and House says no way. People protest and get beat up by police and arrested. Isn't that how all these things end?

Anti-war protests were blacked out by media and we got war-war-war-war. We know what happened with Occupy. Beaten and imprisoned protesters. Zero bankers responsible for the 2008 collapse in prison. Oh, yeah, and the same shit that caused the collapse is still ongoing. Rich people are still getting richer.

a very important point ... it shows the/a generational divide.

The Civil Rights Movement was going on for decade before a critical mass of society saw and acted for change; OWS is about ... what ... 3 years old? But because there was establishment resistance and the banks grew bigger and no bankers went to jail, most of the faithful were long gone after the first year.

I'm pretty certain James Earl Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael "Mickey" Schwerner would have opted for imprisonment, rather than their historical fate ... a fate that is rare today.

the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see a difference between the fight.

I was asking originally how it all was to play out. How do we get CU overturned? What do we expect to happen?

raising minimum wages and to focusing on the discrepancy in wealth and income in the country. The Piketty book is a best seller. So is Elizabeth Warren's A Fighting Chance.

Occupy changed our country -- peacefully. And thanks to those who went to jail and were injured by the police. Occupy did not fail. It's purpose was peaceful. It's purpose was to raise consciousness. It succeeded.
It met its goals.

They got roughed up and arrested by police.

Yes, Occupy gave us the language to discuss the class warfare, but it was the steady decline (and sharp decline in 2008) of livable wage jobs that woke people up, the bullshit their children faced in the 1%er wars that woke people up, the media lies that never matched reality that woke people up. But Occupy did an admirable job. Unfortunately, Teh Stoooopid is mighty powerful in the U.S.

But Occupy's language was the start.

or fire hoses pushing out 100psi just wouldn't be enough?

the police dogs and fire hoses were only used in the last year or so ... Prior to that the Civil Rights Fighters faced real murder, and real lynching, and real bombings, and real economic abandonment; rather than, rubber bullets and pepper spray.

(This is not to belittle what OWSers have faced; but to show that the 3 year old OWS Movement does not equal the CRM)

for more people than OWS. The black-white battle for civil rights is still savage. The NRA keeps breeding bigots with guns. But the battles for civil rights--social or economic--are all the same battle. The ruling class against EVERYONE ELSE.

BRAVO!!!!! Acutely, piercingly, and in the extreme - TRUE!

Or, would it be a whole lot easier just to sit back and watch TV? Or roll over and go back to sleep like people did after women won the right to choose? And just assume everything will be okay and "nuthin's gunna happen!" That's what one of the karate moms, who was very CONservative, just ASSURED me on the issue of choice. "Oh NO. Nothin's gonna happen. S'NOT gonna happen. Not gonna happen." My response to her was (and still is) "wanna bet? Too bad I didn't bet with her. I'd be winning some nice coin.

She was the same mom who INSISTED, absolutely INSISTED that cheney had served. "Oh yes. He served." I said he hadn't. I told her he got five deferments and actually stated that he had "other priorities" than fighting for his country and wearing her uniform and putting hhimself in harm's way for the ol' Red, White, 'n' Blue. She insisted this was NOT true. Her brother-in-law had told her all about it. It took a second mom joining the conversation and speaking out before she stopped this. This other mom was quite affluent, as Miss Denier was, and they traveled in the same circles - which would not suffer the likes of me for a Beverly Hills minute. But this other mom leaned Democratic, and spoke up and said - "no, calimary is actually correct. cheney never served. He never did. Really." And you should have seen the nonplussed look on the first mom's face. She stopped COLD. This smug sense of certainty she'd had instantly melted away. She started stammering "well, I'm getting wrong information. I'm getting wrong information. My brother-in-law is giving me wrong information" And I said, quietly - "Yes. You ARE."

It's ironic, though, that even when they're smacked in the face with it, that does NOT loosen the ardent embrace they maintain of the Pox Noise version of how the world works. It does not broaden or rehabilitate or open their thinking. That does NOT motivate them to dig a little deeper, or put two and two together and actually arrive at the total of four. That does not encourage them to start wondering, as any logical air-breather might at least consider, about the possibility that if what they told you about this was an outright lie, what ELSE might they have told you that is ALSO an outright lie? People like her never go there. They NEVER open their minds even a tiny crack. This NEVER invites them or inspires them to try to seek a second opinion other than the convenient limbaugh-related one they're being force-fed. That mom is a lost soul. Husband's a wealthy developer and she would never in a million years consider any other way of looking at things except through his bank account and all the nice charge cards it allows her to have. I have yet to figure out how to save her. But I don't see her much anymore so I guess it's a moot point. But I bet if her son grows up and knocks up some girl he met at his frat party, she's be the first to offer to pay for some fancy hush-hush clinic to have the problem - um - "taken care of."

Says what I think even though it would take hours even to begin to formulate what you said.

NB: "rant" to me is good hyperbole, not the opposite,.

It's different today and I suspect you know that.

I admire those protesters and look at them all as hero's. However, those protesters were not confronted with high tech military hardware and 25 years of the show "cops" on TV demonstrating to them that police brutality isn't just ok, but expected and cheered.

Did you look at that picture? Are you at all familiar with the history?

an attacking dog and fire hoses, not to mention, law enforcement licensed to just kick the sh!t out of a protester, with the knowledge that nothing will happen to them ...

Is more civil the high tech military hardware (e.g., pepper spray ) and 25 years of the show "cops" on TV (i.e., a mind fuck)?

NOW

as part of the ratification process. They are currently governors of just 21 (and there are I think 9 that could possibly flip with enough effort - e.g., PA, NJ, & FL being the easiest and IA, WI, OH, & MI not too shabby to do).

The DCCC is out with petitions for it, but this would need to be for a long haul requiring alot of GOTV to take Congress and the states back.

Repubs have control of the media, most states and much of the courts. All we have is numbers. If we get out and use them.

Although some people are saying she's a long shot, I'm very hopeful that Wendy Davis will win the governorship of Texas. Unfortunately, TX is still using Diebold, ES&S, and whatever the heck those other voting machines are that are stealing votes. Plus voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.

Cheating, lying and stealing are some of the things that repugs excel at doing well.

Gotta give the people a reason to believe, a reason to show up. Otherwise they go Meh, or say all politicians are the same, corruption on both sides, etc.

Id love this to be the issue Democrats take as their banner, to rally around. Its a principle I would like to think we could all get behind as an eventual goal. I like that its specific enough to require concrete action in a set number of states to achieve. Its not wishywashy, its concrete, but also something I think even the most ardent of us can understand will not happen tomorrow, even if all democrats currently elected get on the same page today.

That's a lot tougher hurdle to get over, because of the gerrymndering after 2010. In Nc I think we'll probably elect a Democratic governor in 2016, but we'll be fortunate if we get a Republican majority that isn't veto-proof.

safe opportunity to look progressive (while appointing corporatists to positions of power in govt?)

too cynical?

p.s.: how many democrats voted for the fuckers who came down with that decision?

you CAN be too thin, however. Like this propaganda stunt.

Sounds too good to be true. If Obama does this I will be pleasantly surprised he breaks slightly with his corporate mold.

before? Smoke and illusions.

Spot on, as most of his Presidency has played out.



-p

Citizens United would be better labeled "Democracy for sale". When he's ready to take this one on, I'm ready to make some calls, send some letters, get out in the streets and protest if I have to. This system of legalized bribery needs to be shut down. Hard to believe, even now, that the Supreme Court decided to allow it - to basically say that bribery was somehow constitutional.

I get the skepticism running through this thread, I even share it. But we can't let that stop us supporting real legislation that would get money out of politics.

What is to stop the Koch-type CEOS currently using corporate funds to push the far-right agenda from simply using their own personal fortunes to do the same thing in our current "superpac" society?

I guess what I'm asking is if an amendment spells out that a corporation is not a person, what is to stop the "person" behind the corporation from doing the same BS they are now? We need to also limit how much any one person can donate and do away with the concept of political action committees that can spread any lies they wish through advertising "on behalf" of a candidate. Hopefully this amendment would cover that too.

but I voted for the ERA also.

That decision did NOT change the existing laws on direct campaign donations to political candidates. It just simply didn't, no matter how many people think it did, and no matter how many times that falsehood is repeated. If people would just READ the decision instead of listening to propaganda about it, they'd know that.

Basing a Constitutional Amendment that would limit one of our most precious and important rights, that of free speech in the political arena, on such blatantly wrong assertions is a horrible idea. The fact that Citizens United may have undesirable consequences does not in any way, shape or form mean that it is constitutionally flawed. Miranda and Mapp (just to name two) have also had undesirable consequences, but no one is calling for them to be overturned by altering the Bill of Rights.

I'm curious about how the ruling promotes such a thing. My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that Citizens United enables corporations and individuals to contribute as much as they like, financially, to any particular political campaign. This isn't free speech. Money doesn't talk, no matter what the movies say. These types of contributions (IMO) need to be severely limited in order to remove a great deal of greed from our political system. Even the President had a super PAC in this last election. They need to be eliminated in order to promote a truly free society, in which an individual might seek higher office without so much focus on raising truly bizarre amounts of money just to have a chance. One billion dollars? I wonder what that might do for our schools, or for our social safety net, infrastructure, medical system, hell, anything.

Political "donations" of large amounts need to be limited, or done away with altogether. Personally, I think we should run campaigns funded by the public only - use our tax dollars for something useful, maybe close a few more loopholes for millionaires with clever accountants.

That's not what Citizens United did, but I'm not surprised that you've been led to believe that. The decision allowed corporations and other entities to spend money on political messages of their own, including those advocating for candidates.

Citizens United did NOT rule that money is speech. The principle that the decision was based on is that the ability to raise and spend money is inextricably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages, and that a restriction on the former amounts to a de facto restriction on the latter. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from restricting speech (and political speech is entitled to an especially high level of protection), and it makes no distinctions regarding the source of that speech. "Corporate" speech (if that even means anything) is no different than individual speech as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

Basically, it means that a company like, say, Nike, could spend a whole bunch of money to run an ad for a particular candidate or policy. CostCo could use it to put out some ads for progressive candidates, or Koch Industries could use it to promote the oil industry via political messaging or policy, or to campaign for a candidate of their choosing.

Basically, it's not giving money to political candidates, but enabling any corporation or individual (entity, whatever) to spend as much as they like creating and promoting different agendas and/or candidates. Essentially this could give candidates or currently elected officials more time off from fundraising.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong - but this means that, if I wanted to, and was a rich jerk, I could start a huge campaign for something like "Rick Santorum for President", I could pour millions of dollars into creating ads that would support his campaign without being officially tied to his campaign.

It still sounds really awful to me. What happens when one candidate tries to run a clean election - and another, based on corporate ties and influence, has a whole bunch of money that people will just throw around for him?

It's all too open for anyone to do whatever the heck they want. I think limits would be good.

The First Amendment does not prohibit restrictions on speech. Congress absolutely can and regularly does limit and regulate speech, albeit only in instances where it is legally justified.

Contrary to your (and the Roberts Court's) position, corporate speech is very different from individual speech. Corporate speech drowns out and overwhelms individual speech in elections. Corporate speech diminishes the First Amendment rights of real people. That is why limiting corporate speech in elections should be legally justified, but thanks to the very wrong Roberts 5, it is not.

says that Congress may not restrict the freedom of speech. Yes, exceptions have been carved out, for things like speech that is a direct incitement to violence, but none of those apply to political speech that advocates for or against candidates or issues, now do they? As noted, that type of speech is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection.

And the First Amendment says nothing to the effect that, if one side is having more success getting their message out than the other, Congress is obliged to step in and level the playing field. The First Amendment makes no distinction, either explicit or implicit, based on where the speech is coming from or how it is funded.

A lot of speech has been abridged, with the prohibition against yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater being the classic example. Political speech gets a thumb on the scale, but even it can be prohibited. For example, you cannot reveal national defense secrets.

But what makes CU so radical, so outright wrong, is the Roberts 5's refusal to honestly WEIGH THE HARM of corporate money in elections against the value of allowing such speech. They in essence said there was no harm to limitless money in elections. That assumption is wrong. It is not a function of "which side" has the money. Big money undeniably overwhelms individual speech. It is able to overwhelm the airwaves; there is a limited amount of TV ad time available. Unlimited big money in politics is horrible for a one-person-one-vote democracy like ours. But it is great for an oligarchy, which is what CU has assured.

All you can do is make vague and meaningless statements about individual speech being "overwhelmed". Well, any TV ad by a candidate or party you like and favor is going to "overwhelm" what some individual says on a street corner. ANY form of communication in this day and age that reaches a significant number of people will do that. Are you suggesting that all such political messages be banned, and that candidates go back to shouting their message from the rear platform of a train when it stops in River City, or just go around trying to shake hands with 150 million people?

With anonymous PACs spending millions, even on local elections, it drowns out the voice of the average voter and a candidate without millions A PAC can saturate the airwaves with a lie, but if the candidate being attacked has less money, he or she cannot answer the accusations with equal force. He or she cannot buy as many ads, he cannot get his message out to all the people who heard the PAC ad. Our news organizations have become little more than press release copiers. You can't depend on them to get the true out. And even the newscasters they do, they do not come on TV as often as the PAC ad. Whoever has the most money controls the narrative. That is not a Democracy.

As stated in an excellent Truthout.org article:

does not render it constitutionally flawed. How many guilty criminals have gone free because of Mapp and Miranda? Should those decisions be overturned for that reason? Many conservatives have argued that for decades.

CU did not weigh the harm of unlimited corporate money with the minimal benefit of such speech.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about the Miranda decision. That was a weighing too. It weighed the harm of letting some criminals go free with the harm to our society as a whole of having an unjust justice system. Miranda has been chipped away by the SCOTUS conservative majority, but it still stands because the weighing was undeniably correct.

So your statement is hogwash.

And what is the harm, specifically, of allowing corporations and other organizations to disseminate their own political messages? Are you saying that most of the electorate is dumber than you, and can't see through misinformation (which resides in pretty much ALL political ads, frankly) with the same wisdom that you do?

The President has said he considers limiting the free flow of money in our politics as very important but I don't know I would use the word "demand".

We should have an amendment to the Constitution that clarifies that speech is that which emanates from a human being in the form of physical speech, writings (regardless of medium) and expressions (I would include any form of art, dance, music, etc.). Excluded from the definition of "speech" is anything that emanates from the money, wealth or other non-human resources of the speaker. This right is limited to individual human beings and not collectively such as corporations, business organizations, unions, etc. I know this would affect unions but we have to draw the line somewhere.

I would like to see a limit on all contributions that at least pass the laugh test. For example even if you set a limit of $20,000 per candidate or ballot initiative, that is easy for the wealthy but difficult for a McDonald's worker to take advantage of. But it at least passes the laugh test and enables a group of 1,000 people to collectively match the $20K donation of a fat cat.

I would like to see more focus on the actual contributions of human persons - a person can make as many phone calls as he/she wants, knock on as many doors, stand as many hours they want at a booth, etc.

was used intentionally, no doubt, to rile up the "dictator obama haters".

The title and article don't match. That being said, I'd pay to see him actually do such a thing. It's not often you get to see a guy who raised over $700m for one election make substantive suggestions to change campaign finance.

otherwise we'd have single payer HC right?

Second, the article says no such thing.

This reminds me of that post a couple weeks ago about how the DC Dems get all puffed up for progressive issues that they know have no chance of passing.

The We the People Amendment proposed by Move to Amend does both. The language of the Amendment reads:

Section 1. [Artificial Entities Such as Corporations Do Not Have Constitutional Rights]

The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.

Artificial entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.

The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]

Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.

The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

I mean, really!

The temerity!

No respect for phony "bi-partisanship."

Or stupid 11-Dimensional games.

Won't SOMEBODY think of the poor, poor, downtrodden GOPee ?!?!

George W. Bush would have NEVER been so brash !!1!


Oh, yeah...

seems to be a good place

to which candidate or issue spends the most money on TV commercials and stuffs your mailbox with the most glossy printing.

during the next couple of years, I'd have to consider the Obama administration to be a huge success. But we must get finely tuned and geared up to GOTV in November. Certain governors, some senators and many house members must be thrown out.

Vote to amend the Constitution to overturn CU.

Really, snark aside, there has to be a way to get armchair warriors out to vote for this.

I'd say tomorrow would be a great day for him to dust off the pulpit and start selling.

Has he? If he said all who are with me on this come forth, if not here then at your local city hall.

I know we have had many protests who have tried this for one reason or another but I don't think Obama actually asked the people out himself...do it on a special tv broadcast prime time.

It definitely would have people talking everywhere!

K&R