Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1 Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.
The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.
We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.
On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels) Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.
So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.
Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth.
What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”.
From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .
An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money.
My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.
http://democracyisforpeople.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges
http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
Yep. Josef Goebbels and his disciple Lee Atwater knew that all too well. Their disciples like Frank Luntz and Karl Rove are perpetuating the technique with the able help of the trolls and bots who post on blogs.
Herr Goebbels explains:
Then he goes on to say,
And now? The siren call of BBQ ribs calls my name . . .
OS,
Yep. But the perpetuation of lies by fascists can only take foothold when not challenged. The secret of the Big Lie not only rests in repetition, but unchallenged repetition.
And remember:
Corporations don’t have rights. They aren’t real people. They are constructs of the state (a charter) and they have permissions granted by the state. A creature of fiction where power grants rights. Contrast this to natural people who have rights in the state of nature. With real people in a democracy, rights confer power, not the other way around.
Now answer the question.
If you can.
Gene, do you reckon we could all chip in and buy him a dictionary. And a copy of Black’s while we are at it.
Nah. never mind. Reading a dictionary, especially a law dictionary, requires more than just word recognition, but comprehension and synthesis skills as well. I know when a task is hopeless.
os, ah yes another cleverless nothing from the peanut gallery.
oh i must mention about Gene, he could not find anywhere I actually said what he claimed so now he decided it was implied.
I’ll accept that as proof, Gene, you are a liar, liar, and liar when you called me a fascist, which makes you a pig, pig, pig. Oink Oink
How is allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending going to eliminate corruption?
Answer the question.
Gene, come up for air, get those rabi shots before you get lock jaw.
You seem to think Corporations have no rights. You use the term “state of natural”. (if that is meant as a reference to the DI it clearly mistaken in this context)
You also make a point of focusing on corporations but you never want to talk about other forms of human associations such as unions, religious groups, clubs, etc.)
First you are fundementally mistaken to say that a legal entitiy be it corporations, unions or an other entity does have rights. It has the right to be sued civily and criminally, appear in court; to borrow money, to loose its “charter”. Nothing in the first amendment bars legal associations from petition, from claiming the rights under a free press.
government itself by your reasoning is not a “state of nature”, which also false. as previousely mentioned people, creatures of every kind form associations of various kinds that are often critical to their survivial.
Rather then trying to fix the problem of undue influence of money in politics – whether by corporations, unions, or any gorup, not to mention that of wealthy individuals (as in now only the wealthy can afford to run for office) you want to attack the symptom rather then the root cause.
And you are angry because somebody tells you what you think is not what the problem really is; what you think the constitituion actually says is not what it actually says; and your idea for fixing the problem won’t actually fix the problem and make everything else worse in the process.
But you keep screaming – i understand that might delay the full onset of lock jaw.
Save your facile Constitutional analysis for someone dumber than you, slick. Corporations have no rights under the state of nature as Bob already adequately and completely pointed out. The Constitution doesn’t say that fictional characters from novels have rights either, but they don’t. They aren’t real. Just so, the limited personality (and “limited” is the key word to the construct created by the legal fiction) of corporations don’t have rights either.
Now.
Answer.
The.
Question.
“You said: “They can write a letter to… ” It costs money to write a letter…”
Not $100,000.
“Now I dare you to find one place where I said anything that even resembles that statement or suggests it in anyway.”
Okay. Your avoidance of the simple question posited above and your support of Citizens United endorses a situation where the priorities of government should be determined by corporate councils; an oligarchy of profit driven private interests. He who has the most money to give a campaign gets the most say. All the “free speech” money can buy. That is what Buckley and Citizens United represent.
AGAIN:
If Mr. X wrote a letter to Representative Y saying, “I want a law that favors me personally and/or financially and here’s $100,000 to help you think about what I’ve said”, Mr. X would arrested for bribery and Rep. Y would be if he took the money and delivered the favor.
If CEO X wrote a letter to Representative Y saying, “I want a law that favors me and/or my corporation personally and/or financially and here’s $100,000 to help you think about what I’ve said”, then by your reasoning, that isn’t a bribe but rather it’s corporate free speech.
Calling money fallaciously free speech is simply a circumvention of criminal law because it allows bribery under the guise of free speech.
AGAIN THE QUESTION:
How is allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending going to eliminate corruption?
You’ll never answer that question because you can’t without terminally tipping your hand.
Sorry, but you are simply a fascist.
**AGAIN: How is allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending going to eliminate corruption? The issue here is corruption, not that corporations have rights because as legal fictions they don’t have any rights under the state of nature.
And make it snappy, Fascist.
I’ve got a lunch date.
“Gene, I’m sorry, if you don’t understand how money is a form of speech then we really are not even living in the same dimension”
Sorry, but because you’re trying to sell two lies instead of one doesn’t make you right. It simply makes you a doubly dastardly liar. I understand perfectly what both free speech is and what money is and they are not the same thing.
AGAIN: How allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending is going to eliminate corruption? The issue here is corruption, not that corporations have rights because as legal fictions they don’t any rights under the state of nature.
Answer the question.
Gene, you are getting more and more incoherent;
First, what the First Amendment actually says.
“make no laws… abridging the freedom of speech”… it DOES NOT SAY ONLY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS HAVE THAT RIGHT. What if groups of individuals want to petition or get a particular point of view across not just to their government but to other citizens? is that no allowed by you? Is paying for advertisements not allowed?
Now pay attention closely here, I know its tough to grasp, but I did not say allowing unlimited contributions (by corporations, unions, or any other group) toward expressing their poltical speech would eliminate corruption. Rather I have said your desire to control what constitutes political speech and how and who can spend money on political speech would not end corruption in politics and government. In fact such efforst would only make matters worse and undermine our broader rights.
WHAT I HAVE ADVOCATED is thinking in new ways about eliminating the effect of money in politics that does so in a way that protects everyones rights.
The difference is you want to burn down the house to solve the roach problem but even after you burn it down the roachs will still be there. I say there is a better and more effective way of getting rid of the roachs (undue influence of money) that doesn’t involve burning down the house to do it.
I realize that is too complicated for you but that is as simple as I can make.
Let’s put it this way:
If Mr. X wrote a letter to Representative Y saying, “I want a law that favors me personally and/or financially and here’s $100,000 to help you think about what I’ve said”, Mr. X would arrested for bribery and Rep. Y would be if he took the money and delivered the favor.
If CEO X wrote a letter to Representative Y saying, “I want a law that favors me and/or my corporation personally and/or financially and here’s $100,000 to help you think about what I’ve said”, then by your reasoning, that isn’t a bribe but rather it’s corporate free speech.
Calling money fallaciously free speech is simply a circumvention of criminal law because it allows bribery under the guise of free speech.
Gene: using your example, what if Mr. X wanted to spend a 100,000 dollars on an advertisement promoting a project he thinks is important or a politicains or legislation that benefits that project?
Who gets to say whether that project or advertisment directly benefits Mr. X or may also benefit others that also like the project.
Come on man, don’t you get the slope you are on here. Don’t you get that there are countless ways Mr. X can spend money to inlfuence the outcome to his benefit? doesn’t have the right to influence the outcome?
don’t you think it might be more effective to spend money educating people on how to make sense of what people say then trying to spend money controlling what people say and who can say it.
Corporations should have the same right to petition as individuals and they always have. They can write a letter to their respective representatives and no money should ever change hands. No ads should be purchased. No mailings should be done. They shouldn’t be allowed to spend a dime on it. The Right to Petition? Is not tied to your ability to spend money. That’s the lie created by Buckley falsely equating money and free speech and bolstered by Citizens United unrealistic and politically motivated expansion of corporate personality far beyond its practical scope.
Now answer the question: Tell us all how allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending is going to eliminate corruption.
The issue here is corruption, not that corporations have rights because as legal fictions they don’t any rights under the state of nature.
Actually, it’s okay to admit what we are really after is democracy – as we’ve consistently stated.
It’s okay to admit that you’re a fascist too. After all, it’s readily apparent that’s what you are, 1zb1.
Now, let’s get back to the issue of corruption: Money changes hands and favors are granted. There is only one way to remove corruption from the political and legal process – remove the money.
Apparently that thought is too complex for your apologist brain to process.
But you’ve got all the answers, Mr. Corporations Have Rights.
Tell us all how allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending is going to eliminate corruption.
I’d like a good laugh before I go to lunch.
Gene, in case i did not cover this ( i wouldn’t want you to take my inadvertense as proof of a negative in your twisted mind)
YOU SAIDl: Tell us all how allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending is going to eliminate corruption. I’d like a good laugh before I go to lunch.
I did not say allowing unlimted corporate campaign spending would eliminate corruption. I said TRYING TO REGULATE IT WOULD NOT ELIMINATE CORRUPTION, MAY MAKE IT WORSE, AND PROBABLY HAVE UNINTENDED OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.
To be clear: a corporation should be free to express their concerns, but they should not be allowed to inject money into that process. That’s where the corruption rubber meets the road.
There is only one way to remove corruption from the political and legal process – remove the money.
Gene, hey we have made real progress when you acknowledge Corporations (and other groups I presume you include) can get to express their views.
Now the problem is, how do they get to express those views: are they allowed to have paid advertisements on TV or in the newspapers. Can they hire people to hand out literature? Can they do mailings. How much money are they allowed to spend on it making their views known? Can they say they like one candidate or policy over another? How much money are they allowed to spend on all of this? Do they get to join with other groups or individuals to form associations that share the same views? How much money are they allowed to spend on that?
What constitutes politics, endorsements, business interests, etc? Where is the line drawn? Who says they are over the line or not?
You see Gene, in the real world things get a bit complicated really easy and real fast.
Also, “You said, “The only influence groups – including unions – should have is endorsement and the same right to petition that every citizen has.”
Do you even realize how stupid that is. For example, you just gave enitities the right to petition the same as ciizens, but they don’t have the same right to political speech as citizens according to you….”
Begs again the question that money is free speech. Buckley is as big a mistake as Citizens United and patent nonsense. Money is not free speech any more than a corporations is really a person. Money is money and what it buys is corruption and influence peddling.
GENE you are really loosing it: i was quoting you…..when you said:
“Also, “You said, “The only influence groups – including unions – should have is endorsement and the same right to petition that every citizen has.”
Gene, I’m sorry, if you don’t understand how money is a form of speech then we really are not even living in the same dimension. In our world it often takes money to be heard. Even going back to the Lincoln douglas Debates (ie politicians traveling the country debating each other) takes money to travel; advertisements, print material, publishing a “newspaper”. regulating money is regulating political speech in the real world, but regulating leads to all kinds of un intended effects on speech and other rights.
It is also a waste of time because money will continue to corrupt the process in one form or another no matter how much you regulate it….
There are – in my view – better and more effective ways of reducing the corruptiing impacts of money in politics then trying to reduce the amount of it (which is probably hopeless). My way eliminates the effectiveness of money thereby why would anybody waste money on something that doesn’t work.
Oh, it’s not an insult to call you a fascist when that’s exactly what you are. Italian Fascism says that the priorities of government should be determined by corporate councils; an oligarchy of profit driven private interests. That’s exactly what you advocate in protecting CU.
So suck it, Fascist.
Also, save your flaccid “I’m pro-union” bullshit for someone who believes it.
Gene, you are making it hard to have even this pretense of rational conversation with you.
You said: “They can write a letter to… ” It costs money to write a letter… 😉
So if the Government wants to take a particular action that will effect a community or their business they can only write a letter? No advertisements to inform others that this might effect them as well? What about a home owners association, are they only allowed to write letters? What if a union or a town feels some political action will effect their members or community, are they only allowed to write letters?
Really, can’t you see the problems you have created here in such an idiotic view.
Now as far as your remark that I am a fascist (kind of makes me think how the fox no news network calls liberals communists) you said the following to justify putting that title on me:
” Italian Fascism says that the priorities of government should be determined by corporate councils; an oligarchy of profit driven private interests.”
Now I dare you to find one place where I said anything that even resembles that statement or suggests it in anyway. And after you spend your time looking and can’t find it I will expect your apology which I will accept. And baring that I will say you are a liar, a liar, and a liar.
Bob,
Corporations have rights, don’t you know. 1zb1 thinks corporations exist in the state of nature. Of course he’s an idiot. And now you’ve gone and shattered his illusions about green cheese.
Somewhere in the distance, a half-wit corporatist apologist is crying in front of his computer . . . ah-skert that the Koch Brothers will cancel his check for failing so miserably to spread their fascist agenda and that his dreams of forming his own private space program in hopes of cornering the cheese market are dead.