Tag Cloud
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Rally for fair elections and clean government Aug. 10
by Robert Horowitz, published on July 20, 2010 at 10:56 PM
Storyline: Mountain Biking
More than $3 billion –billion with a B--in campaign funds were spent in the 2008 federal elections cycle (a). If you’re a typical American, you gave almost none of that. Most of the $3 billion was given by wealthy corporations and individuals who make up the top 2% of all earners.
How much is $3 billion? It’s approximately equal to what BP will pay for its screw-up in the Gulf,(b) and about the same as the drop in value of all assessed property in Sacramento County due to the economic downturn.(c) It’s similar to what 1500 Americans with a bachelor’s degree will earn in their entire lifetimes.(d). And it was given in only one election cycle.
Three billion dollars is a lot of money. And citizens should not be surprised when elected officials who depend on large donors consistently fail to act for the common good. It doesn't matter what your issue is, if there is money involved, lawmakers will act in accord with their campaign contributors' interests, not yours. Because the system itself is corrupting, simply changing legislators is not an effective long-term solution.
If you think there is a fundamental problem with government that only listens to the wealthy super-elite and corporate lobbyists, then please turn out for a rally on Tuesday, Aug. 10 in front of the federal courthouse in downtown Sacramento. This rally will be to support a new campaign called “The Other 98%” being organized by Move On. We, the people, are the Other 98% who do not have lobbyists on our payroll.
The premise of “The Other 98” is simple. Federal elected officials and candidates are asked to sign a pledge with three components.
- The candidate will work to overturn the recent Supreme Court decision which allows corporations to channel unlimited amounts of money into federal elections. Read about the decision here.
- The candidate pledges to support the Fair Elections Now Act, proposed federal legislation which evens the playing field for candidates who are supported by numerous small donors. For more info, see: http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/
- The candidate pledges to support legislation which stops corporate lobbyists from showering federal officeholders with gifts like free meals and travel to exotic locales, and ends the revolving door between federal officials and the higher-paying corporate world. Read about some of the revolving door appointees and their activities here.
At the rally, Sacramento Congresswoman Doris Matsui or her representative will sign The Other 98% pledge, and give brief remarks. Other speakers and signers are invited.
The Federal Courthouse is located at 501 I Street in Sacramento (5th & I). The rally will begin at 11:00 a.m. Please bring signs supporting free and fair elections. For more information about this event, or to volunteer to help, contact Michael DeSantis at: moveon810rally@yahoo.com
(a) http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/stats.php
(b) http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0705/bp-oil-spill-costs-spike-3-billion/
(c) http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/07/05/daily19.html
(d) http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/edandearnings.htm
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
The wikipedia link that you cite next to your 1st pledge point highlights the many conflicting views on this judgement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
For instance, the ACLU is torn on taking a position here. They are asking the right question here... Is the individual right to free speech stifled by the more powerful voice of corporations and unions, to the extent that corporations and unions require free speech limits?
So at best this is a challenging constitutional question. But it becomes a very politicized question when you recognize that repealing the law favors incumbent Democrats. And when MoveOn.org is sponsoring the rally, itthen becomes pretty clear what the real motivation here is: Self preservation for a Democrat President and Congress. And big money groups like MoveOn.org worried that they will get drowned out.
So I can see the point of being concerned about overbearing corporate dollars funding political ads. But you gotta watch your back when political hack lobbying groups like MoveOn.org say that they are watching out for the little guy.
But a sole owner or mom & pop business can already speak freely as individuals, so frankly there is not much negative impact to them from this ruling. For example there is not much difference if Joe pays for a political ad in his name or does so in the name of his donut shop business.
This ruling primarily affects larger corporations and unions who speaking on behalf of thousands of shareholders, members, and employees.
and that a Sub chapter S completely blurs the finanial line between and individual, the owner and his/her corporation as they are one and the same to the tax collector.
"At the rally, Sacramento Congresswoman Doris Matsui or her representative will sign The Other 98% pledge, and give brief remarks"