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
Blouise,
I think I should send a resume to the Koch Brothers and see if there are any openings for John Birch bloggers.
Gene,
Once again you are stuck with idiot patrol.
Bob, however, is giving you some relief.
All in all, a great deal of good information is being imparted for those who are content to just read.
SwM,
Yes, I saw the clip. I was referring to Newt’s whining about the damage done to his candidacy by the super pacs aligned against him … they told nothing but lies, he sobbed as his standing in the polls fell 20 points in 20 days. Poor baby got boomeranged.
You remember his support for Citizens United … too funny.
It’s going to be a battle of who can spend the most money telling the best lies which fits ever so nicely into this thread.
As to the retread … throw a female at ’em and the response is always the same … it’s a good test ’cause they just can’t help themselves … women are silly, nonsensical creatures created by god as man’s sex toys … it’s as easy a test as drawing out hidden Tea Party idiots by calling them teabaggers … or closet republicans by calling Reagan a senile boob.
Seems to be the week for sock puppets.
1zb1: “i never said corporations (or any group…. you keep neglecting all those other groups in your comments) have any rights beyond those granted by government… the problem is our prime documents do give them certain rights even if you don’t like it.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
How do the words ‘congress shall make now law … abridging the freedom of speech…” confer the right of free speech to corporations?
They don’t; just like they don’t confer the right of free speech to individuals either.
Was SCOTUS ever empowered under Article III to confer political speech rights to corporations?
No.
Again…
Rights confer power; not vice versa. Only an idiot would look at the constitution and think he gets his right of free speech from the first amendment. This is as absurd as thinking the right of free speech didn’t exist between 1787 and 1789.
Gene, just so we are talking on the same page here please clearify, when you use the term “corporations” are you also including other entitities such as unions, clubs, religious organization, trade groups, or any other type of legal form of association.” or is it your beleif that the regulation of money in political speech only applies to corporations”
And while you are at it does the right to assembly include the right of individuals to form groups such as unions, clubs, religious organzations, trade groups and so on?
And you asked, “How do the words ‘congress shall make now law … abridging the freedom of speech…” confer the right of free speech to corporations?
You might notice there that it doesn’t confer the right of free speech to people or corporations in that passage. The opperative phases is “make no law ABRIDGING…” as in make laws taking away that right. And, I might add that it exists in a passage concerning groups (ie assembly and religion) I am going to read that as being inclusive of not ABRIDGING those rights of groups.
In other words, care to show me where people who assembled together were exclused from these rights?
Oh, I’m sorry, i must have missed the place in the constitution, where Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Rousseau drafted of signed it. They may have influenced the thinking of the day but so were their many influences. Now you really are getting desperate. Is it so difficult to prove your point (kind of missed that somewhere) that you have to now fly outside the constitution to prove that you are actually a persona rather then a rabid dog.
You challanged me to “Prove it. How will preventing corporations from unlimited political spending negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon their rights? Illustrate these hypothetical negative consequences. ” Fair enough, but you haven’t addressed even one of my questions yet. But you can start by answering the one at the top so at least i know we are talking about the same thing.
As near as I can tell you want to take away the right of virtually everyone except an individual acting completely on their own to make what you consider political speech. the press would not be able to talk about politics so they would loose a free press; no groups of any kind can talk about it so they would loose the rights of assembly (though I suppose you would say they can assemble but just not talk to anyone about it); and religious groups could not talk about anything because it might be considered political speech by somebody.
Btw; you have a great way of arguing: you say “i refute it” and therefore thats all you have to say. And I do see that the 2 words in your limited vocab both start with “F”. Glen, the more you write the dumber you get…. quit before they kick you out of kindergarten.
So just a little reminder:
Gene, just so we are talking on the same page here please clearify, when you use the term “corporations” are you also including other entitities such as unions, clubs, religious organization, trade groups, or any other type of legal form of association.” or is it your beleif that the regulation of money in political speech only applies to corporations”
And while you are at it does the right to assembly include the right of individuals to form groups such as unions, clubs, religious organzations, trade groups and so on?
BTW; in your world of one person one dollar politics does someone like Romney (or any rich person) get to put on advertisements promoting their points of view but because I don’t have any money I don’t get to express my point of view. Btw; just what is political speech in your mind. Whats the bright line between political speech and say an advertisment for building a new factory in a town.
BTW: where does the idea of an entity of some kind promising to make an investement in one location versus another based on who will give them the most favorable worker and environmental laws, fit into your scheme of money corruption politics and how does your idea of laws regulating money in politics deal with that? Do you regulate it? How? if I want to start a group to prevent it from happening do I them become subject to the same laws?
Isn’t reality interesting as opposed to your delusions.
Also, please shout some more.
I love the smell of desperation.
Again, your ignorant statement begs the question that corporations are people.
Try.
Harder.
“ONE MORE TIME:
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.”
And I refuted that bullshit too.
Really, you’re going to have to do better than that, Fascist.
Also, if you have a problem understanding the nature of rights, both natural and legal? That would be a hole in your education now, wouldn’t it? I suggest reading Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Thomas Paine to start with and then moving on to Rousseau. Because, really, if you’re referring to Darwin, you don’t have a fucking clue.
Also, that continual casting of aspersions on my intelligence by someone who manifestly doesn’t have a clue and is an unread dolt is simply funny. Especially since you’re too dumb to realize that “rights reserved to the people” doesn’t mean “rights reserved to the corporations”.
Now, you claim that there will be “UNINTENDED OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES FOR FREEDOM AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS” if corporate behavior is regulated.
Prove it.
How will preventing corporations from unlimited political spending negatively impact individual citizens or otherwise infringe upon their rights?
Illustrate these hypothetical negative consequences.
You can’t, because their aren’t any. Again, people are not corporations and corporations are not people. But you go ahead and take a stab at it, slick.
You get more ridiculous with every post, fascist apologist.
So far be it from me to stand in the way of an opponent destroying themselves.
Blouise, Did you see the Gingrich superpac ad on Bain that I posted? It could inflict some major damage on Romney.
Blouise,
As Yogi used to say, “It’s deja vu all over again.”
Blouise, He was definitely a retread.
“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.”
Again, shouting doesn’t make you right.
Regulation would define the impermissible acts. Legally defined impermissible acts are called either “crimes” or “torts”. They should come with sufficient penalty to make sure that once the penalty is applied, the criminal and/or tortfeasor won’t be tempted (or able) to commit the same bad act again. The goal is not elimination of corruption, but rather minimization. One cannot eliminate corruption as a matter of mathematical operation. In any complex system, error occurs. There are no unintended consequences – negative or otherwise – to individual rights created by restricting the actions of a legal fiction. Again, people are not corporations and corporations are not people (your repeatedly ignorant assertions aside). The “burning down the house” approach is yours, not mine. Instead of regulation of corporate behavior – which won’t be 100% effective in eliminating the roaches – you’d rather not have any regulation at all. That is burning down the house. My solution – limiting corporate activity by regulation (regulation so stiff, by the way, it would make prison time and asset forfeiture mandatory for influence peddling – asset forfeiture that would automatically pierce the corporate veil by the way) – is the equivalent of putting out roach motels. My way won’t kill all the roaches, but it will kill the majority of them.
Now, tell us again how regulation of a corporation – a legal fiction – is going to erode the rights of natural humans.
That was funny.
GENE, you are making me think you have a learning disorder.
you said, “Regulation would define the impermissible acts.”
So i have asked you countless times does your idea of regulation mean a GROUP (meaning any association of people including corporations, unions, clubs, and you name that are all protected by the right to assemble) is not allowed to spend money on advertisements or other forms of communications that promote their views on legislation, candidates, business, or personal interests? Does that mean a media corporation can not print and article or an opinion on any subject that you think is improper?
Who gets to decide what fits or dosen’t fit into permissible forms of communications? In your mind would that be the same people who censor books?
Why is it so impossible for you to grasp the near impossibility of what you are suggesting and doing so without denying people other rights.
How can you be that stupid?
1zb1
1, January 9, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Blouise… following nonsense with nonsense is, well nonsense.
===============================================
Exactly … isn’t it fun 🙂
Gene,
This guy sounds like someone from last summer …
1zb1
spelly chkck iz yur frend.
BTW, your caps lock seems to be stuck, in case you hadn’t noticed.
SwM,
Newt’s super pac was outdone by the other super pacs … it’s war
Oooo. Utter gibberish that ignores the rule of construction of the Constitution. Just what I wanted for dessert. The 9th Amendment clearly says that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The p-e-o-p-l-e.
Not the legal fictions.
The only “rights” a corporation has are those granted by the government. Your right as a natural human to free speech exists independent of the Constitution. Begging the question is a logical fallacy. Your ignorant statement again begs the question that corporations are people.
They aren’t.
Corporations aren’t people and money isn’t free speech.
Those are two lies fascists would have you sacrifice democracy to appease their unfettered greed. They are two lies intimately related to one another. They are the conjoined roots of decay that affect our political and legal processes.
Restricting the “rights” of a corporation isn’t burning down the house to get rid of the roaches. Corporations don’t have rights. People do. Restricting the actions of corporations is necessary to keep them from using their unfair economic advantage to exploit and infringe upon the rights of real people. The personality of a corporation as intended was to allow contracting, the purchase of property and the ability to avail civil and criminal matters to the courts – nothing more. That is all that is required. Corporations enjoy perpetuity and limited liability, something natural persons do not enjoy. Restricting corporations is keeping the roaches right where they belong: in a cage defined by the Rule of Law to prevent abusive practices and economic tyranny. To assert that they have “rights” beyond grant is to give them advantage no mortal can enjoy. Your insistence that corporations have any rights other than what the government gives them – in this case an overreaching of rights bought and purchased by graft and corruption – is prime facie ridiculous.
Also, you should learn to differentiate anger from laughter, 1zb1. I’m not mad at you. I hate all that you stand for, but you personally? Get over yourself. You personally aren’t worth the energy hatred requires. You’re ridiculous, hence you are ridiculed, as in subject to mockery and derision. Made fun of. The object of humor.
Now.
Answer the question.
No more evasion.
How is allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending going to eliminate corruption, 1zb1?
If you are so sure your way is right, you should be able to answer this question.
GENE, LEARN TO read….
ONE MORE TIME:
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.
OS, YOU ARE RIGHT, i keep forgetting to turn the cap ON…. TAKING the time to use spell check for any of this would only add more waste of time to a waste of time.
AND REALLY, gene, YOU WOULD NOT BE WASTING YOUR TIME on all this if you werent’ filled with anger and every other line is some form of insult… but not single coherent thought or fact.
I realize your friends here are to embarrased to tell you that you are making no sense whatsoever… take a breath, regroup… have your ribs… and we can go on from there if you like.
BTW: i never said corporations (or any group…. you keep neglecting all those other groups in your comments) have any rights beyond those granted by government… the problem is our prime documents do give them certain rights even if you don’t like it. The fact is our particular government as embodied by the constittution is as much about preserving those rights – by a system of government – as it is about what the rights are.
Show me where rights are spelled out in nature. According to Darwin if we go by nature its survival of the fittest and those most adapted to survivial. So not only are you clueless on the constitution, but even on nature itself..
Personally, I like to think that civilization and the Constitution was about something more then the rule of the jungle.
As something of a brief closing argument in this giant waste of time (like talking to a rock and expecting it to answer intelligently) lets try to bring it down to this:
It is fair to say that every effort through the course of human history to eliminate corrupting influence of money in politics and government has pretty much failed (or we would likely not be having this conversation). For every means anyone has come up with to limit it others have come up with news ways around it. In fact the more we try to limit it the more corrupting it has become.
So most of you seem to keep wanting to do the same things that have failed in the past (you all know the one about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result… well in this case you have all certainly proven the proverb to be true).
I on the other hand I think its time to try another approach to the problem since the old way has never worked. And for my efforts I have been called just a bout every nasty name your limited imaginations can come up with, My approach relies on the way the world is and your approach relies on the way it never was.
Now like most high priests of right and wrong that ever existed in the world the only way you have of dealing with anyone who sees the world a little different from your limited views of the existence you have no choice but shout and scream and burn people at the stake. I understand that. The salem witch hunts have nothing over you.
But who knows, maybe when you wake up from your stupper of self direct anger you might just be able to see how far out of touch with reality you have become.
In the meantime it scares me to think I’m almost sounding like TC here. God forbid.
Have a great day folks. Glen, do get those rabi shots real soon.
John Stuart Mill was an interesting man. In Terman’s studies of genius, they analyzed the activities and writings of a large number of brilliant people, including J. S. Mill. Their research showed Mill had an IQ of 200, making him one of the most intelligent men who has ever lived. Mill did not live long enough to see this country actually created, but his thinking influenced the founders who came later, especially his writings on individual freedom.
J. S. Mill said:
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”
1zb1
1, January 9, 2012 at 8:18 am
Blouise, I looked for something in your rant that was actually and argument or fact but there wasn’t anything.
========================================
That’s quite alright, darlin’ … that’s what all the Koch boys tell me. I trust you didn’t think you were my first.
Carry on, kiddo …. they’ll give you another couple weeks before you’re pulled and given a new assignment.
Blouise… following nonsense with nonsense is, well nonsense.
Presented by Gingrich’s superpac.