corporation from the people?”
Thus, the legal challenge by Pacific Legal Foundation against Measure T is, in a sense, a tremendous grassroots and legal opportunity:
to educate our fellow breathing persons on the innate power business corporations possess thanks to, in large part, Constitutional bestowed rights.
to organize the legal community to defend Measure T and by doing so help them legally challenge what is currently considered legal — just as in the past prohibition against women voting, slavery, and separate but equal were all considered legal.
Stay tuned.
---------------------------------------------------------
News and Announcements from
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
~ National Press Release - Please Forward Widely! ~
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, August 29, 2008
CONTACT: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, (707) 362-0626
Right Wing Legal Firm Takes on Humboldt County, California Over Local Democracy Law
EUREKA, CA - A groundbreaking law forbidding out-of-county controlled corporations from making political contributions in Humboldt County, CA elections was challenged in federal court this week. The Pacific Legal Foundation, an anti-government legal organization, filed suit on behalf of O & M Industries and Mercer Fraser Corporation over a local corporate reform and election integrity law. The Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Fair Elections and Local Democracy was passed by citizens' initiative in June 2006 with 55% of the vote.
Known locally as "Measure T," the initiative was run by a broad coalition of community organizations, individuals and local businesses concerned by the growing influence of corporate power in elections. Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a local grassroots organization, spearheaded the effort by writing the initial legislation and the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights campaigned for the law.
Upon passage, Measure T received national attention because it includes a direct challenge to "corporate personhood," which is the legal doctrine that allows a corporation to claim constitutional rights such as the First Amendment. Corporations have argued that the First Amendment protects their right to give political contributions.
"Money does not equal speech, and corporations should not be allowed to claim First Amendment rights - 'We the People' have an obligation to challenge unjust doctrines," said Democracy Unlimited Director Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap. "Measure T follows in the footsteps of the suffragists, the abolitionists and the Civil Rights activists who fought against segregation by challenging Supreme Court precedents that held unjust laws to be Constitutional."
“The County’s donation restriction runs the First Amendment through a shredder,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Damien Schiff in a press release. “The County’s ordinance is an outrageous assault on these free speech rights, because it targets aclass of employers to be shut out of the political process.”
"Not true," said Sopoci-Belknap, "Measure T specifically protects an individual's right to participate in elections. It ensures that owners of corporations will operate as individuals in the political process, just like every other citizen, rather than gaining undue influence through their corporations."
The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 to support pro-corporate causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies. It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded to support big business and oppose environmental and health protection policies and government regulation.
Measure T opponents repeatedly threatened to sue to overturn the law if it passed. Billionaire financier Robin Arkley Jr., who is one of California Governor Schwarzenegger's largest contributors, sent a memo to the County Board of Supervisors during the campaign warning them of a lawsuit after the measure qualified, and demanding they remove the measure from the ballot. Arkley's late father Robin Arkley, Sr., served on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"We are not surprised by this action, but we are certainly disappointed that the Pacific Legal Foundation has so little regard for the will of the people of Humboldt County," said Sopoci-Belknap. "Communities have the right and duty to protect our democracy. Voters enacted Measure T based on a legitimate concern that corporate influence in elections undermines the integrity of the process. Humboldt County has taken a stand for the rights of people and communities over the so-called 'rights' of corporations, and we ask other communities to stand with us."
For more information: http://DUHC.org
Monday, August 25, 2008
Corporatized Conventions
The “historic” Democratic National Convention (DNC) will be just like all recent ones in one critical respect — business corporations will bankroll it. Corporate investments/donations are buying, at the very least, access to candidates and officeholders. It’s the same with the Republicans.
The DNC “Host Committee Partners” on their website http://www.denverconvention2008.com/index.cfm?page=sponsorlist reads like a list of the major US-based corporations.
Campaign Finance Institute issued an in-depth study http://www.cfinst.org/president/conventions/pdf/CFI_Conventions08_Report2_Donors.pdf of 2008 convention investments/donations. It showed that the more than 100 organizational (largely corporate) donors to the host committees of both party conventions have been deeply involved in political influence peddling -- $100 million in political action committee (PAC) contributions/investments and $700 million in lobbying since 2005. These same entities are providing $55 in financing to the DNC and $57 to the upcoming Republican Convention — just to show that they don’t play favorites.
Leading up to the DNC was an aggressive campaign courting corporations to invest in a “Once in a lifetime opportunity” to reach 35,000 visitors at the convention, including “232 Members of Congress, 51 Senators, 28 Governors [and] more than 6,000 delegates and Super delegates” with sponsorship levels ranging from 25 grand to $1 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/click%20here%201%20-%20one%20in%20a%20lifetime%20dnc.pdf
Among the 1200 parties thrown at the DNC will be a very touching one by the AT&T corporation for Democrats who voted to grant the company immunity for illegal wiretapping of Americans http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support
But aren’t there limits to corporate campaign cash? Ah, not really. A loophole in recent campaign finance “reforms” allows literally unlimited contributions/investments http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5185766&page=1
All this adds up to a “golden rule” political system -- (s)he who has the gold rules. If you don’t have money to invest in politics, you’re/we’re left trying to organize massive social movements. Social movements have in the past been effective in winning basic rights for whole classes of people — including, women, slaves, children, and gays/lesbians. Grassroots social movements, however, on whatever issue you care most about would be considerably easier to mobilize if business corporations no longer possessed Constitutional “rights” to be involved in politics. Such “rights” give these entities access, influence and direct power. Conversely, they limit our access to influence, if not create, public policies.
Maybe we need a national convention on self-governance...and not bankrolled by major transnational business corporations.
In the meantime, when DNC goers return home (and RNC goers next week), ask them what their respective party platforms say about corporate constitutional rights. Ask them if corporate constitutional rights is a problem in their eyes. Finally, ask them, if they’re candidates running for congress this year, to fill out and return this survey.
Thank you!
The DNC “Host Committee Partners” on their website http://www.denverconvention2008.com/index.cfm?page=sponsorlist reads like a list of the major US-based corporations.
Campaign Finance Institute issued an in-depth study http://www.cfinst.org/president/conventions/pdf/CFI_Conventions08_Report2_Donors.pdf of 2008 convention investments/donations. It showed that the more than 100 organizational (largely corporate) donors to the host committees of both party conventions have been deeply involved in political influence peddling -- $100 million in political action committee (PAC) contributions/investments and $700 million in lobbying since 2005. These same entities are providing $55 in financing to the DNC and $57 to the upcoming Republican Convention — just to show that they don’t play favorites.
Leading up to the DNC was an aggressive campaign courting corporations to invest in a “Once in a lifetime opportunity” to reach 35,000 visitors at the convention, including “232 Members of Congress, 51 Senators, 28 Governors [and] more than 6,000 delegates and Super delegates” with sponsorship levels ranging from 25 grand to $1 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/click%20here%201%20-%20one%20in%20a%20lifetime%20dnc.pdf
Among the 1200 parties thrown at the DNC will be a very touching one by the AT&T corporation for Democrats who voted to grant the company immunity for illegal wiretapping of Americans http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support
But aren’t there limits to corporate campaign cash? Ah, not really. A loophole in recent campaign finance “reforms” allows literally unlimited contributions/investments http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5185766&page=1
All this adds up to a “golden rule” political system -- (s)he who has the gold rules. If you don’t have money to invest in politics, you’re/we’re left trying to organize massive social movements. Social movements have in the past been effective in winning basic rights for whole classes of people — including, women, slaves, children, and gays/lesbians. Grassroots social movements, however, on whatever issue you care most about would be considerably easier to mobilize if business corporations no longer possessed Constitutional “rights” to be involved in politics. Such “rights” give these entities access, influence and direct power. Conversely, they limit our access to influence, if not create, public policies.
Maybe we need a national convention on self-governance...and not bankrolled by major transnational business corporations.
In the meantime, when DNC goers return home (and RNC goers next week), ask them what their respective party platforms say about corporate constitutional rights. Ask them if corporate constitutional rights is a problem in their eyes. Finally, ask them, if they’re candidates running for congress this year, to fill out and return this survey.
Thank you!
Monday, August 11, 2008
Municipalizing Democracy
Selling or leasing public assets to business corporations (privatization or corporatization) is on the rise at state and municipal levels. The reasons driving this trend:
worsening budget deficits by state and local governments,
imminent need to upgrade long-deteriorated infrastructure; and
increasing pressure by investors who’ve seen huge losses from housing and other risky investments seeking safe and stable returns
Privatizing/corporatizing roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other public assets by national or transnational corporations has many negative consequences:
loss of public jobs,
rising rates,
declining service, and
exporting of income from local communities to shareholders and CEOs of foreign corporations.
Another negative consequence is the loss of control, of self-governance, of democracy. Keeping public utilities public gives citizens power:
the power to inspect the books of public utilities or departments,
the power to hold accountable the director of a public utility or service department,
the power to pressure city officials to control rates, retain jobs, improve service,
the power to directly create laws via citizen initiatives to control rates, retain jobs, improve service.
Attempts to privatize/corporatize public assets is happening in Ohio. The latest example is a proposal by the Mayor of Akron to lease the city sewer system (see reference in article below). Akron’s financial advisor is the investment firm of Morgan Stanley corporation (also referenced in article below) -- which stands to gain millions from the scheme. Morgan Stanley corporation is one of one of several investment firms (including Goldman Sachs) who see privatization/corporatization as a financial safe haven in these economic turbulent times. It’s where money can be made — that is, off the backs of ratepayers and users.
The record of privatization/corporatization of public utilities from a local perspective has been poor. According to Food and Water Watch:
- Atlanta canceled its contract with United Water corporation after 4 years of terrible service,
- Ft. Wayne, IN decided to take over its water and sewer system from a corporation after it hiked its rates 75%,
- Stockton, CA has just won back its water/sewer system after a judge determined privatization would have serious environmental impacts,
- New Orleans dropped its privatization plan after studying the idea for 5 years and spending $5.7 million (by contrast, Akron spent less than 3 months studying the issue with no public hearings),
- In Newark, NJ, the city council voted down privatization,
- Felton, CA has taken back its water system after a corporation took it over and wanted a 74% rate hike,
- Foreign corporations ship profits out of communities to investors and wealthy CEOs.
The above indicates not only the problems of privatization/corporation but how democratic citizen resistance can stop or reverse the trend. Akron citizens have launched an initiative to “let the people decide” and “keep public utilities public” in response to the Mayor’s plan. Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (Citizens SOS), which AFSC helped organize, has gathered sufficient signatures from registered voters to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative which would change the city charter or constitution calls for any sale, lease or transfer of any public utility to be without force until and unless the proposal is approved by Akron voters (the current system allows a transfer with only city council approval). Citizens SOS is also gearing up to oppose a separate ballot measure by the Mayor that specifically calls for privatizing the city sewer system. More information about the initiative and Mayor’s plan is at www.AkronOhio.net.
The citizens of Akron are responding both reactively and proactively to privatization/corporatization:
by organizing against the specific immediate threat to handing over a public asset to a foreign corporation, and
by organizing to change the city charter to prevent any transfer of a public utility without direct public approval.
This is what “municipalizing” democracy is all about!
------------
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9736
Wall Street to privatize US infrastructure
Global Research, August 3, 2008
Reuters
Roads, airports on the block as budgets tighten
Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:37pm EDT
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cash-strapped U.S. state and city governments are
likely to sell or lease more highways, bridges, airports and other assets
to investors desperate for stable returns after being frazzled by the
credit crisis.
The trend is set to pick up speed given worsening budget deficits in state
capitals and city halls nationwide.
It will also be welcomed by Wall Street bankers hoping to help create and
market so-called "infrastructure" transactions at a time many debt markets
remain paralyzed, and after major U.S. stock indexes fell into bear market
territory.
"When you are nervous about everything else, you put your money in a toll
road," said John Schmidt, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP in
Chicago. "That's the logic of infrastructure. Returns are stable and
predictable. You won't get fabulously rich, but you'll get stable cash flow."
The latest enthusiasm for at least partially privatizing infrastructure
assets came on July 30 from New York Gov. David Paterson, who is trying to
plug a budget deficit caused in part by lower tax revenue as Wall Street
retrenches.
"We're just looking at ways to be more efficient and that's why I used the
term public-private partnerships -- trying to find some creative
solutions," Paterson said. "The reason I'm avoiding taxes is because I
think taxes are addictive."
Bankers and others in the industry say there is pent-up demand from
dedicated infrastructure funds and public pension funds to invest in hard
assets -- perhaps $75 billion to $150 billion of equity capital -- but not
enough supply.
"Economic conditions are tough, and are going to be very harsh on the
performance of state budgets in 2008 and 2009," said Greg Carey, co-head of
infrastructure banking at Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz). "States are looking
for long-term solutions in running businesses. A public-private partnership
is a tool in their toolboxes."
A high-water mark came in May, when a group led by Spain's Abertis
Infraestructuras SA (ABE.MC:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and Citigroup Inc
(C.N:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) agreed to pay $12.8
billion to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years. The total could
reach $18.3 billion, including promised improvements. Legislators must
approve the lease.
Other transactions have included the $1.8 billion lease of the Chicago
Skyway toll road bridge in 2005, and a $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana
Toll Road the next year. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is preparing to lease
Midway Airport this year.
For Wall Street, infrastructure can be a bright spot at a time of deep job
cuts and expected declines in bonuses.
"We've seen an unprecedented number of headhunters recruiting for positions
on the buy and sell sides," said Rob Collins, head of Americas
infrastructure banking at Morgan Stanley (MS.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz). "Infrastructure
investing can be counter-cyclical to economic trends."
John Ma, the other Goldman infrastructure chief, added: "We're very
committed to this space. Our business activity has increased dramatically,
even this year."
ALTERNATIVE TO TAX HIKES
According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 U.S.
states plus the District of Columbia may face a combined $48 billion of
budget deficits in fiscal 2009.
But politicians might be loathe to cut spending or raise taxes at a time
mortgage debt, $4-a-gallon gas and rising food prices leave consumers -- of
whom many vote -- dispirited. Tapping public debt markets might also be too
costly.
Meanwhile the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates $1.6 trillion
is needed over five years to raise the often aged U.S. infrastructure to
"good" condition.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in July called for the United States to
establish a capital budget to pay for such repairs. It was a year ago
August 1 that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis plunged into the
Mississippi River, killing 13.
Critics say some infrastructure transactions are short-term budget fixes
that deprive governments of steady cash streams from taxpayer-funded
assets. There is also the risk that private operators won't do their jobs well.
Advocates of privatization say entities might do better managing assets
than a government answering to voters.
Politicians could also get a boost if they can take credit for reinvesting
sale or lease proceeds in needed projects.
"The argument for a public-private partnership is the private sector is a
lot smarter about paying attention to costs, and because it has skin in the
game will be more attentive to maintaining an asset over its life," said
Joseph Giglio, a privatization expert and professor at Northeastern
University's College of Business Administration in Boston.
"Elected officials often shortchange funding of maintenance because they
don't want to increase user fees or taxes to pay for it," Giglio added.
"Their election cycle is four years. They can pass it on to someone else's
watch."
Collins, who also advised Pennsylvania on the turnpike, said infrastructure
can also go beyond roads and airports. He said Morgan Stanley is advising
Akron, Ohio, on exploring the leasing of its wastewater system, and Indiana
on the possibility of private management for its state lottery.
"Lotteries have infrastructure characteristics in that they have stable
cash flows and high barriers to entry," he said. "They could even attract
private equity investment because they are self-financeable and require
minimal capital expenses."
BIG NAMES
At Goldman, Carey and Ma replaced Mark Florian, who is moving to First
Reserve Corp, a private equity firm specializing in energy, a person close
to the matter said.
Goldman itself raised a $6.5 billion infrastructure fund in 2006, and is
reportedly trying to raise a $7.5 billion fund.
Morgan Stanley raised a $4 billion fund in May. Global Infrastructure
Partners, a joint venture between Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.VX:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and General
Electric Co (GE.N:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz), raised a $5.6
billion fund the same month. Private equity firm Carlyle Group CYL.UL last
year raised a $1.15 billion fund.
And Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co KKR.UL, which is preparing to go public,
in May lured George Bilicic from Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz), where he led
power, energy and infrastructure efforts worldwide, to run its own
infrastructure investments.
Two of the largest specialists in the area are Australian: Macquarie Group
Ltd (MQG.AX:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and Babcock & Brown
Ltd (BNB.AX:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz).
Schmidt, the Mayer Brown partner, said if the Midway transaction succeeds,
other airports could also go private, perhaps leading to "lower and more
predictable landing fees and terminal rentals for airlines, which certainly
aren't flush."
That, he said, could bring the value of roads, bridges and airports that
could be privatized to half a trillion dollars.
(Additional reporting by Joan Gralla in New York and Elizabeth Flood Morrow
in Albany, New York, editing by Dave Zimmerman)
worsening budget deficits by state and local governments,
imminent need to upgrade long-deteriorated infrastructure; and
increasing pressure by investors who’ve seen huge losses from housing and other risky investments seeking safe and stable returns
Privatizing/corporatizing roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other public assets by national or transnational corporations has many negative consequences:
loss of public jobs,
rising rates,
declining service, and
exporting of income from local communities to shareholders and CEOs of foreign corporations.
Another negative consequence is the loss of control, of self-governance, of democracy. Keeping public utilities public gives citizens power:
the power to inspect the books of public utilities or departments,
the power to hold accountable the director of a public utility or service department,
the power to pressure city officials to control rates, retain jobs, improve service,
the power to directly create laws via citizen initiatives to control rates, retain jobs, improve service.
Attempts to privatize/corporatize public assets is happening in Ohio. The latest example is a proposal by the Mayor of Akron to lease the city sewer system (see reference in article below). Akron’s financial advisor is the investment firm of Morgan Stanley corporation (also referenced in article below) -- which stands to gain millions from the scheme. Morgan Stanley corporation is one of one of several investment firms (including Goldman Sachs) who see privatization/corporatization as a financial safe haven in these economic turbulent times. It’s where money can be made — that is, off the backs of ratepayers and users.
The record of privatization/corporatization of public utilities from a local perspective has been poor. According to Food and Water Watch:
- Atlanta canceled its contract with United Water corporation after 4 years of terrible service,
- Ft. Wayne, IN decided to take over its water and sewer system from a corporation after it hiked its rates 75%,
- Stockton, CA has just won back its water/sewer system after a judge determined privatization would have serious environmental impacts,
- New Orleans dropped its privatization plan after studying the idea for 5 years and spending $5.7 million (by contrast, Akron spent less than 3 months studying the issue with no public hearings),
- In Newark, NJ, the city council voted down privatization,
- Felton, CA has taken back its water system after a corporation took it over and wanted a 74% rate hike,
- Foreign corporations ship profits out of communities to investors and wealthy CEOs.
The above indicates not only the problems of privatization/corporation but how democratic citizen resistance can stop or reverse the trend. Akron citizens have launched an initiative to “let the people decide” and “keep public utilities public” in response to the Mayor’s plan. Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (Citizens SOS), which AFSC helped organize, has gathered sufficient signatures from registered voters to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative which would change the city charter or constitution calls for any sale, lease or transfer of any public utility to be without force until and unless the proposal is approved by Akron voters (the current system allows a transfer with only city council approval). Citizens SOS is also gearing up to oppose a separate ballot measure by the Mayor that specifically calls for privatizing the city sewer system. More information about the initiative and Mayor’s plan is at www.AkronOhio.net.
The citizens of Akron are responding both reactively and proactively to privatization/corporatization:
by organizing against the specific immediate threat to handing over a public asset to a foreign corporation, and
by organizing to change the city charter to prevent any transfer of a public utility without direct public approval.
This is what “municipalizing” democracy is all about!
------------
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9736
Wall Street to privatize US infrastructure
Reuters
Roads, airports on the block as budgets tighten
Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:37pm EDT
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cash-strapped U.S. state and city governments are
likely to sell or lease more highways, bridges, airports and other assets
to investors desperate for stable returns after being frazzled by the
credit crisis.
The trend is set to pick up speed given worsening budget deficits in state
capitals and city halls nationwide.
It will also be welcomed by Wall Street bankers hoping to help create and
market so-called "infrastructure" transactions at a time many debt markets
remain paralyzed, and after major U.S. stock indexes fell into bear market
territory.
"When you are nervous about everything else, you put your money in a toll
road," said John Schmidt, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP in
Chicago. "That's the logic of infrastructure. Returns are stable and
predictable. You won't get fabulously rich, but you'll get stable cash flow."
The latest enthusiasm for at least partially privatizing infrastructure
assets came on July 30 from New York Gov. David Paterson, who is trying to
plug a budget deficit caused in part by lower tax revenue as Wall Street
retrenches.
"We're just looking at ways to be more efficient and that's why I used the
term public-private partnerships -- trying to find some creative
solutions," Paterson said. "The reason I'm avoiding taxes is because I
think taxes are addictive."
Bankers and others in the industry say there is pent-up demand from
dedicated infrastructure funds and public pension funds to invest in hard
assets -- perhaps $75 billion to $150 billion of equity capital -- but not
enough supply.
"Economic conditions are tough, and are going to be very harsh on the
performance of state budgets in 2008 and 2009," said Greg Carey, co-head of
infrastructure banking at Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N:
for long-term solutions in running businesses. A public-private partnership
is a tool in their toolboxes."
A high-water mark came in May, when a group led by Spain's Abertis
Infraestructuras SA (ABE.MC:
(C.N:
billion to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years. The total could
reach $18.3 billion, including promised improvements. Legislators must
approve the lease.
Other transactions have included the $1.8 billion lease of the Chicago
Skyway toll road bridge in 2005, and a $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana
Toll Road the next year. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is preparing to lease
Midway Airport this year.
For Wall Street, infrastructure can be a bright spot at a time of deep job
cuts and expected declines in bonuses.
"We've seen an unprecedented number of headhunters recruiting for positions
on the buy and sell sides," said Rob Collins, head of Americas
infrastructure banking at Morgan Stanley (MS.N:
investing can be counter-cyclical to economic trends."
John Ma, the other Goldman infrastructure chief, added: "We're very
committed to this space. Our business activity has increased dramatically,
even this year."
ALTERNATIVE TO TAX HIKES
According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 U.S.
states plus the District of Columbia may face a combined $48 billion of
budget deficits in fiscal 2009.
But politicians might be loathe to cut spending or raise taxes at a time
mortgage debt, $4-a-gallon gas and rising food prices leave consumers -- of
whom many vote -- dispirited. Tapping public debt markets might also be too
costly.
Meanwhile the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates $1.6 trillion
is needed over five years to raise the often aged U.S. infrastructure to
"good" condition.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in July called for the United States to
establish a capital budget to pay for such repairs. It was a year ago
August 1 that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis plunged into the
Mississippi River, killing 13.
Critics say some infrastructure transactions are short-term budget fixes
that deprive governments of steady cash streams from taxpayer-funded
assets. There is also the risk that private operators won't do their jobs well.
Advocates of privatization say entities might do better managing assets
than a government answering to voters.
Politicians could also get a boost if they can take credit for reinvesting
sale or lease proceeds in needed projects.
"The argument for a public-private partnership is the private sector is a
lot smarter about paying attention to costs, and because it has skin in the
game will be more attentive to maintaining an asset over its life," said
Joseph Giglio, a privatization expert and professor at Northeastern
University's College of Business Administration in Boston.
"Elected officials often shortchange funding of maintenance because they
don't want to increase user fees or taxes to pay for it," Giglio added.
"Their election cycle is four years. They can pass it on to someone else's
watch."
Collins, who also advised Pennsylvania on the turnpike, said infrastructure
can also go beyond roads and airports. He said Morgan Stanley is advising
Akron, Ohio, on exploring the leasing of its wastewater system, and Indiana
on the possibility of private management for its state lottery.
"Lotteries have infrastructure characteristics in that they have stable
cash flows and high barriers to entry," he said. "They could even attract
private equity investment because they are self-financeable and require
minimal capital expenses."
BIG NAMES
At Goldman, Carey and Ma replaced Mark Florian, who is moving to First
Reserve Corp, a private equity firm specializing in energy, a person close
to the matter said.
Goldman itself raised a $6.5 billion infrastructure fund in 2006, and is
reportedly trying to raise a $7.5 billion fund.
Morgan Stanley raised a $4 billion fund in May. Global Infrastructure
Partners, a joint venture between Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.VX:
Electric Co (GE.N:
billion fund the same month. Private equity firm Carlyle Group CYL.UL last
year raised a $1.15 billion fund.
And Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co KKR.UL, which is preparing to go public,
in May lured George Bilicic from Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N:
power, energy and infrastructure efforts worldwide, to run its own
infrastructure investments.
Two of the largest specialists in the area are Australian: Macquarie Group
Ltd (MQG.AX:
Ltd (BNB.AX:
Schmidt, the Mayer Brown partner, said if the Midway transaction succeeds,
other airports could also go private, perhaps leading to "lower and more
predictable landing fees and terminal rentals for airlines, which certainly
aren't flush."
That, he said, could bring the value of roads, bridges and airports that
could be privatized to half a trillion dollars.
(Additional reporting by Joan Gralla in New York and Elizabeth Flood Morrow
in Albany, New York, editing by Dave Zimmerman)
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
The Spirit of Change
Barack Obama was awakened during the night following his latest Democratic Party Presidential debate. Two ghosts stood before him. "We are the spirits of Samuel Adams and William Lamb."
"Who?" Obama asked in a daze, unsure if he was hallucinating from lack of sleep.
"We’re the ghosts of real change."
"I am the spirit of Samuel Adams, a revolutionary for American liberty and promoter of the Declaration of Independence."
"And I am the spirit of William Lamb, a founder of the U.S. Populist movement in the 1880s-1890s, supporter of the Omaha Platform, and organizer of the People’s Party."
Obama was puzzled. "You’re both dressed funny, but more to the point, why are you here?"
"We’ve come to talk. You, Clinton, even McCain, speak constantly about ‘change.’ We’ve watched your debates, read news on your light screens, and…"
"Light screens? Do you mean televisions and computers?"
"Ah yes, that’s what you call them. Anyway, all you candidates talk about is who will bring change to this country: real change, fundamental change, policy change to address unmet needs and give citizens more power."
"Sounds especially like me," Obama said assuredly.
"We’re not so sure," said the ghosts in unison. "We believe political change in our times was more profound than anything being proposed now."
And so Sam, Lamb and "Bam," advocates from three turbulent periods in U.S. history, huddled to discuss political change.
*************************
SAM: I agitated for the greatest change in the history of our nation, political independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence, passed on July 4, 1776, presented a lengthy list of "repeated injuries and usurpations" by the British government and asserted that the 13 colonies were "Free and Independent States."
LAMB: Weren’t you a signer?
SAM: Yes, one of 56 signers of the Second Continental Congress, a revolutionary, illegal body.
BAM: Did the British consider you and your ilk "terrorists"?
SAM: A renegade if not worse, in part for supporting the Declaration. I said in 1776, "Is not America already independent? …Why not then declare it."1 The power and inspiration of the Declaration were these unequivocal assertions: "All Men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from Consent of the Governed… [and] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government… [in fact] it is their Duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
The essence of the document, revolutionary then and now, was the conviction that people can and should be governing–not kings, popes or generals.
British rule could not be "reformed." The King’s army and crown corporations could not be made accountable to the public. They all had to be replaced, so I worked for revolutionary change, for a system of self-rule.
LAMB: The Declaration was an inspiration to us Populists. But be honest, Sam, sixty-nine percent of the Declaration’s signers held colonial office under England. Many who supported both it and the revolution were colonial lawyers, landowners and merchants, including you, who only wanted independence from Great Britain to impose their own brand of political and economic control. Following the revolution, did you not say, "In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"?2
SAM: I did?
LAMB: Yup.
SAM: Still, I opposed the British Stamp Act, helped organize the Boston Tea Party and the Committees of Correspondence, colonists who organized into small groups to share information and mobilize the public.
LAMB: You were a great communicator, organizer and agitator Sam, but it was selective. Your instigation of mob protests was directed only at British rule and wealth, not the consolidation of power by colonial elites. This omission carried over to the Declaration, which ignored inequalities of property, and I ask, "How could people have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?"3 The Declaration was a form of manipulation to focus anger and attention only on British rule.
BAM: While the Declaration is as inspirational as many of my speeches, there are several glaring omissions, notably independence for black slaves, women and native people. The draft of the Declaration included a grievance against the King for transporting slaves but was removed before adoption. Native people were called "the merciless Indian Savages..." and there was no room for women in "All men are created equal."
LAMB: Change during your period, Sam, was not as dramatic as during my lifetime. I helped organize the largest and most elaborate democratic mass movement in US history: Populism. It was a mass democratic insurgency among "plain people"–farmers and urban workers–to respond to the impoverishment of millions of farmers and workers by banks, railroads, and the consequences of economic and political centralization.
BAM: I haven’t heard much about the Populists.
LAMB: Most people of your day haven’t. We’ve been largely erased from history books. 0nly our "spirits" remain.
The Populists sought to create a democratic movement to counter the hierarchical culture of the day. It was "a new way of looking at society, a way of thought representing a shaking off of individual forms of deference… individual self-respect and collective self-confidence… class consciousness… growing political sensibility… the mass expression of a new political vision."4
BAM: Now I see why there’s not much known in our culture about you people.
LAMB: The creation of this democratic movement for revolutionary change was achieved in sequential steps: forming organizations, recruitment, education, and political action. State farmers Alliances were the original organizing base. I organized over 100 sub-alliances in Texas alone and eventually the National Farmers Alliance. We recruited through large-scale Populist-sponsored farmers cooperatives and I was the Texas Alliance’s first purchasing and traveling agent. Hundreds of newsletters and 40,000 "lecturers" were disseminated throughout Texas. We educated members continually, our version of the Committees of Correspondence, Sam. Collective political action bridging farmers and laborers was achieved through the Populist Party, which I helped launch.
SAM: This still doesn’t sound very revolutionary, pal. You weren’t talking about overthrowing the government.
BAM: Promoting major change through a political party is my goal, too.
LAMB: It was revolutionary, Sam, and there is a difference, Bam, between Populist goals and yours.
Populists constantly talked about "the coming revolution" through ballots not bullets. Revolution meant creating a "third party of the industrial millions" and overthrowing the two party system. We saw many elections as rigged and the electoral college as undemocratic. We tried to bring the corporate state under popular control through democratic politics.5
As fellow Populist Tom Watson said, "It’s useless to ask Congress to help us, just as it was folly for our forefathers to ask for relief from the tea tax; they revolted and so should we."6
The unifying platform for Populist revolution, the "Second Declaration of Independence," was the Omaha Platform. The 4000 delegates to the first People’s Party Convention in Omaha, Nebraska, adopted it on July 4, 1892–116 years after the first Declaration.7
SAM: Where’s Nebraska?
LAMB: Later Sam. The Omaha Platform, like the Declaration, spoke to the grievances and demands for major change within the context of its time.
BAM: What did it say? Perhaps I should include elements of it in the Democratic Party platform if I’m the Presidential candidate.
LAMB: The Omaha Platform’s Preamble states:
"The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists."8
BAM: Sounds like something Dennis Kucinich would say!
LAMB: The Omaha Platform was a culmination of ideas and strategies from farmers and workers over a six-year period. Like the Declaration, it listed both grievances and fundamental prescriptions.
The platform called for abolishing the national banking system giving private banks control over money and credit; public ownership or control of the railroads, telegraph and telephone in the interests of the people; a federal graduated income tax; prohibition of alien land ownership; direct election of US Senators; the citizen initiative, referendum and recall; the secret ballot; and maybe most creatively, adoption of a "sub-treasury" system to expand currency based not on gold or silver but on agricultural products.
SAM: Still, many of these changes were "reformist." What’s so radical about direct election of Senators if the Senate is part of a political system favoring a small number of elites?
LAMB: Some of our planks were less radical than others. The Progressives, those who followed the Populists, pushed for the more modest measures. Some eventually became law. Other proposals were more substantial, such as public control of banks, railroads and telephones. The goal of its financial sections, the key portions of the Platform, were radical: to transfer control of the monetary system from the nation’s corporate banks and return it "in the name of the whole people," to the U.S. Treasury.9
All our demands, however, sought to shift the balance of power, economic and political, toward "plain people." These changes were as revolutionary in our time as forcing the British out of the colonies in yours.
Changes advocated by the Populists, however, transcended its political platform and cooperative buying and selling programs. The crux of Populism was creating a democratic culture. Populists attempted to build a cooperative community or commonwealth within the framework of American capitalism, one that put people at the center of the political and economic decisions affecting their lives. It became a movement culture that was understood, accepted and lived by millions of citizens.10
Progressives didn’t go that far. After the Populists were defeated in 1896, those who sought change accepted the corporate state and tried merely to temper its worst abuses through the creation of "regulatory" laws and agencies. This is the political and economic model you, Bam, and others working for "change" are stuck with today.
SAM: The Populists failed in the end. It was hardly revolutionary if it didn’t yield much change.
LAMB: True, we didn’t win. Elements of the Omaha Platform are now law, but there is no cooperative, democratic culture. Isn’t the same true of the Declaration and those who worked for true self-governance in 1776? Its essence of a government operating with the "consent of the governed" has not been realized. Today, those claiming that We the People have not only a right but a duty to revolt if unalienable rights are not secured would be called "extremists," even "terrorists" and treated accordingly.
BAM: A fundamental shortcoming of the Populists was their excluding blacks. Populist structures and members were often racist. In fact, many who call themselves "Populists" in recent times hold racist beliefs.
LAMB: That’s a sad truth. The radical dream of early Alliance founders in Texas was to create an interracial farmer-labor coalition. Alliance lecturers organized many black Alliances which led to the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance. Nevertheless, internal and external racism impeded social unity, economic cooperation, and electoral victory.
*************************
BAM: The change I speak of today is tied to offering real hope. I believe we can make government better, more responsive to people. We can control special interests and restore faith and trust in public officials. Hillary Clinton believes much the same. Even McCain supported campaign finance reform.
I believe we can make health care universal, increase labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA and other trade agreements, temporarily suspend home foreclosures, begin immediately to bring some troops home from Iraq, and strengthen ethics in government. This is a small part of my progressive change agenda that I can create with the support of voters. Clinton supports many of the same programs.
Other former Democratic Party candidates were even more radical. John Edwards spoke out against corporate power. Dennis Kucinich promoted a single-payer health care system, eliminating the role of insurance corporations all together, and called for undoing NAFTA.
My vision of change will be fueled if economic conditions worsen for Americans.
LAMB: Nothing you or any other Presidential candidate suggests will reduce corporate constitutional rights and powers or promote people’s self-governance.
With due respect, Bam, deep change was never brought about by those in positions of power. It occurs when people act together in insurgent movements. And insurgent movements are not a function of hard times, but of insurgent cultures. Difficult times crush people. Insurgent cultures provide real hope and make possible those processes of organizing, recruiting, educating and politicizing that create and sustain change.11
BAM: How can you say this? My messages of change and hope are drawing record numbers to my campaign. People are inspired, energized, empowered.
LAMB: True. But don’t mistake attraction to your campaign with behaviors necessary for a healthy democracy. As Populism declined, little stood in the way of growing political and economic concentration. Democratic aspirations were replaced by mass resignation and plenty of escape into consumerism, entertainment and drugs.
You and your message fill a void only because people of your time do not know and have never experienced an authentic insurgency movement for self-governance. Not just to end a war, expand civil rights or create environmental protections, but a movement affirming individual and collective self-confidence in seeking real political and economic democracy.
SAM: Bam, missing in your and other presidential candidates’ analysis is the larger issue of how the power and authority of "We the People," as promoted in the Declaration and Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, has been usurped.
LAMB: By the wealthy class and business corporations, I might add. We need changed rules not only changed faces.
SAM: That’s what I thought the Declaration tried to do in 1776.
LAMB: And the Omaha Platform 116 years later, in 1892.
BAM: Do you two realize that 116 years after 1892 is this year, 2008?
LAMB: Rather than working for the adoption of a single national declaration or platform at this time, The Program on Corporation, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) urges decentralized, participatory gatherings to study the Declaration of Independence and Omaha Platform, along with democracy campaigns and cooperative programs from current grassroots organizations. They’ve collected it all in a Democracy Insurgency Movement packet. This will add another seed to those already sown across the country, one that may lead to a "Third Declaration of Independence" and genuine governance by "consent of the governed."
BAM: It sounds like a dream, like my experience tonight.
LAMB: A dream? It all depends on the people and their determination to create real change.
*************************
Greg Coleridge is a POCLAD principal and works for the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee.
To order a Democracy Insurgency Movement packet, contact POCLAD at people@poclad.org or call 508-398-1145.
Endnotes:
1. Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, History of the United States, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949, p. 140.
2. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980, p. 94.
3. Zinn, p. 73.
4. Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 33.
5. Ibid, p. 124.
6. Ibid, p. 88.
7. Ibid, p. 277.
8. The Omaha Platform.
9. Goodwyn, op. cit., p. 93.
10. Ibid., p. 164-5.
11. Ibid., p. 61.
From By What Authority, a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD) Vol. 10, No. 1 Spring, 2008 www.poclad.org
http://www.poclad.org/bwa/Spring08.htm
"Who?" Obama asked in a daze, unsure if he was hallucinating from lack of sleep.
"We’re the ghosts of real change."
"I am the spirit of Samuel Adams, a revolutionary for American liberty and promoter of the Declaration of Independence."
"And I am the spirit of William Lamb, a founder of the U.S. Populist movement in the 1880s-1890s, supporter of the Omaha Platform, and organizer of the People’s Party."
Obama was puzzled. "You’re both dressed funny, but more to the point, why are you here?"
"We’ve come to talk. You, Clinton, even McCain, speak constantly about ‘change.’ We’ve watched your debates, read news on your light screens, and…"
"Light screens? Do you mean televisions and computers?"
"Ah yes, that’s what you call them. Anyway, all you candidates talk about is who will bring change to this country: real change, fundamental change, policy change to address unmet needs and give citizens more power."
"Sounds especially like me," Obama said assuredly.
"We’re not so sure," said the ghosts in unison. "We believe political change in our times was more profound than anything being proposed now."
And so Sam, Lamb and "Bam," advocates from three turbulent periods in U.S. history, huddled to discuss political change.
*************************
SAM: I agitated for the greatest change in the history of our nation, political independence from Great Britain. The Declaration of Independence, passed on July 4, 1776, presented a lengthy list of "repeated injuries and usurpations" by the British government and asserted that the 13 colonies were "Free and Independent States."
LAMB: Weren’t you a signer?
SAM: Yes, one of 56 signers of the Second Continental Congress, a revolutionary, illegal body.
BAM: Did the British consider you and your ilk "terrorists"?
SAM: A renegade if not worse, in part for supporting the Declaration. I said in 1776, "Is not America already independent? …Why not then declare it."1 The power and inspiration of the Declaration were these unequivocal assertions: "All Men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights… That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from Consent of the Governed… [and] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government… [in fact] it is their Duty to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."
The essence of the document, revolutionary then and now, was the conviction that people can and should be governing–not kings, popes or generals.
British rule could not be "reformed." The King’s army and crown corporations could not be made accountable to the public. They all had to be replaced, so I worked for revolutionary change, for a system of self-rule.
LAMB: The Declaration was an inspiration to us Populists. But be honest, Sam, sixty-nine percent of the Declaration’s signers held colonial office under England. Many who supported both it and the revolution were colonial lawyers, landowners and merchants, including you, who only wanted independence from Great Britain to impose their own brand of political and economic control. Following the revolution, did you not say, "In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"?2
SAM: I did?
LAMB: Yup.
SAM: Still, I opposed the British Stamp Act, helped organize the Boston Tea Party and the Committees of Correspondence, colonists who organized into small groups to share information and mobilize the public.
LAMB: You were a great communicator, organizer and agitator Sam, but it was selective. Your instigation of mob protests was directed only at British rule and wealth, not the consolidation of power by colonial elites. This omission carried over to the Declaration, which ignored inequalities of property, and I ask, "How could people have equal rights, with stark differences in wealth?"3 The Declaration was a form of manipulation to focus anger and attention only on British rule.
BAM: While the Declaration is as inspirational as many of my speeches, there are several glaring omissions, notably independence for black slaves, women and native people. The draft of the Declaration included a grievance against the King for transporting slaves but was removed before adoption. Native people were called "the merciless Indian Savages..." and there was no room for women in "All men are created equal."
LAMB: Change during your period, Sam, was not as dramatic as during my lifetime. I helped organize the largest and most elaborate democratic mass movement in US history: Populism. It was a mass democratic insurgency among "plain people"–farmers and urban workers–to respond to the impoverishment of millions of farmers and workers by banks, railroads, and the consequences of economic and political centralization.
BAM: I haven’t heard much about the Populists.
LAMB: Most people of your day haven’t. We’ve been largely erased from history books. 0nly our "spirits" remain.
The Populists sought to create a democratic movement to counter the hierarchical culture of the day. It was "a new way of looking at society, a way of thought representing a shaking off of individual forms of deference… individual self-respect and collective self-confidence… class consciousness… growing political sensibility… the mass expression of a new political vision."4
BAM: Now I see why there’s not much known in our culture about you people.
LAMB: The creation of this democratic movement for revolutionary change was achieved in sequential steps: forming organizations, recruitment, education, and political action. State farmers Alliances were the original organizing base. I organized over 100 sub-alliances in Texas alone and eventually the National Farmers Alliance. We recruited through large-scale Populist-sponsored farmers cooperatives and I was the Texas Alliance’s first purchasing and traveling agent. Hundreds of newsletters and 40,000 "lecturers" were disseminated throughout Texas. We educated members continually, our version of the Committees of Correspondence, Sam. Collective political action bridging farmers and laborers was achieved through the Populist Party, which I helped launch.
SAM: This still doesn’t sound very revolutionary, pal. You weren’t talking about overthrowing the government.
BAM: Promoting major change through a political party is my goal, too.
LAMB: It was revolutionary, Sam, and there is a difference, Bam, between Populist goals and yours.
Populists constantly talked about "the coming revolution" through ballots not bullets. Revolution meant creating a "third party of the industrial millions" and overthrowing the two party system. We saw many elections as rigged and the electoral college as undemocratic. We tried to bring the corporate state under popular control through democratic politics.5
As fellow Populist Tom Watson said, "It’s useless to ask Congress to help us, just as it was folly for our forefathers to ask for relief from the tea tax; they revolted and so should we."6
The unifying platform for Populist revolution, the "Second Declaration of Independence," was the Omaha Platform. The 4000 delegates to the first People’s Party Convention in Omaha, Nebraska, adopted it on July 4, 1892–116 years after the first Declaration.7
SAM: Where’s Nebraska?
LAMB: Later Sam. The Omaha Platform, like the Declaration, spoke to the grievances and demands for major change within the context of its time.
BAM: What did it say? Perhaps I should include elements of it in the Democratic Party platform if I’m the Presidential candidate.
LAMB: The Omaha Platform’s Preamble states:
"The conditions which surround us best justify our cooperation; we meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political, and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot box, the Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized; most of the States have been compelled to isolate the voters at the polling places to prevent universal intimidation and bribery. The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced, business prostrated, homes covered with mortgages, labor impoverished, and the land concentrating in the hands of capitalists."8
BAM: Sounds like something Dennis Kucinich would say!
LAMB: The Omaha Platform was a culmination of ideas and strategies from farmers and workers over a six-year period. Like the Declaration, it listed both grievances and fundamental prescriptions.
The platform called for abolishing the national banking system giving private banks control over money and credit; public ownership or control of the railroads, telegraph and telephone in the interests of the people; a federal graduated income tax; prohibition of alien land ownership; direct election of US Senators; the citizen initiative, referendum and recall; the secret ballot; and maybe most creatively, adoption of a "sub-treasury" system to expand currency based not on gold or silver but on agricultural products.
SAM: Still, many of these changes were "reformist." What’s so radical about direct election of Senators if the Senate is part of a political system favoring a small number of elites?
LAMB: Some of our planks were less radical than others. The Progressives, those who followed the Populists, pushed for the more modest measures. Some eventually became law. Other proposals were more substantial, such as public control of banks, railroads and telephones. The goal of its financial sections, the key portions of the Platform, were radical: to transfer control of the monetary system from the nation’s corporate banks and return it "in the name of the whole people," to the U.S. Treasury.9
All our demands, however, sought to shift the balance of power, economic and political, toward "plain people." These changes were as revolutionary in our time as forcing the British out of the colonies in yours.
Changes advocated by the Populists, however, transcended its political platform and cooperative buying and selling programs. The crux of Populism was creating a democratic culture. Populists attempted to build a cooperative community or commonwealth within the framework of American capitalism, one that put people at the center of the political and economic decisions affecting their lives. It became a movement culture that was understood, accepted and lived by millions of citizens.10
Progressives didn’t go that far. After the Populists were defeated in 1896, those who sought change accepted the corporate state and tried merely to temper its worst abuses through the creation of "regulatory" laws and agencies. This is the political and economic model you, Bam, and others working for "change" are stuck with today.
SAM: The Populists failed in the end. It was hardly revolutionary if it didn’t yield much change.
LAMB: True, we didn’t win. Elements of the Omaha Platform are now law, but there is no cooperative, democratic culture. Isn’t the same true of the Declaration and those who worked for true self-governance in 1776? Its essence of a government operating with the "consent of the governed" has not been realized. Today, those claiming that We the People have not only a right but a duty to revolt if unalienable rights are not secured would be called "extremists," even "terrorists" and treated accordingly.
BAM: A fundamental shortcoming of the Populists was their excluding blacks. Populist structures and members were often racist. In fact, many who call themselves "Populists" in recent times hold racist beliefs.
LAMB: That’s a sad truth. The radical dream of early Alliance founders in Texas was to create an interracial farmer-labor coalition. Alliance lecturers organized many black Alliances which led to the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance. Nevertheless, internal and external racism impeded social unity, economic cooperation, and electoral victory.
*************************
BAM: The change I speak of today is tied to offering real hope. I believe we can make government better, more responsive to people. We can control special interests and restore faith and trust in public officials. Hillary Clinton believes much the same. Even McCain supported campaign finance reform.
I believe we can make health care universal, increase labor and environmental provisions of NAFTA and other trade agreements, temporarily suspend home foreclosures, begin immediately to bring some troops home from Iraq, and strengthen ethics in government. This is a small part of my progressive change agenda that I can create with the support of voters. Clinton supports many of the same programs.
Other former Democratic Party candidates were even more radical. John Edwards spoke out against corporate power. Dennis Kucinich promoted a single-payer health care system, eliminating the role of insurance corporations all together, and called for undoing NAFTA.
My vision of change will be fueled if economic conditions worsen for Americans.
LAMB: Nothing you or any other Presidential candidate suggests will reduce corporate constitutional rights and powers or promote people’s self-governance.
With due respect, Bam, deep change was never brought about by those in positions of power. It occurs when people act together in insurgent movements. And insurgent movements are not a function of hard times, but of insurgent cultures. Difficult times crush people. Insurgent cultures provide real hope and make possible those processes of organizing, recruiting, educating and politicizing that create and sustain change.11
BAM: How can you say this? My messages of change and hope are drawing record numbers to my campaign. People are inspired, energized, empowered.
LAMB: True. But don’t mistake attraction to your campaign with behaviors necessary for a healthy democracy. As Populism declined, little stood in the way of growing political and economic concentration. Democratic aspirations were replaced by mass resignation and plenty of escape into consumerism, entertainment and drugs.
You and your message fill a void only because people of your time do not know and have never experienced an authentic insurgency movement for self-governance. Not just to end a war, expand civil rights or create environmental protections, but a movement affirming individual and collective self-confidence in seeking real political and economic democracy.
SAM: Bam, missing in your and other presidential candidates’ analysis is the larger issue of how the power and authority of "We the People," as promoted in the Declaration and Preamble of the U.S. Constitution, has been usurped.
LAMB: By the wealthy class and business corporations, I might add. We need changed rules not only changed faces.
SAM: That’s what I thought the Declaration tried to do in 1776.
LAMB: And the Omaha Platform 116 years later, in 1892.
BAM: Do you two realize that 116 years after 1892 is this year, 2008?
LAMB: Rather than working for the adoption of a single national declaration or platform at this time, The Program on Corporation, Law and Democracy (POCLAD) urges decentralized, participatory gatherings to study the Declaration of Independence and Omaha Platform, along with democracy campaigns and cooperative programs from current grassroots organizations. They’ve collected it all in a Democracy Insurgency Movement packet. This will add another seed to those already sown across the country, one that may lead to a "Third Declaration of Independence" and genuine governance by "consent of the governed."
BAM: It sounds like a dream, like my experience tonight.
LAMB: A dream? It all depends on the people and their determination to create real change.
*************************
Greg Coleridge is a POCLAD principal and works for the Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee.
To order a Democracy Insurgency Movement packet, contact POCLAD at people@poclad.org or call 508-398-1145.
Endnotes:
1. Charles A. Beard and Mary R. Beard, History of the United States, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949, p. 140.
2. Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1980, p. 94.
3. Zinn, p. 73.
4. Lawrence Goodwyn, The Populist Moment, A Short History of the Agrarian Revolt in America, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 33.
5. Ibid, p. 124.
6. Ibid, p. 88.
7. Ibid, p. 277.
8. The Omaha Platform.
9. Goodwyn, op. cit., p. 93.
10. Ibid., p. 164-5.
11. Ibid., p. 61.
From By What Authority, a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD) Vol. 10, No. 1 Spring, 2008 www.poclad.org
http://www.poclad.org/bwa/Spring08.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
