|
Saving Our Democracy |
 |
|
Friday, 09 December 2011 16:10 |
|
Intro: "The Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative."
Bernie Sanders has introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the US Constitution in light of the Citizens United case, 05/12/10. (photo: The Washington Times)
Saving Our Democracy
By Sen. Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News
17 August 10
 he Constitution of this country has served us well, but when the Supreme Court says that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. That is why I have introduced a resolution in the Senate calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
I did not do this lightly. In fact, I had never done it before. The U.S. constitution is an extraordinary document. In my view, it should not be amended often. In light of the Supreme Court's infamous 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, however, I saw no alternative.
I strongly disagree with the ruling. In my view, a corporation is not a person. A corporation does not have First Amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. Corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries and spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9qZZVqSQdo
The ruling has radically changed the nature of our democracy. It has further tilted the balance of the power toward the rich and the powerful at a time when the wealthiest people in this country already never had it so good. History will record that the Citizens United decision is one of the worst in the history of our country.
At a time when corporations have more than $2 trillion in cash in their bank accounts and are making record-breaking profits, the American people should be concerned when the Supreme Court says that these corporations have a constitutionally-protected right to spend shareholders' money to dominate an election as if they were real, live persons. If we do not reverse this decision, there will be no end to the impact that corporate interests can have on our campaigns and our democracy.
According to an Oct. 10, 2011, article in Politico, "the billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million - potentially much more - to conservative groups ahead of Election Day 2012." Others are doing the same thing.
Does anybody really believe that that is what American democracy is supposed to be about?
Think about the consequences in Congress. When an issue comes up that impacts Wall Street, like breaking up huge banks, what will senators be thinking about when they decide how to vote? Every member of the Senate, every member of the House, in the back of their minds will be asking this: If I cast a vote this way, if I take on some big-money interest, am I going to be punished? Will a huge amount of money be unleashed in my state?
It's not just taking on Wall Street. Maybe it's taking on the drug companies. Maybe it's taking on the private insurance companies. Maybe it's taking on the military-industrial complex. Whatever powerful and wealthy special interests members of Congress are prepared to take on - on behalf of the interest of the middle class and working families of this country - they will know in the back of their mind that there may be a flood of money coming in to their state. They're going to think twice about how to cast that vote.
When the Supreme Court says that for purposes of the First Amendment, corporations are people, that writing checks from the company's bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, when that occurs, our democracy is in grave danger.
I am a proud sponsor of a number of bills that would respond to Citizens United and begin to get a handle on the problem. But more needs to be done, something more fundamental and indisputable, something that cannot be turned on its head by a Supreme Court decision. That is why I proposed the constitutional amendment in the Senate as a companion measure to an amendment proposed in the House of Representatives by Congressman Ted Deutch.
We have got to send a constitutional amendment to the states that says simply and straightforwardly what everyone - except five members of the United States Supreme Court - understands: Corporations are not people with equal constitutional rights. Corporations are subject to regulation by the people. Corporations may not make campaign contributions - the law of the land for the last century. And Congress and states have the power to regulate campaign finances.
 |
|
Whack-A-Mole |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9146"><span class="small">Will Durst, San Francisco Chronicle</span></a>
|
|
Friday, 09 December 2011 09:44 |
|
Excerpts: "Let's take a peek behind the scenes of GOP headquarters to listen in on the coaching strategy for the little game Republicans are currently playing called, 'Anybody but Romney.' Think 'Whack- A- Mole' with media mallets.... So, who do we got running? Okay, okay, thank you, Mitt Romney. You can put your hand down now. Ran the Olympics? That's great. We'll definitely keep you in mind. Who else we got? Sarah Palin!..."
Political Satirist Will Durst. (photo: WillDurst.com)
Whack-A-Mole
By Will Durst, San Francisco Chronicle
09 December 11
 et's take a peek behind the scenes of GOP headquarters to listen in on the coaching strategy for the little game Republicans are currently playing called, "Anybody but Romney." Think "Whack- A- Mole" with media mallets.
"Well, here it is, boys, 2011. About time we scour the country and figure out exactly whom we should pick for our 2012 Presidential nominee. It's got to be somebody with a legitimate shot to beat that socialist incumbent. Somebody we can trust to toe the party line. But most importantly, we need someone younger than that last guy. Which won't be hard.
So, who do we got running? Okay, okay, thank you, Mitt Romney. You can put your hand down now. Ran the Olympics? That's great. We'll definitely keep you in mind. Who else we got? Sarah Palin! The Rogue Thing! She just can't help herself. Loves going off reservation. Like she did in 08. And ever since. Unnh, then again, you know what? She's probably busy. Somebody call Roger Ailes at Fox News and tell him to make sure she's real busy.
Hey, how bout Donald Trump? The Donald. He's perfect. Successful businessman. High name recognition. Aerodynamic hair. Well, let's see what he can do. Oh my god, he's really like that. I thought it was all an act. Nobody tells me anything.
Let's see, who else is there? Thank you Mitt. No, no. We haven't forgotten you. Got you right at the top of the list. Yes, we know your first name is Willard. And the Mormon thing. Won't be a problem. Umm, where's that Tea Party favorite, Michele Bachmann? There she is, in Iowa, celebrating the birthplace of John Wayne Gacy. Oh dear. With her husband Marcus. Whoa. Well, no wonder she's so opposed to gay marriage. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.
Okay. Wait. Wait. Wait. Wait. I got an idea. Rick Perry. Governor of Texas. Worked out pretty good last time, didn't it? He's just like Bush with actual cattle. Let's watch him debate. Oooh. Not going to work out this time. Umm. Umm. What about Chris Christie? Another governor. We like governors, right? Yes, Mitt. Massachusetts. Got it. Besides, Chris Christie is too big to fail. Hey, Chris! What? Oh yeah? Well, we don't want you either!
Wait a minute. This is going to sound crazy. Crazy like a fox. You know what I'm thinking? Herman Cain. Yes. The Pizza Guy. I know, I know. He's a, he's a, he's a… lobbyist, but boy, can he command a room. Look at him with that group of women over there. Holy cow, that's my wife. Security!
Say, I'm a bit parched; Mitt, could you run get us some Red Bulls? Here's a twenty. Oh, right, you're loaded. And an MBA from Harvard. Terrific. Is he gone? Thank god. Hey, who's that hiding under that rock? Why, it's Newt! Newt Gingrich. Of course. An oldie but a goodie. Rescued the party from Clinton's shadow in the early 90s. The good news is, everybody knows him: the bad news is, yeah, everybody knows him.
Geez, he loves to hear himself talk, doesn't he? Well, look at it this way, if the Newtster doesn't pan out, we can always fall back on Mister Stalwart Standby Romney. Yeah. That's what we'll do. Its Newt or Mitt. Or Ron Paul. No. No. No. Definitely Romney or Gingrich. Or Santorum. Say, has anybody seen Mike Huckabee lately?"
The New York Times says Emmy- nominated comedian and writer Will Durst "is quite possibly the best political satirist working in the country today." Check out the website: willdurst.com to find out more about upcoming stand- up performances or to buy his book, "The All American Sport of Bipartisan Bashing."
|
|
|
FOCUS: Where Is Wall Street Accountability? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=13102"><span class="small">Elizabeth Warren, POLITICO</span></a>
|
|
Thursday, 08 December 2011 12:46 |
|
Excerpts: "[F]or all the talk about accountability, there has been little action when it comes to holding large financial institutions accountable for breaking the law. Look at the latest foreclosure fraud scandals. For more than a year, one story after another has come to light exposing how some of America's largest financial institutions broke the law. In some cases, their blatantly illegal behavior in the foreclosure process pushed families out of their homes. In some others, families gave up and moved away under the threat of foreclosure."
Elizabeth Warren says Congress must confirm Richard Cordray to lead the CFPB. (photo: AP)
Where Is Wall Street Accountability?
By Elizabeth Warren, Politico
08 December 11
he law applies to everyone. Wall Street protesters should be held accountable if they engage in illegal activity - and so should Wall Street banks. There is no excuse for protesters to violate public safety laws - and no excuse for powerful financial institutions to defraud their customers or investors.
Yet for all the talk about accountability, there has been little action when it comes to holding large financial institutions accountable for breaking the law.
Look at the latest foreclosure fraud scandals. For more than a year, one story after another has come to light exposing how some of America's largest financial institutions broke the law. In some cases, their blatantly illegal behavior in the foreclosure process pushed families out of their homes. In some others, families gave up and moved away under the threat of foreclosure.
The revelations about robosigning - in which mortgage servicers falsified legal documents to foreclose on homes faster and more cheaply - were followed by stories about illegal home foreclosures against military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, cases of mistaken-identity foreclosures, cases of foreclosures caused by bad record keeping and on and on.
Credit unions and most small banks followed the law. But the biggest mortgage lenders and servicers swamped the system with bad practices.
As stories of illegal behavior in Massachusetts and across the country tumbled out, Wall Street plotted its strategy. Instead of owning up, huge financial services companies took a different approach: They set new spending records hiring an army of lobbyists to shift attention away from their wrongdoing.
The big banks and their allies followed a now-familiar game plan: Launch an offensive against anyone trying to enforce the law with rigor; work overtime to block serious investigation of illegal activity; and persuade the government to accept a slap-on-the-wrist settlement to absolve their violations of the law.
But there has been some pushback recently. On Nov. 28, a federal judge rejected a government settlement with Citibank over accusations that it misled investors in the run-up to the financial crisis. Why? The judge said there hadn't been enough investigation.
Just last week, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley filed a lawsuit against the five largest mortgage servicers, bringing to a halt here in Massachusetts the stalling tactics that banks have used for more than a year as they dodged responsibility for foreclosure practices.
Does this mean the tide is turning toward real accountability - a full and fair investigation of the biggest financial institutions? A test case now lies before Congress.
New laws were put in place more than a year ago to provide some accountability over Wall Street. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created with the power to help consumers get the clear, useful information they need to make the best decisions on their financial futures. By enforcing some basic rules, the agency can help level the playing field between families and the giant Wall Street banks that sell credit cards, mortgages and other financial products.
But to have its full powers to insist on real accountability, the agency must have a director. And here's where a showdown is coming.
Last summer, President Barack Obama nominated Richard Cordray, the former Ohio attorney general, to the post. But Wall Street's friends in Congress seized on a blocking maneuver: Forty-four Republican senators promised to stop any vote on a new director to thwart the new agency.
In other words, those who broke our economic system with crazy, dangerous mortgages aren't subject to full scrutiny because their allies in Congress are blocking Cordray's nomination.
With all the clout that Wall Street and its lobbyists have, real accountability won't be easy. But the first steps are pretty obvious.
First, confirm Cordray, and allow the consumer finance bureau to do its job. Efforts to weaken the agency before it can call a single Wall Street firm to account are shameful.
Second, demand that our state attorneys general and federal enforcement officials do more - not less - to push back against the big banks and their lobbyists and to investigate those whose illegal actions have broken the economy. And when evidence warrants, bring public prosecutions.
Third, stop the late-night budget tricks and other maneuvers designed to weaken agencies that enforce the laws. Put real cops on the financial beat in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, cops with the resources they need to patrol for fraud and sustain tough prosecutions.
It has been more than three years since the greatest financial crisis in three generations. It is past time that we stop talking about accountability and start demanding it from those who broke the system.
Fighting for the middle class means more than talk. It means across-the-board, consistent accountability for anyone who breaks the law - no matter where they work or who their friends are.
|
|
Corzine-Gensler the Goldman Connection |
|
|
Thursday, 08 December 2011 09:45 |
|
Excerpts: "Getting a lot of calls about Jon Corzine and his relationship with Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chairman Gary Gensler. Both Corzine and Gensler worked at Goldman back in the day, and the word is that Corzine personally lobbied Gensler to delay the implementation of new rules that would have helped prevent Corzine from raiding his own clients' funds. This whole issue smacks of the improper communications between other former Wall Street co-workers like Hank Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein."
Matt Taibbi at Skylight Studio in New York, 10/27/10. (photo: Neilson Barnard/Getty Images)
Corzine-Gensler the Goldman Connection
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
08 December 11
 n the road this week, so apologies for the brief post. (Have a longer thing coming out later this week.) Getting a lot of calls about Jon Corzine and his relationship with Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) chairman Gary Gensler.
Both Corzine and Gensler worked at Goldman back in the day, and the word is that Corzine personally lobbied Gensler to delay the implementation of new rules that would have helped prevent Corzine from raiding his own clients' funds.
This whole issue smacks of the improper communications between other former Wall Street co-workers like Hank Paulson and Lloyd Blankfein. More and more, it appears that, as a matter of routine, federal regulators like Paulson (in 2008) and, later, Gensler reach out to old friends on Wall Street to negotiate/discuss the timing and the form of various policy changes, bailouts, and other regulatory matters. Inside information seemingly is traded with remarkable casualness.
This is one of those issues where there's no point in calling for more regulations. No matter what laws we have, we can't have regulatory heads breezily chatting about their enforcement plans with former co-workers who have huge financial interests resting upon their decisions. The Paulson case, in which information about the rescue of Fannie and Freddie was casually disclosed to a group of hedge fund chiefs before the public knew about it, was a far worse thing than what Gensler is accused of. Gensler, despite his Goldman pedigree, has generally gotten good reviews from Wall Street reform types, and has demonstrated a willingness to help tighten up abuses in the derivatives and commodities markets (including walking back deregulatory actions in the derivatives world that he himself had a role in creating back in the Clinton days). But this business with Corzine will likely be a black eye for him, and rightly so.
But the overall problem, of regulators keeping up their chummy, chatty relationships with Wall Street guys as they make market-altering regulatory decisions, appears to be epidemic. Again, this is an issue where new regulations won't help – we just need different people in charge, people with at least some grasp of the whole propriety thing, who understand that financial friendships have to take a pause when you go to work behind the police tape.
|
|
