Third Party & Independents Archives

Too Much Democracy

Why is it so hard for people to voice that globalization has been/is a failure.
Ditto, we are ruled by Corpocracy/oligarchy.

I’m just amazed by it. Some make excuses that since they can’t do anything about it why bother, etc.

IMO, this government is failing and failure is desirable when you are racing toward the edge of a cliff.

Before we can discern solutions we must know the cause, the root cause of such failure.

Let's take a moment to understand the distinction between Democracy versus Republic.

IMO, we have too much Democracy. The Republic leans toward protecting the individual while Democracy, as a form of government, leans toward giving voice to the majority.

Couple the fact that we have too much Democracy with the fact that the elite, through their corporations, have used Democracy to usurp our form of Direct Democracy. They have been able to do this through Corporate Personhood law coupled with Money Is Free Speech law and of late, Citizens United vs FEC court rulings.

The result is a vocal (wealthy) Minority Group receiving most of the attention of elected representatives. That is why globalization and our government is failing.

Therefore, it seems logical that the solution to restore our Republic, national sovereignty, and the democratic principles we once lived by, is to abolish Corporate Personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform. CFR would mandate that all donations be managed through a private/public arrangement from the individual donor to a non-partisan government agency such as the IRS or FEC or a similar entity of the state.

Accomplishing those two reforms will relieve government of the money influence and renew the correct relationship between the people and their representatives.

But, and a big But, those reforms will never see the light of day through the Corpocracy. It will take a new 3rd party designed for the 21st century with a different political attitude to accomplish this.

Such laudable reform is the primary mission of the Republic Sentry Party, aka guardian of the REPUBLIC, Move To Amend and Reclaim Democracy.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by Roy Ellis at September 3, 2011 5:14 PM
Comments
Comment #328594

Roy,
Good points. I’m glad you put up links to three different 3rd parties who are focusing on this issue. Because let’s face it, differences in political viewpoints are going to remain, even if a wide majority of Americans come to the realization and agreement that what you describe above is clearly taking over this nation.

Btw, why do you call it Corpocracy? Did you coin this term yourself, or did you read it somewhere else? I’m curious because there are a few another terms that economic scholars and historians sometimes use to describe what you’re calling Corpocracy; namely: Crony capitalism or sometimes, State Monopoly Capitalism.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #328601

Adrienne, the Republic Sentry Party is a ‘wanna be’ 3rd party designed for 21st century politics. At this time we do not enjoy the support necessary to register as a political party under a state gov’t. But, the light is on, we will keep trying.

Move To Amend and Reclaim Democracy are developing organizations with a mission to abolish corporate personhood. I hope readers will visit and learn of the growing number of local and state govt’s planning/pushing legislation to abolish/amend corporate personhood law.

Excerpts as to their organization:

((MovetoAmend.org is a coalition supported by hundreds of organizations and tens of thousands of individuals dedicated to ending the illegitimate legal doctrines that prevent the American people from governing ourselves. Check out our full list of campaign co-organizers (steering committee organizations), key partners and endorsers.
To learn more, click on the “FAQ” and “Learn More” buttons in the main menu.

If your organization, business, union, faith community, or local governmental organization would like to sign on as a supporter of this effort, please let us know.

If you are a member of the news media and interested in learning more about Move to Amend, please contact us.
If you are interested in starting a Move to Amend affiliate in your community, click here.))

((ReclaimDemocracy.org was recognized by the IRS (pdf of approval letter) as a 501c3 non-profit organization in October of 2001. While we have a national office in Bozeman. MT, most of our work is done by volunteers dispersed around the country. All chapter organizers are volunteers.

More than 90% of our funding has come from individual donors, mostly in amounts of $100 or less, supplemented by sales of cause-related merchandise. Please contact us or call 406-582-1224 with any questions about our revenue or expenditures.

You can be a part of creating deep and lasting change by supporting ReclaimDemocracy.org today. We have a demonstrated track record of making a national impact on a shoestring budget. With your support, we will become a national force in creating a Democracy Movement. Our success depends overwhelmingly on individual supporters like you.

Please consider making a tax-deductible Donation now to support our vital work (and allow us to continue providing you the unique and free resources we offer on this site).

Thank you!

We also have numerous opportunities to get involved directly as a volunteer. Questions? Feel free to contact us with any queries or comments.))

Yes, I agree with you that, while we may share a prime objective or two, the differences in opinion will be vast, as it has always been, and should be, IMO. That is why the Republic Sentry Party stresses one prime objective, abolish corporate personhood. The Party will attempt to stir clear of social/divisive issues until the main objective has been accomplished. The idea is to bring people together on one issue and not become fragmented by delving into hot button social issues like abortion, gun control and the like.

We must, as a nation recognize that corporate personhood law has had grave consequences for the nation, our sovereignty, Constitution and our democratic principles. Today’s Washington Post carried an article on the major donors to Perry’s campaign for governor of Texas, Included were the perks/benefits assigned to those donors in later years. Astounding, but not unusual. We do have the best money gov’t can buy.

We simply can’t move forward until the money influence is removed or severely restricted from politics and gov’t. The United States is something more than a ‘commercial entity’, IMO.

I’ve no idea where the word ‘corpocracy’ came from but I find it a fitting term for an oligarchic gov’t comprised of corporate elite and career oriented politicians.
An example of corpocracy might be: From the WP article, $612k donated to Perry for Governor by a Phil Gramm PAC. Ex-Senator Gramm was Vice Chair of UBS, a Swiss Bank noted for hiding profits from the IRS. Recall that Senator Phil was responsible for the 2000 modification of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act which led to the subprime loan debacle and the ENRON loophole.

Benefits: UBS worked as consultant to governor’s office on sale of Texas lottery; investments of state teacher retirement systems, Wife Wendy appointed to Texas A&M Regents.

I’ll post a link to the WP article later.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 4, 2011 2:09 PM
Comment #328602


Wikipedia:

Corporatocracy: A system of government that serves the interests of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning (not withstanding the “free market” label).

The freedictionary:

Corpocracy: A society dominated politically and economically by large corporations.

Move To Amend and Reclaim Democracy are progressive, pro democracy, anti corpocracy websites.

Roy agrees with their anti corpocracy message, but less thrilled with their democracy message. As far as I know, there are no liberal, conservative, moderate sites dealing with the issue of corpocracy.

Adrienne, have you signed the petition?

Roy may have coined the word, but I believe it was in use at WatchBlog before Roy’s first appearance. I’ve been using the word for several years.

Roy thinks we have to much democracy, I believe we have to little understanding of what democracy is and how to use it to reach an equilibrium.

Posted by: jlw at September 4, 2011 2:19 PM
Comment #328606

Thanks for replying, Roy. I’d like very much to read that article when you come back to post it.

jlw, yes I just signed the Motion to Amend petition!
Thanks for posting those definitions — I’m now wondering when they were first coined, or when they came into more widespread usage. I’m also wondering in what way they differ, if they do at all, from the other two definitions I put up.
I have to admit though, Corpocracy is definitely the catchier term!
As for more vs. less democracy — like you, I’m all for more democracy.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 3:20 PM
Comment #328612

Here is the link to the Washington Post article re corpocracy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perrys-donors-fare-well-texas-style/2011/08/18/gIQABHU9tJ_story.html

This associated graphic sums it up.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/contributors-reap-rewards/2011/09/03/gIQAkVQH0J_graphic.html

Adrienne and jlw, here is a good article on ‘democracy’.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1259556/posts

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 4, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment #328613

Good luck with that, Roy Ellis. Consider the source. A third party is a pipe dream.

Why don’t you focus on destroying the statis quo party, the Democratic Party. Eliminating the Democratic Party would redefine the United States.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 4, 2011 5:48 PM
Comment #328627

Thanks for posting the WaPo article Roy. Do you really think that’s a good article on democracy? Shall I assume that article and it’s source tells me a lot about you personally? To be honest, I got only as far as where they called liberalism “closet communism” and then I stopped reading. Because that’s bullsh*t.
Was it your intention to insult jlw and myself? After all we’re progressives (well I am, and I’m pretty sure jlw is as well) — that means people like us stand farther to the left than liberals do.
Personally speaking, I’m an honest person and I’m no coward either. If I was actually a communist I’d come right out and say so.

Weary:

Why don’t you focus on destroying the statis quo party, the Democratic Party. Eliminating the Democratic Party would redefine the United States.

Destroy. Eliminate. These are the words that authoritarians/totalitarians/fascists use. Not to mention intolerant despots the world over.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 7:26 PM
Comment #328630

I think Adrienne was crushed by Roy’s posting of his link in which liberalism was labeled “closet communism”. Perhaps if she had read more she could clarify for us why the article was wrong. I would find that interesting to read.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 4, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #328634

Not crushed. Pissed. I’m tired of the rightwing horseshit and I absolutely refuse to read it.

Respect happens to be a two way street. This is something people on the right don’t seem to understand. You want us to read what you write? Try attempting to demonstrate little respect.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 7:59 PM
Comment #328637

WW, where have you been bloggin out? I assume you are equating the Democratic Party with democracy. No interest in destroying a party, WW. Just looking to fight fire with fire.

Right from the gitgo the legislator’s of the day started looking for a way to gain influence over ‘those other guys’. What better way than with a democratic tool like a ‘political party’? Can’t put it back in the bottle, WW, but we can try to ‘out party’ them in seeking a centrist position.

Should we win the contest, abolish corporate personhood and implement campaign finance reform, thereby removing the money influence, then that would have a cleansing effect on other parties. They would probably want to emulate us.

Now, that would be a game changer. Imagine, Direct Democracy working again, representatives paying attention to their constituents rather than shoving stuff down our throats like immigration, mandated healthcare reform, open borders for terrorist.

Can you believe these folks are still working on implementing the NAU rules even after 9-11? Watched a FOX report on ‘secrets of 9-11’ last evening and it’s pretty clear there are a number of cells from 9-11 still alive and well inside the country. The bad guys were flying in/out of the USA on multiple visas, holding numerous socials and drivers licenses, etc. Billions spent on intelligence but the borders remain insecure. Amazing.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 4, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #328638
Personally speaking, I’m an honest person and I’m no coward either. If I was actually a communist I’d come right out and say so.

Agree Adrienne, as I believe most of us here on WB are. You are exactly right and yet the Conservatives cannot understand this basic concept.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 4, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #328644

Adrienne, Great Green Gobs Of Grimy Greasy Gopher Guts - dear heart!

Please, don’t assume that for every article I cite I am in complete agreement with every word. Don’t believe I’ve intentionally tried to insult anyone through my postings.

Maybe useful to go back to the top of the thread and read the ‘distinction’ hyperlink. The article makes my point as to ‘democracy’ and Direct Democracy’. A lot of confusion there. I think we have too much democracy while we need to improve on Direct Democracy as a form of gov’t, IMO.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 4, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #328654

Roy,

Campaign finance reform has not been thwarted by “too much democracy” but rather by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court over the past decades. There have been a number of campaign finance laws passed. But, in each instance, they have been gutted by the Supreme Court, i.e., Buckley vs. Valeo, Citizens United, etc.).

Frankly, I don’t see how the argument about “too much democracy” squares with the history of campaign finance reform. If anything, the history seems to argue that there has not been enough democracy and too much republicanism.

Posted by: Rich at September 4, 2011 11:44 PM
Comment #328659

Royal Flush


“Perhaps if she had read more she could clarify for us why the article was wrong. I would find that interesting to read.”


nope……not gonna happen. that would require actually doing something besides spewing anti conservative quips, and other insults. i’ve posed pointed questions in other threads only to be accused of being rude, and then insulted with the latest political slur, ie childish name calling.

example

adrienne said

“Not crushed. Pissed. I’m tired of the rightwing horseshit and I absolutely refuse to read it.”


yet she makes comments like this, and posts links to leftist web sites and then gets angry when thier motives are questioned. i could go on, but i think you can see where this is going.


Roy

i agree that to much democracy is a bad thing. that is unless you happen to be part of that majority. the problem is, at some point your guys will be in the minority. you know what they say about turnaround being fair play.

Posted by: dbs at September 5, 2011 8:55 AM
Comment #328668

Not crushed. Pissed. I’m tired of the rightwing horseshit and I absolutely refuse to read it.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 4, 2011 7:59

Unlike you Adrienne, I do read liberal newspapers, magazines, blogs, and such. I watch CNN. I can’t find any liberal radio talk shows in my area or I would listen to them as well.

I often find some good ideas in these resources. And, being a conservative, liberalism is my political opponent in many cases. It is important to me to understand the liberal thinking and philosophy. How else can I act responsibly in challenging their positions? I must know them to oppose them. Not true?

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment #328670

Rich, to delineate between Republicanism and Corpocracy let’s go back to the beginning. (If you haven’t read this history please take the time to do so) This link relates that it took corporations 15 years of continuous law suits to get corporate personhood signed into law. No one can doubt that the 14th amendment was solely to protect and ensure the rights of the freed slave population. But, the corporations and gov’t supporters (corpocracy) realized that if the courts would recognize corporations as ‘persons’ then their corporations too would have certain human rights protecting them from some state regulations, lawsuits, etc.

They managed to do this even though there has never been a court hearing as to whether corporations are persons. The courts just assumed that people would understand that corporations were persons and that silence on the matter was sufficient.

While these same courts upheld that corporations were persons under the 14th, they refused to allow women the right to vote under the 14th. Three of the original judges also ruled that if a person was a certain part black that person could be discriminated against and the law stood until 1964.

No way I can see Corporate Personhood as a bastion of Republicans. Both major parties are equally ‘owned’ by corporate/elite donors. For example, the President received some $800M, mostly from large corporations for his 2008 run and was expected to top $1B in 12 but, that figure is surely in doubt at this point.

What is clear is that a small minority, corporate owners/elites/supporters, worked for 15 years to wedge their way into the 14th amendment. And, that vocal (wealthy) minority has come to rule, through corpocracy, the silent majority. That is an oft quoted fallacy of democracy. An axiom is that Democracy, left unattended, will evolve into the vocal minority in control of the silent majority.

From Direct Democracy we might use a democratic principle we once lived by as another example. ‘One person, one vote’. But the Corpocracy chose to blow that one away by having the courts proclaim that ‘money is free speech’.
Not to belabor the issue, Rich, but IMO, we do have too much democracy.

Watching cspan where a Rep is holding a town meeting in Los Angeles. Telling his constituents that one way to discourage companies from moving overseas is to remove the tax breaks they receive for moving overseas. I think 95% of the politicians are out there making such statements around the country. I believe the first time I heard that was back in the 70’s. And, I’m sure that if I’m around to tune in cspan ten years from now I’ll be listening to the same diatribe. You’d think if all those rep’s thought that way they might have been able to get together and invoke legislation to that effect. And, you can bet that in ten years down the road folks will listen attentively to the same spiel and figure that is a good idea. Meanwhile, we will ping-pong along, living under corpocracy, attentively waiting for hope and change and all that…

dbs, seems we have more small ‘coalitions’ leading the way than the majority. Just as the above para points out, the individual gets stiffed while the politicians cater to the small but vocal minorities.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 5, 2011 1:21 PM
Comment #328674

Roy writes; “No one can doubt that the 14th amendment was solely to protect and ensure the rights of the freed slave population.”

Correct. We finally have resolved the meaning of the Second Amendment and that battle is over.

I believe soon that we will face a battle over the meaning of the Tenth Amendment as well, and when that battle is won, much of the excessive power of the federal government will vanish.

And, I would like to see the Fourteenth Amenement revisited and the original meaning restored.

We can return to our constitutional Republic and the solid footing layed down by our founders. The pain threshold of veering off course is intensifying. And, pain is a great attention getter, it can not be ignored for long.

Posted by: Royal Flush at September 5, 2011 2:03 PM
Comment #328676


“Propaganda must be addressed to the masses and not to the intellectuals. It’s function was to call the attention of the masses to certain facts, not to educate them. Since the masses were influenced more by emotions than by reason, propaganda must be aimed primarily at the emotions. Given the limited intelligence of the masses, propaganda had to focus on constant repetition of a few basic ideas, eventually establishing these ideas as truths in the minds of the masses. In addition, mass meetings were psychologically important in creating support for a movement. They offered a since of community, gave meaning to life, and created the emotional effects that gave people strong convictions.”

HITLER AND NAZI GERMANY: A History, Jackson J. Spielvogel.

“focus on a constant repetition of a few basic ideas, eventually establishing these ideas as truths in the minds of the masses.”

Big government, socialism and taxes.

Posted by: jlw at September 5, 2011 2:27 PM
Comment #328679

Roy,

I don’t disagree with your concerns about corporate personhood. I also have concerns with the decisions that equate money with speech. I understand the history.

The point that I was making was simply that they didn’t occur through the legislative branch but through the courts invoking Constitutional prohibitions against legislative limits on speech, i.e., political speech. Corporations and special interest groups have used the individual and minority Constitutional protections from infringements on free speech to trump majority democratic desires for limits on political campaigns by corporations and special interest groups.

Posted by: Rich at September 5, 2011 3:05 PM
Comment #328686
All campaign donations are from the individual to the IRS. The IRS will be responsible for accounting and legality of donations. The IRS will bulk transfer donations to the FEC, breaking the audit trail. The FEC will be responsible for planning and distribution. Distributions will be divided between parties based on the number of viable parties and other criteria such as the number of viable candidates standing for each party for any given election.

Or,

All campaign donations are from the individual to the IRS. Total donations for any given year are limited to $2000 per individual. Donations from the individual shall be marked as to the receiving political party. The IRS will be responsible for accounting and legality of the donations. The IRS will mark the donations as to the receiving party and bulk transfer donations to the FEC. The FEC will be responsible for planning and distribution of donations in the amount marked for each party.


http://www.repdems.com/mod/resource/view.php?inpopup=true&id=14

Roy Ellis, the quote above if from the agenda of the Republican Sentry Party. I see a major flaw in this agenda as it pertains to contributions going to the party and not to the individual candidate. I don’t vote for a party and I am not about to contribute to a party and have it distributed to candidates I may disagree with or may not even know. I could care less about a party and I am not going to accept a party having the final say as to who receives my contribution. I hope this flaw has been overlooked and is re-addressed and not worded to give the power of the purse to a party instead of the voter.

We can both agree that effective campaign finance reform must include the abolition of corporate personhood. Corporations are not people. Workers and managers of those corporations have the opportunity to contribute to their candidate. They do not need the corporation to do it for them.

Effective campaign finance reform must also include a provision that requires only citizens of each congressional district can contribute to only the candidates running for that district’s offices. A citizen can only contribute to a candidate he can vote for. A citizen in california must not be able to contribute to a candidate running for an office in Indiana. The election of my representative must not be overshadowed by contributions from people who do not live in my district.

I would like to see more attention given to this matter. Campaign financing shouldn’t require Obama’s projected 1 Billion dollar pricetag.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 5, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #328687

Correction: Republic Sentry Party. My bad.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 5, 2011 5:07 PM
Comment #328693

Roy:

Please, don’t assume that for every article I cite I am in complete agreement with every word. Don’t believe I’ve intentionally tried to insult anyone through my postings.

Okay, Roy. I’m really glad you aren’t trying to insult anyone. There’s a lot of that in WB these days, and it’s off putting to say the least.

Maybe useful to go back to the top of the thread and read the ‘distinction’ hyperlink. The article makes my point as to ‘democracy’ and Direct Democracy’. A lot of confusion there.

Okay, so I read that ‘distinction’ hyperlink. I don’t personally view that as a definitive summing up of the Democracy vs. Republic topic, but see it rather as an opinion from a specific perspective. That being the case, I went to see who wrote that piece: Hamilton Abert Long from a book entitled: The American Ideal of 1776. The Twelve Basic American Principles.
Never heard of him or this book. So, I followed the link to the ‘Author’s Introduction and Information regarding the Author’ page. Turns out this was originally a self published book. The publisher’s (the author himself) notes about the book I found humorous — in it’s lofty assertions and praise for the author!
Went back to the main page. Here are the Chapters of Part 1 (the twelve principles) of that book:
1. The Spiritual is Supreme
2. Fear of Government-over-Man
3. Unalienable Rights—From God
4. Man Organizes Governments to Be His Tools
5. Limited Government
6. Decentralized Government
7. Equal, By God’s Gift, In Sight of God and Law
8. Life and the Pursuit of Happiness
9. Liberty—Against Government-over-Man
10. Private Property—Liberty’s Support
11. Taxes—Limited to Safeguard Liberty
12. The Majority—Limited for Liberty

I clicked through and skimmed some of the chapters. This appears to be a book that is choosing to view American Principles through a lens where Religion and Libertarianism is mixed together. I personally reject such a viewpoint. I am however aware that this is exactly what the Tea Party is fond of doing — and I feel it is leading this nation in very a dangerous direction.
Would you say that this book (or my comments about it) accurately reflects your own political viewpoint, Roy?

After skimming through those chapters I then wondered who else has been reading this book, so I did a Google search. As I expected, this book is extremely popular among Tea Party groups. Also Ron Paul followers. Some John Birchers. Some Glenn Beck admirers. A few Pro-Confederate websites.

Anyway…

I think we have too much democracy while we need to improve on Direct Democracy as a form of gov’t, IMO.
In your article above you also wrote:
The Republic leans toward protecting the individual while Democracy, as a form of government, leans toward giving voice to the majority.

Couple the fact that we have too much Democracy with the fact that the elite, through their corporations, have used Democracy to usurp our form of Direct Democracy.

You think the majority has too much of a voice? I strongly disagree. Like jlw, and Rich, I also don’t think that too much Democracy has been the problem. I think it’s too much republicanism that has brought us the Corpocracy we agree is a major problem.

Let’s take a look at what what some of the founders of this nation said about Democracy vs. the Republic they were instituting:

“Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths… A republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.” (James Madison, Federalist Papers, the McClean Edition, Federalist Paper #10, page 81, 1788)


First of all, should We the People ever be allowed to question the wisdom of the founders in any way, shape, or form? Or is that strictly off limits?
I say that because as we all know, these were wealthy men, and in their day when they said “the rights of property” this automatically included the ownership of slaves who worked their land, which definitely maintained their wealthy power and status.
Has representative government, republicanism, under the leadership of wealthy men like the founders truly worked in this nation? Have such wealthy people managed to represent everyone? Or some people far more than others? I think it’s the latter — and I think that if there had been fewer men of wealth in charge during the founding of this nation, We the People would have had more democracy than we do. And if we had more democracy from the beginning we might not now have a government still fully loaded with obscenely rich people who work in full collusion with corporations — while people who have far less wealth live lives of constant struggle.

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” - Thomas Jefferson

The rights of minorities must be protected — an excellent and noble goal. But has this been reached? Well, it depends upon which minority we’re speaking of, does it not? Jefferson claimed that the Republic they were instituting was the only way society could reach that goal. Did too much Democracy bring us to where we are now? Or was it was it too much of republicanism they preached? As it stands now we have wealthy men representing everyone in government who have given a small percentage (a minority) of super-rich people the power to dictate conditions and take away the rights of the vast majority of our citizens. Including such basic rights that support life like keeping jobs in this country that pay people enough to eat decently and keep a roof over their heads.

“The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816)

Did dividing the government in such a way through the Republicanism the founders advocated stop corruption from growing within the federal government? Or in state governments? Or in local governments? No, it didn’t. Maybe a bit more democracy was needed in order to balance out the wealthy republicanism?

“Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit, and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable [abominable] cruelty of one or a very few.” - John Adams

Has the Republicanism these founders championed brought ALL of our citizens security, or security to only some of our citizens? Namely, the citizens of the founders own class, the wealthy? And don’t we live in a day where the wealthy in all their security demonstrate all the powers of wealth etc., revel in wanton pleasures, show a capricious will, and an execrable cruelty towards the many, who have no security whatsoever? The many people who now listen as our wealthy “representatives” in government tell us that the Social Security Insurance and Medicare we’ve already paid for is going to be “rolled back” or done away with — and that there is just no money (due to the anarchy of the wealthy that has reigned under their leadership) to pay us back a dime of all we have paid in?
Did too much Democracy bring us here? Or not enough?

“Our real disease - which is democracy.” - Alexander Hamilton

Oh, well thanks very much for that Mr. Hamilton! You were the wealthy and elitist founder who so loved republicanism and so hated democracy that you advocated for a strong dictatorial central government, presidents and senators who served life terms, and state governors that were to be appointed by the president!

To sum up Roy, I agree that the Corpocracy we have is a very serious problem that definitely needs to be addressed, and that money has to be removed from politics and government if we ever want to see it actually be addressed, but I just can’t agree with you that too much democracy is what lead the country into the mess it is in now.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 5, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #328694

Rich:

The point that I was making was simply that they didn’t occur through the legislative branch but through the courts invoking Constitutional prohibitions against legislative limits on speech, i.e., political speech. Corporations and special interest groups have used the individual and minority Constitutional protections from infringements on free speech to trump majority democratic desires for limits on political campaigns by corporations and special interest groups.
Excellent points, Rich. Absolutely agree that the courts have aided in this, yet I also think it’s pretty obvious that the legislative branch of government has long colluded with the corporations, too. Posted by: Adrienne at September 5, 2011 7:01 PM
Comment #328701


WW, if I had some help over here, trying to be a ‘one man band’ political party, then I might proffer fewer gufaws in laying out party rules, agenda and the like. As I’ve stated, I don’t like political parties but I can see no way possible to banish them from our shores. I do believe we have to fight fire with fire in achieving the goal of abolishing corporate personhood and implementing campaign finance reform. I see no way for that to be accomplished except through a 3rd party, BUT NOT JUST ANY 3rd PARTY - - -
And, Adrienne, let’s you and I agree that my personal stance on anything is non-pertinent to the cause – the cause being abolishment of corporate personhood and implementing campaign finance reform. I could care less about a person’s beliefs so long as that person is willing to go to the mat in supporting that cause. Thus, the reason for pushing a party agenda with no social hot button issues. It’s like this – let’s come together as a 3rd party to remove the money influence from politics/gov’t. One agenda – abolish CP and implement CFR. Having done that then people can go back to whatever party/coalition/organization/faith/playing with ones self, whatever. For, once we have achieved the mission then we can all live happily ever after. We will have our Direct Democracy back, national sovereignty, democratic principles, etc.

I would hope the majority believe as I do, that it makes no sense to try and move forward as a nation, through the legislative process, the courts, etc UNTIL we remove the money influence. I’ve likened it to growing roses in a cesspool.

That said, I have no preference for any party or ideology. I believe I am a centrist, perhaps a populist to some level. I am unable to comprehend a 100% partisan ideolog. Moderation and and steering to the center of the channel appeals to me.

WW, I like your position on campaign finance. Here is my dilemma. Only way I can phantom to abolish CP and implement CFR is through a 3rd party. No other organization has the authority of gov’t needed to achieve this mission. Be interested in your thoughts. Further, how do we support this 3rd party? Yes, can be 95% volunteers but, it still takes some funds for commo, office space and the like. I’ve proposed that the Party have rules that enforced by the membership acting in an oversight capacity. That requires bigtime commo between candidates/incumbents, party officials and the entire constituency. A couple of cspan like channels should be adequate but, that cost something. So, if all donations defer to the candidate then how should/could Party operations be legally funded? It would be nice to have a few people sign on Republic Sentry so we could resolve such issues. Party rules remain flexible to change/editing until such time as the Party becomes registered in some state. The rules are then locked and apply from that point in time. What say, WW – hint hint, cajole, arm twist, beg wheddle and plead, etc.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 5, 2011 9:38 PM
Comment #328704

Roy:

It’s like this – let’s come together as a 3rd party to remove the money influence from politics/gov’t.

Fair enough, Roy. In that spirit here’s a few recent articles I’ve read that you might also be interested in reading. I thought perhaps you could use some of the info in them when writing future pieces for WB.

WaPo article: Members of Super-committee debt panel have ties to lobbyists

Quote from the article:

Nearly 100 registered lobbyists used to work for members of the supercommittee, now representing defense companies, health-care conglomerates, Wall Street banks and others with a vested interest in the panel’s outcome, according to a Washington Post analysis of disclosure data. Three Democrats and three Republicans on the panel also employ former industry lobbyists on their staffs.

CBS news: Study: CEO pay tops taxes at many big U.S. firms

Truthout: 4 Ways Government Policy Favors the Rich and Keeps the Rest of Us Poor

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 1:00 AM
Comment #328705

One more thing. After reading that CBS article, I want to make sure you check out the list of companies that dodged the most in taxes:

Top 25 Corporate Tax Dodgers

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 1:12 AM
Comment #328719

Adrienne, thanks for the links. I peruse the WaPo daily. But, to write about what people knows, has known for decades is just more tautology, IMO.

I’d rather concentrate my effort on solutions such as a new 3rd party with a diff - - -

But, I do occasionally post about some egregious act by the corpocracy. It is hard to stand by and watch a house burn down without yelling out.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 6, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment #328743

I support a committment by citizens to pay attention to their local governments. Many others in the national spotlight have supported local solutions. Adrienne has provided the definition of our freedom to us via. quoting Thomas Jefferson’s definition of our freedom.

“The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body.”
(Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816)

Adrienne goes on to ask why it didn’t work but fails to realize Jefferson’s Ideas were the foundation of the greatest nation on the planet. It hasn’t worked in Adrienne’s eyes because of the failure to realize it’s the flawed Progressive era’s failures we’re experiencing now, not the failures of Jefferson, our founding fathers, or the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps my experience observing the rigors of local government lends to my cynicism. Most local projects are justified by claiming they are to be paid for, not by the local community that builds the project, but by grants received from the state and federal governments.
The people in my community would never do some of the things done here if it weren’t for state and federal grants. My local government justifies itself by how much money it can get with the idea someone else will get it if we don’t!

And we wonder why our children are fat.

I know! It takes only one person to stand up and ask the local politician, “How are we going to pay for it?”. Just one person to look them in the eye and ask them if they would go door2door to ask for money to pay for this project!

You can spend 90% of your time looking them in the eye, a bee bumping against the glass, and instantly become the bird hitting the windshield when they disagree with you. I think it’s because they have more money than they think they have, and we believe them. Full faith and credit, and all that crap!

Would we be better off if we kept “party” out of the discussion? Can one man make a difference? My answer is, “Yes!”. I can make a difference, but not if I have to hire someone to define the rules for me. I know what is right or wrong. I shouldn’t have to pay someone to explain to someone else what I’m doing, before I do it! My local community knows me, my federal government doesn’t.

As soon as ordinary people start treating our government representatives as ordinary the sooner we will be heading towards our nation’s greatest achievements. Adrienne will come to realize the individual and the local community are the most influencial entities in all of our lives. We can go local and not care about what doesn’t effect us on the national level and our methods of communication will not allow our apathy towards national affairs go unchallenged. But our apathy towards national affairs now, will trim a huge amount of $ from the equation. “If I can’t pay for it, no-one should” should be our personal motto.

“If I don’t use it I shouldn’t pay for it”, should be our defense!



Posted by: Weary Willie at September 6, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #328774

Weary,

I don’t care if you stick to your Libertarian dog-eat-dog economic views, or that tea party tendency toward fetishism of the founders and their documents and statements as though they were made by infallible gods rather than a bunch of wealthy white guys who grew up with vast privilege and owned a lot of slaves — even if they were also pretty well-educated and enlightened by the kind of philosophy that was beneficial to the American people in the long run.

Our founders were also men who sent men much poorer than themselves off to fight, freeze, starve, march long distances, and often die in our Revolution against the British Crown. Those founders who did see that war did so sitting atop horses, commanding other men from a safe distance.

Still, let’s try to be civil and not beat up on each other here. The fact that my viewpoint on these things actually appears to escape you, or comes off as strange is (believe me) definitely mirrored by my own inability to find your views comprehensible.
As they say, it takes all kinds.

But, don’t bother trying to berate me either, okay? I happen to be very proud of the fact that I’m a progressive because we’re the kind of people who are unable to lose sight of those kinds of class differences — that make some people (like our founders) fortunate, powerful and educated, while teeming hordes of others are far less fortunate and often powerless — especially whenever they are forced stand alone.

This is the reason that Progressives like me will always choose to fight for more Democracy in our government, and want less elitism and Republicanism. Because we know damn well that only way folks on the lower rungs ever get a bite, let alone a piece of the pie, is when we stand together in solidarity.

So in other words, what seems to work for rightwing Libertarian types like you, isn’t ever going to do the same for people who think like me. There really is no way you could ever get me to agree with the stance you’re taking on “flawed Progressive values” — seriously, that only seems to make logical sense to the Haves, not to Have-nots.

So you hold to your political ideals and I’ll hold to mine. Our founders themselves frequently didn’t even agree with each other, so this country was destined to be a political tug of war anyway, wouldn’t you agree?

As soon as ordinary people start treating our government representatives as ordinary the sooner we will be heading towards our nation’s greatest achievements.

And look at that Weary — at the very least we can agree on this! I’d be more than happy to see our representatives being treated as ordinary. In fact, I’d love to see a few of them to be treated so damn ordinary that our laws would also apply to them, the very same way they are applied the rest us!

Posted by: Adrienne at September 6, 2011 11:49 PM
Comment #328803


Comment #328693 deserves several hip hip hoorays.

The problem with the progressive era is that those who fought for it are gone, their sacrifices forgotten, and many of their achievements are taken for granted. The less than intellectual aspects of the people makes it possible for the right to propagandize that there was some great ‘Golden Era’ that was destroyed by the progressive movement. All the progressive era did was put a dent in the power of the Robber Barons. The Robber Barons have been slowly but surely buying that power back.

Our Founding Fathers were more enlightened in theory than practice.

Jefferson had his ideal, a nation controlled by country squires. Hamilton had his, founding the Robber Barron society. The people had another version.

One aspect of the founding of our nation that is not taught to our school children is that there was considerable dissent among the common people about the government the founders set up.

Sir, there will be a $28 poll tax for your voter registration card because I’m not allowed to tell you it is free.

Posted by: jlw at September 7, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #328805

Excellent, Adrienne! We can agree. Let’s make this agreement work for us. Let’s use this opportunity and this medium to draft a law that would strike at the heart of campaign finance reform.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html

You, I, and Roy Ellis should take this opportunity to construct a law that will focus on Campaign Finance Reform in a way that will be taken seriously by our elected officials and citizens. We can format it as a bill and as a petition that can be printed by anyone who supports the idea. We can create a link that let users send our petition to their elected officials.

Hey! The sky’s the limit if we just focus on this one thing and get it done! If the three of us can agree to do this then we should create a new post that will be used exclusively for input from contributors concerned with campaign finance reform.

All those in favor say I.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2011 6:22 PM
Comment #328819

Wellll, I can’t see why we can’t come together under Republic Sentry since we each seem to think abolishing corporate personhood is a good idea.

But, I, let’s do it! WW, said it some time ago, ‘all politics is local’. I feel the same and like WW’s statements on same. We must defeat this carrot and stick federal - state relation. Lotsa questions like federal support for fighting Tx fires, FEMA and the floods, and so on.

I’ve never attended ‘anything’ political in my life but, following the printing of an opinion in my local paper, hopefully tomorrow, I’ll suggest that the county board of supervisors take a vote on whether they believe corporations are ‘persons’.

Maybe from that exercise I will start attending local meetings on a regular basis. Using emails may be a good way to get started on the CFR thing.

Adrienne, an article in WaPo today relating to the overfishing of the deep oceans. Scientists are recommending a near cessation as its so destructive to those fish populations, which are way different than more shallow water fish. No local gov’t influence there, WW. Will require ‘regulation’ and intl agreements. So, who will stand up the corpocracy on deep water fishing and, moderating the population of the earth. Consider that if 10% of Mexico’s population takes up residence in the U.S., draining their brains and manpower, is it not likely that Mexico will shun the prophylactics and go fer it?

Will be a good exercise to try and pin down a sensible CFR plan.

Adrienne, did you read the WaPo article in today’s on the make up of the debt panel. WB post forthcoming!!

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 7, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment #328822

Roy Ellis, I hope you print it here first.

You can go to your local government armed with the opinion of many here on WatchBlog. An organized attempt is a documentable attempt and an educational attempt all wrapped up in one.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2011 9:02 PM
Comment #328825

WW, first up, I believe I will have to work this CFR effort aside from the position I’ve taken with Republic Sentry. Many reasons: membership authorized to vote to reject, or not, incumbents nationwide from the party; we will work here on the premise there is no party, just voters; other reasons.

So, I guess the first thought I would broach is that whatever we come up with, ultimately a Dem or Rep legislator will have to take the ball and run with it, since we don’t have Article V Convention or any other ‘people’ tool to make law. The ultimate would be to get a bipartisan coalition of RepDems to sponsor a CFR bill. Since we will be asking the ‘big’ players to commit economical suicide re their careers, we should try to put some kind of positive spin on why CFR, as we see it, is a good idea. Brainstretch there…

I’ll try to get some bullets on paper and ketch up with you tomorrow or follow your que if you post first.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 7, 2011 9:40 PM
Comment #328829

Roy Ellis, I think you are expecting your Rep to come up with the ideas needed for campaign finance before we can do anything.

That’s not what I’m saying. I want to put forth a rule that defines campaign finance that will be acceptable to the powers that be, and acceptable to the people.

I want to follow a simple rule. KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.bysec/formsofaction.html#bills

If I can get my local government to recognize a bill that defines campaign finance on a local level the battle is won!
Elections are administered by the local government! What more needs to be said?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 7, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #328848

WW, I believe the idea is to work together on a CFR statement that others here at WB might embellish and maybe get up a petition for the public and/or local gov’ts.

Hopefully, some state legislatures would pick up on our effort and generate a CFR bill in their state capitol.

It might be a good idea to get the ground work done somewhere other than WB. Could use the ‘discussion forum’ on Republic Sentry as it hasn’t been used to date.

Haven’t heard from Adrienne!!??

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 8, 2011 12:07 PM
Comment #328852

Hey Weary and Roy,
Sorry I neglected our conversation. I’ve been hanging over in the blue column having a back and forth with Royal Flush. :^)

I’m very interested in what you’re trying to do here, and how you think it can be accomplished. However I need more info before I’d want to declare myself. Have you started any kind of basic statement, or an outline for this bill you want to write yet? Or are you right now starting from scratch?
Don’t take offense over the fact that I’d need to know a lot more about your ideas before fully committing. It’s just that I know that both of you guys are way farther to right than I am, and you seem to hold a lot of Libertarian notions about American government that you must realize I’m not ever going to share with you — even though I fully agree that money and corruption is an enormous problem that needs a solution.

Just trying to head off what could end up as a frustrating endeavor if I’m not going to be able to agree with the foundational premise. And yet, even if I don’t, it will still be interesting to see what your ideas are.

Is this legislation first and foremost about taking on corporate personhood? Or is this about how to change the financing of political campaigns? Or are you taking on both?

Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #328883

Having contributions made by only voters would do away with corporate money in elections. Only contributing to candidates the citizen can vote for will keep outside influences from our elections.

Basically, I would only be able to contribute to the candidates that are on my ballot. Period.

Only citizens can vote, so only citizens can contribute.

That’s pretty simple. Set a dollar limit and it’s done.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 8, 2011 4:57 PM
Comment #328905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_in_the_United_States

WW, that is pure and simple. At first brush contributions only by registered voters would cut corporations, PACS and soft money, others out of the campaign finance system. Of course, this would be illegal under current law in most states.
From wiki / A small number of states and cities have started to use broader programs for public financing of campaigns. One method, which its supporters call Clean Money, Clean Elections, gives each candidate who chooses to participate a fixed amount of money. To qualify for this subsidy, the candidates must collect a specified number of signatures and small (usually $5) contributions. The candidates are not allowed to accept outside donations or to use their own personal money if they receive this public funding. Candidates who choose to raise money privately rather than accept the government subsidy are subject to significant administrative burdens and legal restrictions, with the result that most candidates accept the subsidy. This procedure has been in place in races for all statewide and legislative offices in Arizona and Maine since 2000, where a majority of officials were elected without spending any private contributions on their campaigns. Connecticut passed a Clean Elections law in 2005, along with the cities of Portland, Oregon and Albuquerque, New Mexico./
Considering ‘Clean Money, Clean Elections’, it seems the states have wide discretion in CF law. While it’s likely state/local would consider a law based on the thrust of your post on the subject, it seems highly unlikely they would favor such a proposal and banish all other methods of CF. As to enforcement, how might that responsibility be met?
My most immediate question; are we pursuing a plan, petition, proposal on CF hoping that we can eventually convince readers and local/state authorities to adopt such a plan as the only legal way to fund local/state candidates/incumbents?
Adrienne, I’m assuming that we will concentrate on CF only.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 8, 2011 8:13 PM
Comment #328954

There ya go, Roy Ellis!

Adrienne openly admitted her reluctance to join this battle because of our political label.

It’s just that I know that both of you guys are way farther to right than I am, and you seem to hold a lot of Libertarian notions about American government that you must realize I’m not ever going to share with you — even though I fully agree that money and corruption is an enormous problem that needs a solution.
Posted by: Adrienne at September 8, 2011 1:41 PM

How are we going to get Adrienne to join our cause?

Adrienne, your participation in this endeavour is a requirement. Otherwise we’re all three, just fartin’ in the wind.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #328959

I have no political label that I know of. Therefore, by default, I must be a centrist. I think of myself as neutered, no threat to anything or anybody. While the left taunts ‘taxes, taxes, taxes’ and the right verberates with ‘Regan, Regan, regan’ I chime in in the middle with ‘no CPCF, no CPCF, no CPCF, etc. My syntax makes no sense to most but is the breath of life for liberty, freedom, et al, in this country.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 9, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment #328964

BBBrappp! Opps! Excuse me!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 9, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #328986

WW, because US congresspersons are influential at the national level Republic Sentry allows party members, acting as oversight, to vote for/against these incumbents on a party wide basis as well.

Do you think campaign donors for US congresspersons should be allowed to donate on a national basis?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 10, 2011 10:25 AM
Comment #329007

Citizens must only contribute to the congressperson they are allowed to vote for. No one else.
Whereas: A Citizen can only vote for one congressperson
Therefore: A Citizen must contribute a set amount, divided amongst the the candidates for that position, as that Citizen sees fit.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment #329011

What about write-in’s?
Could a person vote for a write-in’s whose name won’t appear on a ballot?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 10, 2011 3:12 PM
Comment #329012

Rather, could a person ‘donate’ too a write-in?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 10, 2011 3:14 PM
Comment #329021

In the Nov, 2010 election, the positions available to me were:
1. United States Senator
2. Sec. of State
3. Auditor
4. Treasurer
5. United States Representative
6. State Representative
7. Judge of the Circut Court
8. Prosecuting Attorney
9. Fourth District Court of Appeals
10. Fifth District Court of Appeals
11. Constitutional Amendment Question

http://wayeo.egis.39dn.com/

If we were to finance a set amount of dollars per citizen for each seat available in the 2010 election cycle via. a public campaign finance law, it would limit the amount of money available and a set of rules can be determined by the marketplace. Since most of the seats available are on the local level (city/county) most of the money allotted to the Citizen would be contributed to local candidates. The broader the scope of the seat available the more money is allotted/spent/contributed to it via. more Citizens allowed to vote for that seat.

If our contribution amount was limited to 10$ per seat, the total cost per citizen would be 110$ for this election.
40$ would be spent on statewide elections
10$ spent on federal representation
10$ on state representation
40$ on district judiciary
10$ on questions

Indiana has 4,329,153 registered voters. At 110$ per voter the cost would be 476,206,830$

173,166,120$ would be available to the statewide seats (1-2-3-4).
129,874,590$ for representation of voter’s districts and questions (5-6-11)
and another
173,166,120$ for the court. (7-8-9-10) (this smells fishy)

But, do you see my point? Do you see how much control could be placed into the hands of the Citizen if this type of campaign finance was adopted?

The money starts off in the hands of the Citizen and it is transfered to the hands of the candidate in an orderly, simple, and consistant fashion.

There is nothing wrong with expecting something this simple to work.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #329027

What you do is level the playing field. Every Citizen is a player and every player get 1$ per vote.
Our current monitary system allows for one dollar to accomodate 100 separate decisions.

That is campaign finance reform.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment #329031

It sounds more and more like our campaigns should be financed with monopoly money (the game).

That would limit outside influence.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2011 6:41 PM
Comment #329037

Ha Ha, I just thought of something!

That’s a penny for my thoughts.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 10, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #329052

Yes, super simple and seems would do the job very well. Still, it seems that half a billion is too much to spend on a state election cycle. And, I’m sure in todays politics and economy folks wouldn’t come across with $110 bucks.

Do you think having the state treasury chip in to ensure a certain dollar amount is available for any particular election cycle, making up for any shortfall in donations?

I sure could support a campaign finance policy along those lines. But, you can bet the duopoly/corpocracy would fight tooth and nail to make sure it never sees the light of day.

Just like a flat tax could deliver a fair taxation system and require a one page form to report annual taxes. Won’t ever get to the table with the corpocracy.

And, consider the billions in savings annually that would be derived from these simple processes.

Say, WW, have you noticed the silence near the end of this thread? Gonna be a hard sell, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 11, 2011 12:32 PM
Comment #329053

Nothing has been said about write=in’s and how a wanna be candidate goes about getting on the ballot. Seems there has to be a qualifier or is that a non=sequeter(?)?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 11, 2011 12:37 PM
Comment #329086

The qualifier is the local community.
The qualifier is the dad.
The qualifier is the mom.
The qualifier is the church.
The qualifier is the neighbor.
The qualifier is the teacher.

The sooner the qualifier is determined by the local government, the sooner the local government will benefit the people.

Why do people promote local food pantries and why do people support the federal food stamp program?

The nuts and bolts of a successful government is a combination of the qualifiers mentioned above, and a determination to qualify those positions on a daily basis.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 11, 2011 11:53 PM
Comment #329087

and now my anti-virus software must update.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2011 12:07 AM
Comment #329099

Yeah, it must not be a problem as we don’t have an overwhelming number of people contesting for the same position for any election cycle.

Several incumbents in this county are non-affilated.

So simple, requires hardly any oversight, mgmt. I suspect this is what the people once had but ‘parties’ came along with ‘$$’ and took over the show. Candidates would opt for joining a party for the ‘$$upport’ they got from it.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 12, 2011 10:43 AM
Comment #329128
Yeah, it must not be a problem as we don’t have an overwhelming number of people contesting for the same position for any election cycle.

It’s funny you should say that! There are actually hundreds of people running for the office of President in every election cycle. The MSM will only show you a few dozen of them at best.

These hundreds of candidates can be vetted by their local communities. But only if the local community takes control of the primary process from the party, and takes control of how the media presents candidates to their audiences.

I’m not advocating a challenge to the first amendment! But, the same can be said to the media as is said to everyone else!

“If you want the money you will follow our directions.”

We do have an overwhelming number of people contesting for the same position. Unfortunately, the MSM is allowing us to take the easy way out of making an educated decision by cherry-picking our candidates for us.

The local community should resist the influence of the MSM by promoting a focus on local programming. I’d much rather watch the Knox Redskins play the North Judson Bluejays than watch the Indianapolis Colts play the Green Bay Packers! I’d much rather watch someone’s 2nd grader compete in a Jepardy-ish competition, or a play performed by the local drama club. There would be no reason to watch the MSM if the local community used it’s own resources to provide the same type of entertainment.

Corporate personhood and campaign finance issues can be much smaller problems if they were controlled on the local level. Our MSM has brainwashed us to think everything starts and ends with the federal government. That’s not true. It’s easier to persuade a smaller number of people toward their own best interests. You must use force to persuade a large number of people to fit into a mold created by the federal government and the MSM.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2011 8:27 PM
Comment #329136

Our federal government is a modern day “Peeping Tom”.

It might be well to treat it as such.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 12, 2011 11:26 PM
Comment #329159

WW, I haven’t contributed a lot to the issue but I can agree with what you are Proposing. Super simple and so American. Basically implementing how we carried out elections years ago, IMO.

So, let’s put it in the form of a petition and run it up the flag pole. Are you ready for that?

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 13, 2011 1:00 PM
Comment #329174

I’m ready!
Adrienne, are you willing to contribute?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #329218
Bills A bill is the form used for most legislation, whether permanent or temporary, general or special, public or private.

The form of a House bill is as follows:

A BILL

For the establishment, etc. [as the title may be].

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, etc.

The enacting clause was prescribed by law in 1871 and is identical in all bills, whether they originate in the House of Representatives or in the Senate.

Bills may originate in either the House of Representatives or the Senate with one notable exception. Article I, Section 7, of the Constitution provides that all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives but that the Senate may propose, or concur with, amendments. By tradition, general appropriation bills also originate in the House of Representatives.

There are two types of bills-public and private. A public bill is one that affects the public generally. A bill that affects a specified individual or a private entity rather than the population at large is called a private bill. A typical private bill is used for relief in matters such as immigration and naturalization and claims against the United States.

A bill originating in the House of Representatives is designated by ”H.R.” followed by a number that it retains throughout all its parliamentary stages. The letters signify ”House of Representatives” and not, as is sometimes incorrectly assumed, ”House resolution.” A Senate bill is designated by ”S.” followed by its number. The term ”companion bill” is used to describe a bill introduced in one House of Congress that is similar or identical to a bill introduced in the other House of Congress.

A bill that has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies becomes the law of the land only after-

1.Presidential approval; or
2.failure by the President to return it with objections to the House in which it originated within 10 days (Sundays excepted) while Congress is in session; or
3.the overriding of a presidential veto by a two-thirds vote in each House.

Such a bill does not become law without the President’s signature if Congress by their final adjournment prevent its return with objections. This is known as a ”pocket veto.” For a discussion of presidential action on legislation, see Part XVIII.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 13, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #329300

WW, do we not need to go the petition route first, get a bunch of signatures and then find some pol to introduce the petition as a proposal for a H.R.Bill?

Here is a ‘petition’ by Move To Amend. Just a statement of what we propose to accomplish and signed, with proper bonafides, by as many folks as you get.

“”We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.

Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.”“

Recommend all readers consider this petition and sign it at Move To Amend. Did you know the Constitution doesn’t decalre that you have a right to vote or that your vote will be counted?

Weary, give us a petition or a bill proposal and we’ll go from there.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 15, 2011 10:22 AM
Comment #329323

Actually we do, Roy Ellis! We have the right to vote.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

We should have that statement clarified.

We should be Citizens. That would make campaign finance reform easier to get off the ground.

Let’s explain the U.S. Constitution in it’s original intent to our children, media, and politicians as Citizens.

The original document capitalized the word People just as it capitalized the word Members and also House and Representatives. Even Year is capitalized, ie. giving an equal significence to People and Members and House. All the words used to define the quantifiable and tangible entities are capitalized.

I don’t think that was a coincedense. To make a meaningful attempt at campaign finance reform Section 2 should be amended to be:

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the Citizens of the several States,

It’s a new spin on the “We the People” line, which is oh, so colonial-ish. Don’t you think? This is exactly what a living document should do, right? It must evolve to solve the problems our generations are experiencing, yes?

Evolve to solve! That’s mine, folks! Rwidacircle.

Back to campaign finance reform/corporate personhood/corpocracy, and their solutions… Down to brass tacks.

We must evoke Article 5 to make this modification to our U.S. Constitution. Rest assured, our modification will be focused and pinpointed and without ambiguity.

“We are no longer People! We are Citizens! Citizens of the State of our choosing!”

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the Citizens of the several States,


Citizens don’t go to war. People do. Let’s get past that!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 15, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #329337

WW, I can’t see where the word ‘citizens’ or ‘people’ would have made any difference to the corpocracy in looking for corporate personhood. They would have argued that corporations are citizens too, IMO. Whatever people are, then corporations would want to be the same.
Re the right to vote and have your vote be counted:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/right_vote_amendment.php
More url’s relating to this topic at the bottom of the link/page
It would seem a court would view ‘people’ and ‘citizen’ as one and the same as it relates to the Constitution. But, then we have ‘money is free speech’ and so on …

Shouldn’t put all your eggs in one basket with Article Five, WW. A 3rd party w/a diff pol att could get the job done as well.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 15, 2011 9:55 PM
Comment #329360

WW, much of you has disappeared before my very screen.!

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 16, 2011 10:38 AM
Comment #329368

I noticed that this morning.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2011 3:40 PM
Comment #329369

But you’re right about biting off more than I can chew. I’ll keep my focus on the CF until we get that put together.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 16, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #329411

WW, perhaps Cameron wants more ‘debating’ and less ‘planning’. You could post your final petition on Republic Sentry as a way of introducing it to the public. And, you could put it in a new WB article and see what kind of response you get.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 17, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment #329416


Why We Need a Right to Vote Amendment
By Jeff Milchen

“Don’t We Already Have the Right to Vote?” is usually the first reaction when Americans hear calls for a Right to Vote Amendment. The answer? No.

Say What?!


Actually we do, Roy Ellis! We have the right to vote.


Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html


Roy Ellis, How do you support Jeff Milchen’s phylosophy when Section 2 is already the law of the land?

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 17, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #329417
WW, perhaps Cameron wants more ‘debating’ and less ‘planning’.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 17, 2011 4:49 PM

Roy Ellis, perhaps Cameron wants more ‘adhearance to the norm’ and less ‘questions’.


Posted by: Weary Willie at September 17, 2011 8:30 PM
Comment #329433

I don’t see Section 2 as being definitive in a broad scope. Jeff points out some good examples of where voters were not allowed to vote in certain circumstances and where votes cast were not counted. I can find no mention in the Consitution where you are guaranteed a right to vote and that your vote will be counted.

A lot of ramifications to each and I’m not sure a better system could be put in place. But, we can do something about corporate personhod, money is free speech and campaign finance reform. That train is building up steam.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 18, 2011 5:07 PM
Comment #329497

Section 2 states that the HOR will be stocked with representatives selected by the people. It does not specify how those representatives are selected. The state could have a tiered playoffs in Cornhole tossing to select their representatives if it wanted to.

However, it does say the People will elect their representatives to the House.

Jeff was also thoughtful enough to include links to this data:

Fifteenth Amendment
Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Nineteenth Amendment
Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Twenty-Sixth Amendment
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

In each one of these amendments to the U.S. Constitution it states:
The right of citizens..
..to vote shall not be denied..

and they specify what methods of denial are unacceptable:

race, color (? same?different?)
previous condition of servitude —- (felony convictions? Anyone?)

sex —- (We’re all either one or the other)

age —- (You have to be an adult)

Who’s been left out, Roy Ellis! The constitution states that every citizen is eligible to vote. I have pointed out an error in our ways concerning rehabilitated offenders being discriminated against after their involuntary servitude has been completed, but other than those felons, who has been left out, Roy Ellis?

If you say “Non-citizens” you have made my point for me.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 19, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #329506

…and my virus software updates…again…

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 19, 2011 7:34 PM
Comment #329559

WW, understood, on this end, that non-citizens would not be allowed to vote. Are you, round of bout, saying that non-citizens should have a go at pulling the lever?

I think a good many do get to vote through ACORN shenigans and the like.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 20, 2011 8:00 PM
Comment #329603

No, only citizens should have the right to vote. My point is that if you are a citizen you have the right to vote via. the 15,19,26th amemdments. I can’t see anyone being left out of the equation. Considering the amendments, Jeff’s assertion that there is no right to vote expressed in the constitution is simply not true.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 21, 2011 4:14 PM
Comment #329620

Did you ever go look at the original text of the Constitution and find where the word People is and where the word Citizen is?

If I’m not mistaken, the word Citizen is used first when the founders defining the Judiciary. Otherwise, People is used everywhere else.

I’m formulating a comment and my McAfee AntiVirus Plus software must upgrade again! It says I must “Restart Now”!
How rude is that?!

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 21, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #329639

WW, I agree that the Constitution gives us the right to vote but there are instances where our vote doesn’t get counted, as Jeff points out.

Maybe contact Jeff and see if he can clarify/amplify on his position.

Are you going to propose your campaign finance plan to your county in the form of a resolution, initiative, referendum?


Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 22, 2011 10:46 AM
Comment #329676

I suppose it will have to be a door-to-door petition. It would be impressive if it were presented to citizens as a book filled with our greivance and the names of the citizens willing to obey this law. Their name could be part of history!

Have you ever done the door-to-door thing, Roy Ellis? I tried it for a little while before it was outlawed. I went door-to-door selling photography. First 8x10 for $2.00. Had my first talk with God and had 7 sales the next day!

I had my first talk about our petition with my father this weekend. I asked him if he would favor a law that limited campaign contributions to only those candidates he could vote for. He didn’t like the idea very much. He wants to be able to support any representative that supports his political beliefs. I would have mentioned that his philosophy is geared towards thinking the federal government is the starting place for anything worth while, but I’ve learned to respect the man’s position. Hopefully, one day I will be able to persuade the ol’man to see some things my way. Until then I’ll just enjoy having lunch with him again.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 22, 2011 8:33 PM
Comment #329694

I agree with your petition, WW. Talk to you dad about large corporates stacking the deck by putting a zillion nickels on each of their desired candidates. His ten bucks on a good guy ain’t going to hack it.

Yes, I’ve gone to three different barber shops over the last few years hoping to talk up a 3rd party. All I got was different hairstyles. I put two ads in a local paper for a 3rd party meeting, rented a fire hall and nobody showed.

Thankfully, along came Reclaim Democracy and Move To Amend pushing abolishment of CP and MIFS. They provide a ‘model Resolution’ which I am taking before the county board of supervisors either this month or in Oct. A good number of cities and counties have adopted the resolution. Move To/Reclaim hopes to drive it home through the first part of Article V Convention.

But, as to how to push a 3rd party from my front porch - - - I haven’t figured that one out. It’s got to come from the grass roots though. Can’t be a flash in the pan ‘Perot’ type thing.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 23, 2011 11:47 AM
Comment #329721

Your point about the amount of money spent by corporations must be clarified in our petition. But first a foundation must be laid.

, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

That’s done! Let’s move on to the grievance.

Corporations Are Not People.
Stop treating them as such.

Only Citizens will participate in the election process.


Every citizen will be credited with one dollar for each seat on the ballot. Paid for with available funds.

Example:

I am able to vote for 1 city council seat, 1 mayoral seat, and 1 Clerk/Treasurer seat in my next local election. My Personal Election Account is credited with 3 dollars, 1 for each seat available.
I have 4 candidates for mayor, 2 candidates for city council and 1 candidate running for Clerk/Treasurer.
With my 3 dollar credit, I am able to accomodate every candidate I choose. My decision is equal to a sale at the local gas station. I am given a 3 dollar voice and I can make 100 different choices in 3 different elections.

That’s a start. Yes?

It’s local. It’s finite. It’s accountable.

Give me your take on this approach, Roy Ellis.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 23, 2011 7:43 PM
Comment #329723

Let’s get our priorities right! My PEA (Personal Election Account> belongs in a bank, not in a cup.

Posted by: Weary Willie at September 23, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment #329733

Will reply this evening or tomorrow, WW. Sometimes I actually do real work.

Want to make you aware of a very good series of articles in yesterdays Washington Post. The entire business section was devoted to the world order following 1945 Breton Woods. If you don’t find it let me and I’ll try to dig up a url or two. I hope I can put an article together by first of the week.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 24, 2011 11:39 AM
Comment #329789

Ok, WW, I’m a simple man. I was agreeing with you that all politics is local, that only a ‘qualified’ citizen can vote and only for a candidate that shows, or is wrote in, on his/her ballot.

I am not sure about buying in to PEC’s and alloting so much $$ per voter per election cycle. Seems complicated and somebody’s got to do the parsing of the $$. That sounds a little risque. Why can’t we just KISS it a little more?

Maybe give me anuther sales pitch on it. I ain’t the smartest frog on the lily pad.

Note my top article on the evolving world economy. I couldn’t find a WaPo url for that article. Name is ‘Waiting on the next world order’. Maybe you or a reader can come up with it.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 25, 2011 9:25 PM
Comment #330652
Ok, WW, I’m a simple man. I was agreeing with you that all politics is local, that only a ‘qualified’ citizen can vote and only for a candidate that shows, or is wrote in, on his/her ballot.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at September 25, 2011 9:25 PM

That puts it in a nutshell, yes? We have a consensus. The two citizens participating in this discussion have agreed:

politics is local only a ‘qualified’ citizen can vote only for a candidate that shows, or is wrote in, on the ballot

What do you think, Roy Ellis?

Can we send this to our local representatives?

Can we ask our local candidates to support this?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 18, 2011 2:47 AM
Post a comment