Out of the Supreme Court, no less:

The Supreme Court is siding with Ohio’s top elections official in a dispute with the state Republican Party over voter registrations.

The justices on Friday overruled a federal appeals court that had ordered Ohio’s top elections official to do more to help counties verify voter eligibility.

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, a Democrat, faced a deadline of Friday to set up a system to provide local officials with names of newly registered voters whose driver’s license numbers or Social Security numbers on voter registration forms don’t match records in other government databases.

Ohio Republicans contended the information for counties would help prevent fraud. Brunner said the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters.

The GOP will still have their challengers at the polls, but this takes away a huge roadblock that would have disenfranchised hundreds of thousands of first-time voters before they even got to their polling places.

Kudos to Ms. Bruner for bringing integrity back to the Ohio Secretary of State’s office.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Senator Don Benton claims that his campaign is funded by small business owners and individual citizens at a clip of 60% of his total haul. Aside from the other 40% of his funds coming from places like the National Rifle Association, payday lenders such as Money Tree, tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds, and corporations like Wal-Mart, Benton’s claims may be correct. One of those individual contributors is Washington philanthropist David Nierenberg.

Nierenberg is the founder of D3 Family Funds of Camas, WA. A longtime contributor to Democrats statewide, Nierenberg invited the senator to invest in D3, which he did, to the tune of $75,000. Benton saw a return on his investment of at least $2,900.

Why is this troubling? David Nierenberg, filing as an individual citizen (and CEO of D3) contributed $2,900 to Don Benton this election cycle. Nierenberg has stated in the past that he supports candidates not by party, but those who exhibit “independent thinking.” David Nierenberg is certainly an independent citizen, but is Don Benton the type of independent thinker Nierenberg thinks he is?

While there is no specific indication that contributors like Mr. Nierenberg are purchasing access through campaign donations, relationships like this one deserve scrutiny, especially considering similar recent scandals with the Alaska state legislature. The meaning of independence, both by those contributing and the legislators whose campaigns they fund, is what’s at stake here.

Was Don Benton thinking independently when he launched his subscription-only legislative news website for registered lobbyists (which ultimately failed)? When state legislative ethics counsel Mike O’Connell warned Benton to “erect firewalls” between his legislative duties and business dealings, Benton ignored them. He signed the solicitation himself and referenced his legislative experience as reasons to subscribe to his service.

Was Don Benton thinking independently when he accepted donations well over the $2,500 contribution limit as head of the GOP state party? Even members of his own party were embarrassed by his actions. King County GOP chairman Reed Davis said Benton left the party in “near chaos.” These incidents paint a picture of the wrong kind of independence needed for voters of the 17th District.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

The name of the political game is money, money, money.   What it buys is access and legislation that does not necessarily benefit the people of the district the politician reportedly represents.

Here are two cases in point:

1.     Don Benton, a Republican incumbent in the 17^th Legislative District, has now amassed in excess of $180,000 in his bid for re-election.   Before the general election in November, it will surely be in excess of $300,000.   The salary of a State Senator is $42,106 per year.   Most of the money comes from corporations (tobacco companies, Wal-Mart, insurance companies, major banks, etc), PACs, and well-to-do individuals.  But, there are also plenty of smaller contributors who obviously believe in contributing to the Republican party.  It is these people to which I can feel a real affinity.  Don Benton does not need their money and will not necessarily vote in their best interest.  Assuming that a person living on a limited fixed income is comfortable making a $25 donation, it would take 64 such persons contributing to make up for one well-to-do person, PAC or corporation giving $1,600 (the limit).   Only a fool would be willing to knowingly contribute to this charade.

2.     Brian Baird, a Democratic incumbent in the 3^rd Congressional District, has now amassed $1,083,000 in his bid for re-election.   The salary of a member of Congress is $169,300.    He is facing three opponents in the primary but is not campaigning at the present time.   Apparently he is saving campaign funds for the general election.   The largest amount of money that any of his primary opponents has raised is $24,275.    Corporate and PAC contributions to his campaign are not much different than contributions received by Benton.   Indeed, he gives a lot of it away.  http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_com/H6WA03135. Recipients have been the Democratic Congressional Campaign ($42,860 in 2007), the Washington State Democratic Party ($5,160 in 2007) and members of the Democratic party running for election.   Only a fool would knowingly contribute to his campaign since it is clear he does not need funding.

People wishing to help elect true representation in Congress can contribute to Cheryl Crist who is not taking corporate or PAC money and is running against Brian Baird.     Citizens in the 17^th District can contribute to David Carrier (Benton’s opponent).   Carrier is not accepting corporate money or PAC contributions.   Neither of these candidates currently has adequate funding to counter-act the advantages that big money can buy.   Carrier states that he needs $30,000 to mount a campaign - as of 7/28/08 he has received $8,693.  Crist has raised $19,195.

The time is long overdue for public financing to be implemented throughout the U.S. and for the influence of corporations to be outlawed.    How can citizens possibly be represented in the halls of government by those auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder?     It is time for the charade to be over and for citizens to stand up to the puppeteers and start cutting the strings.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At July 30, 2008, Tom Sharples wrote:

  The candidate running against Brian Baird who raised $24K is Michael Delavar, the anti-war Republican.

  That $24K was raised entirely via private, grass-roots donations (no PAC or other special interest money) is about 3x the amount raised by Cheryl Crist.

• At August 1, 2008, Rosy wrote:

  It is gratifying to know that Michael Delvar is not taking

  any PAC money or special interest money. Thank you for your post.

  Delavar has raised $24,275 and Crist has raised $19,195 -- not

  sure how you computed that Delavar had raised 3x as much.

Click below to listen to audio segment of post:
Download audio file (Public_Financing_Conversation20080619.mp3)

Image via Wikipedia

Above is an audio segment of The Conversation from KUOW Public Radio up in Puget Sound. The first 41 minutes deals with current food issues. At around the 41 minute mark, there is a conversation with Craig Salins, Executive Director of Washington Public Campaigns (WPC) about public financing of campaigns.

Obama has opted out of the Federal system of campaign financing because of the expectation that right-wing 527 organizations and the Republican Party will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to turn him into Satan reincarnate.  It is just a current reality that the Federal system of campaign financing is seriously broken and ineffective.  If you search around the net, there are plenty of explanations about how the present Federal campaign finance system is dysfunctional.

Obama making this decision to opt out does not mean he does not support public financing of campaigns.  In fact, the opposite is true. He is big supporter of public financing, just not the system that is in place now.

The failure at the Federal level is why the work of Washington Public Campaigns is so important. This organization has recently been able to push through the state legislature voter-owned election legislation.

WPC is working on instituting a public finance election system for the mayor and city council of Seattle and other cities around the state. Once these programs are in place and prove successful, a statewide program will be next.

Eventually effective use of these programs will translate into reforming campaign finance at the Federal level and controlling the use of money to legally bribe our elected representatives at all levels of government.

What is the purpose of doing this? As an example, look at what just happened in Congress. They voted to retroactively allow the telecoms to violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Do you think this might be related to the influence of money exerted by the telecoms on our representatives? You bet it was.

If we are ever to have a representative government in the United States, the influence of money must be controlled carefully.

Washington Public Campaigns is working hard to do just that.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At June 21, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  Here is an example of how Obama's influence is changing campaign finance for the better.

• At June 22, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  And here is an article which does a pretty good job of explaining Obama's "murky" decision to opt out.

and not black boxes that can be hacked but not audited, right?

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws.

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana’s strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.
…
The law “is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting ‘the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,’” Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.
…
The case concerned a state law, passed in 2005, that was backed by Republicans as a way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups opposed the law as unconstitutional and called it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

There is little history in Indiana of either in-person voter fraud — of the sort the law was designed to thwart — or voters being inconvenienced by the law’s requirements. For the overwhelming majority of voters, an Indiana driver license serves as the identification.

“We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” Stevens said.

Stevens’ opinion suggests that the outcome could be different in a state where voters could provide evidence that their rights had been impaired.

But in dissent, Souter said Indiana’s voter ID law “threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of the state’s citizens.”

The GOP was smart to press this first in Indiana, a relatively homogenous state with no recent history of voter lockouts like Florida or Ohio.

They get this one on the books, albeit with dicta* from Stevens that “if [political] considerations had provided the only justification for a photo identification requirement, we may assume” that the law “would suffer the same fate as the poll tax.” So future courts might make different decisions based on the facts.

But Scalia’s own dicta kills any hope of that - at least with this court:

The lead opinion assumes petitioners’ premise that the voter-identification law ‘may have imposed a special burden on’ some voters, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny. That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality as well as adherence to precedent, I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners’ premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.

So, for states with sizable populations of folks too old to drive or too poor to own a car, but with sufficient Republicans in the legislature to push such a law through, the first Court-sanctioned poll tax since Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections is theirs to exploit.

Welcome back to 1965, everybody. Too bad Selma Sheriff Jim Clark didn’t live to see it.

*dicta: The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge’s editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory; not binding on future decisions.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Just another example of what happens when people in power decide to twist and break the law to suit themselves. Revised Nixon rule, “If the [candidate for] President does it, it’s not against the law.”

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

The bill before the state legislature to allow local jurisdictions to use voluntary, “clean election” type, voter approved public funding of campaigns passed through the state house this evening and now goes to Gregoire’s desk for enactment into law.

As Craig Salins, Executive Director of Washington Public Campaigns, said after passage today:

… one huge stride toward democracy by people instead of money. This is how we will REALLY advance a people’s agenda in America.

A big thank you to the state legislators, the Washington Public Campaign organization and all the people who supported this effort.

Please visit washclean.org, join the movement and help take back America from special interest money!

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At March 5, 2008, Craig Salins wrote:

  Dear Friends,

  We have a legislative VICTORY! - on the Local Option bill!

  How sweet it is!

  Late today, the House approved E2SSB 5278 - which moves this bill toward signing into law by the Governor, likely within days. In 90 days, this bill will take effect as law in Washington State.

  And now, after 16 years of a state ban, local towns and counties can create programs with modest use of public funds for campaigns for local office. The benefits?

  * Public financing cuts the undue influence of money in politics - and restores governance of, by and for the people.

  * Ordinary people with good ideas can run for office, without needing personal wealth.

  * Candidates spend time with voters instead of courting big donors.

  For today's action, we are grateful to legislative leaders and champions, who courageously took the time (over 80 minutes!) to debate and vote on the Local Option bill, despite passionate - although uninformed - opposition. If opponents wanted to run out the clock, they failed.

  Watching the debate, it is obvious we still have a challenge - public awareness, correcting the myths and misinformation:

  Opponents say public financing is "incumbent-protection." Others say it is "throw the bums out."

  In fact, it is neither. Instead, public financing restores the voice of people, rather than money, in election campaigns. And as a result, local budget, land use and governance decisions are made in the interest of the community, rather than as payback for campaign contributions.

  Public funding of campaigns is NOT a misuse of taxpayer money .. it is an essential step to RESTORE our democracy and curb the undue influence of money in politics. This is a fundamental reform that is essential for progress in many other areas of public policy!

  How does it work? Visit our website

  We encourage Governor Gregoire to sign the bill quickly - and with fanfare. This law embodies the principle of local choice, local-decision-making, with trust in voters and local elected officials to make thoughtful decisions for the community, where the state does not need to micro-manage the process.

  Next steps? We are already consulting with several cities and towns - Seattle, Spokane, King County, and others - to design and create programs of public financing for local races. Under the Local Option law enacted today, these programs must be submitted to local voters in a referendum, for voter approval or rejection, to ensure local voter and taxpayer support. Although an organizing challenge, this will help us, to build a stronger base for future statewide action! Read The Road Ahead.

  To continue, we need your financial support! Washington Public Campaigns is a shoestring operation with less than two staff, a hardworking board, wonderful volunteers, and a mailing list of 7,400 supporters. To take full advantage of the Local Option opportunity, we need funds for consulting assistance to selected towns and counties, public education literature and communications, and continued field organizing toward public financing for state supreme court races.

  Please help us continue this important work: Contribute to WashClean

  Friends, thank you! It has been grassroots support - informed, mobilized and focused - that brought us this far. It is humbling, and wonderful to behold. And roll up your sleeves - there is more to come!

  - Craig

  _________________________

  Craig Salins, Executive Director

  Washington Public Campaigns

  wpc@washclean.org

  206-784-2522

HB 1551 allowing local cities, towns, counties and districts to enact public financing of campaigns passed the Washington State Legislature today.

Here is the role call:Yeas: 56 Nays: 38 Absent: 0 Excused: 4

Voting Yea: Representatives Appleton, Barlow, Chase, Clibborn, Cody, Conway, Darneille, Dickerson, Dunshee, Eddy, Ericks, Flannigan, Fromhold, Goodman, Grant, Green, Haigh, Hasegawa, Hunt, Hunter, Jarrett, Kagi, Kelley, Kenney, Kirby, Lantz, Liias, Linville, Loomis, McCoy, McIntire, Miloscia, Moeller, Morrell, Morris, Nelson, O’Brien, Ormsby, Pedersen, Pettigrew, Quall, Roberts, Rolfes, Santos, Schual-Berke, Seaquist, Sells, Simpson, Sommers, Springer, Sullivan, Upthegrove, Wallace, Williams, Wood, and Mr. Speaker Chopp

Voting Nay: Representatives Ahern, Alexander, Anderson, Armstrong, Bailey, Blake, Campbell, Chandler, Condotta, Crouse, Dunn, Ericksen, Haler, Hankins, Herrera, Hinkle, Hudgins, Hurst, Kessler, Kretz, Kristiansen, McCune, McDonald, Newhouse, Orcutt, Pearson, Priest, Roach, Rodne, Ross, Schindler, Schmick, Smith, Sump, Takko, Van De Wege, Walsh, and Warnick

Absent:
Excused: Representatives DeBolt, Eickmeyer, Hailey, and Skinner

Special thanks to our local Representatives Fromhold, Moeller and Wallace for supporting this important legislation.

The bill was amended on the floor to exclude local school districts from being able to publicly fund elections and any public funding proposal must be approved by the voters before adoption.

Hopefully the Senate will pass this too and allow the people of Washington to take back control of our elective process.

This is a big victory for the people of Washington State.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Nick Nyhart is the Executive Director of Public Campaign, a national organization dedicated to public financing of elections. Last Wednesday Nick came to Seattle and met with Washington Public Campaigns (WPC) staff and volunteers. WPC videotaped his 20 minute talk about what is happening in other states and nationwide concerning the public financing movement.

For those of you frustrated that the “people” have been forgotten in politics, this clean campaign movement is gaining tremendous momentum and imo is one of just a few available ways that we (meaning “we, the people” are going to take back political power. If you think phoning or emailing your Congressperson is going to overcome the massive amounts of campaign and lobbyist contributions and influence, this movement is not for you.

If you truly want to make a difference and change our absurdly corrupt political system for the better, please get involved by supporting Public Campaign and Washington Public Campaigns. For more information, please visit WPC’s website. Be sure to sign up for their mailing list there also on the site to stay informed.

Nick Nyhart, Seattle 5dec. 1 of 2

Nick Nyhart, Seattle 5dec. 2 of 2

If you have questions about public financing, please leave a comment and I will be glad to provide an answer for you.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Clean Campaigns Forum

Public funding of campaigns

for cities and local jurisdictions

Saturday, November 17th, 7:30 PM
120 Kane Hall - University of Washington - Seattle

Panel presentations and commentary, featuring:

• Senator Shirley Turner, State of New Jersey *
  Senate President Pro Tempore, co-sponsor of NJ Clean Elections Act

• Honorable Nick Licata • President, Seattle City Council

• Paul Loeb • author, researcher, social and political activist

• Marcee Stone • Board President, Washington Public Campaigns

• Honorable Jim Street • former member, Seattle City Council

• Janice Thompson • Executive Director, Democracy Reform Oregon

• Representative Mark Miloscia • Washington State legislature

* invited, not confirmed

Reception with panelists - 6 pm
$25 donation requested (includes evening Forum)
Light fare provided.

Flyer (pdf)

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

…you may never be asked for a campaign contribution again.

Until then, we need your financial support to advocate for passage of “Clean Elections” bills in the 2008 legislature and prepare the groundwork for a possible initiative campaign.

To support this effort, we’re asking for contributions of $35, $50 or $100. And if you can afford more, we guarantee it will be put to good use.

Washington Public Campaigns seeks to change our campaign system to provide equal and fair access to public office – crucial to our democracy.

Campaign costs are out of control. Recent campaign seasons have been awash in special interest money. To compete with that, candidates must fundraise incessantly.

Public campaign funding works. Maine and Arizona have proven that optional public campaigns are successful, popular and fiscally sound. Candidates win on the strength of their ideas, rather than on the greenbacks of big donors. Public financing encourages a diversity of candidates and increases voter participation. Once elected, politicians are answerable to constituents, rather than donors.

We’re asking for your help. Our grassroots organization of volunteers has grown seven times over in the last year. Our programs and outreach are more ambitious than ever. Check out last year’s legislative efforts and recent events on our website: washclean.org.

If your funds are limited, there are other ways to participate: volunteering, hosting a house party, and writing letters to your representatives and newspapers. We will provide speakers to your book club, church or civic group. WashClean is a 501(c)4 organization, but our foremost activity is public education, so tax-deductible contributions can be made through our fiscal sponsor, Institute for Washington’s Future, an IRS 501(c)3 organization.

Washington Public Campaigns Update:

• Forum at University of Washington, Kane Hall, November 17th (with Paul Loeb)
• Mailing list: 5,800 (from 800 in June ‘˜06)
• Petition signers: 3,700 – and growing daily
• Several “Clean Elections”bills introduced in Olympia in 2007 including the Governor’s proposal to publicly fund judicial campaigns
• Many well-attended hearings and meetings with representatives, in support of our legislation
• Eight public forums across the state from Bellingham to Seattle to Spokane
• Local chapters statewide and citizen activists in 48 of 49 legislative districts
• More than 150 presentations given & 1000 DVDs distributed
• Two grants from The Dudley Foundation (2006 and 2007)

If this issue resonates with you as it does with all of us, we hope you will donate through this link: washclean.org/donate.htm.

With sincere thanks for your past support and interest,

Marcee Stone, President of the Board, Washington Public Campaigns

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

6 Comments

• At November 12, 2007, Chief Wahoo wrote:

  GOOGLE "Bruce Brousard" and "Emily Boyles", and do some reading.

  Then figure the odds that Vancouver City Council will ever be stupid enough vote to approve a fiasco like that.

  (I'd estimate the odds at somewhere between zilch point shit, and zero.)

• At November 12, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  Without clean elections, we are never going to have much more than mostly the equivalent of paid prostitutes, who could care a less about the citizenry, leading us.

  Unless of course the Supreme Court decides bribery is not protected speech (don't hold your breath on this one).

  And I have done plenty of reading and researching on the subject.

• At November 12, 2007, Chief Wahoo wrote:

  Tool, I'd love to hear your views on how you think any influx of Public cash could have improved let's say, the Charlie Stemper campaign. How much money do you think it would be worth spending for another one of those?

  Or better yet, how about handing David Kallstrom $100 Grand to run his 11th run at City Council? Do you really want to tell me you think that's a good idea??

  Seriously.

  Still waiting to see what you come up with when you figger those odds...

  Stout Hearts...

• At November 12, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  First, each candidate has to qualify by obtaining a certain number of nominal contributions from registered voters.

  Second, candidates only get funds that puts them on equal footing with incumbents and other pre-qualified candidates.

  So it doesn't matter much who specifically is running. It allows all qualified candidates to compete financially on an equal basis without any of them (except those that run on private money) having to sell their souls or having an unfair financial advantage.

  The end result is candidates who spend their time actually campaigning instead of fundraising and are beholden to no one once elected like how Pat Campbell got elected. Unless you think the $97.30 he spent compromised him.

  I say let the best person win without money being part of who is considered best. And once elected, these pols can stop selling us out to special interests, clean up the legal bribery called lobbying and do what they are elected to do, institute policies, laws and regulations that benefit us rather than some corporate coffer.

• At November 13, 2007, Chief Wahoo wrote:

  Last time I looked, Campbell distinguished himself from Tonks by under 300 votes. Hardly what I call definitive.

  In any case, I'll concede your points. Now tell me how you will sell this to either City Council or the Voters...because keep in mind you are in Washington tool, not Oregon, and things work differently on this side of the river.

• At November 14, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  That's the challenge. Once elected, pols tend to become entrenched, not wanting to support anything they think could threaten their power.

  In actuality, it frees them up from fundraising, something I doubt very many at all like doing. It also stops them from having to payback campaign contributions through legislative favors and the resulting psychic stress that should cause them.

  But in the end it may be necessary for the voters to legislate this program through an initiative.

  Another way to promote getting this done is to support candidates who favor the program like Tim Probst who recently announced his candidacy for the 17th LD WA State House Rep. race.

  I'd hope that Pat Campbell would be open to trying out a clean election program for the city council and help "sell" this to the rest of the city government leadership. N.J. recently passed a test program that I hear is working fine. Pat, are you listening?

From publicampaign:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Please go to http://www.10questions.com/ and vote for the above video question to be asked of the presidential candidates.  Thanks.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Ms. 911

Interesting discussion on Washblog about the 2008 Washington caucuses and the likely dampening effect of having Clinton the presumed nominee going into those caucuses. Hell, Clinton II was the presumed 2008 nominee before the “Dean scream” happened in 2004 so is anyone surprised? We can all just sit back and look forward to more of the SOS. No need to try and change things because “resistance is futile”.

Oh, and if anyone wants to lecture me about this being the most important election in the history of the Republic, or how important it is to help Clinton II beat Giuliani (or whomever), (as per Ivan’s diatribe) GFY.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

From Edwards yesterday:

…
It’s time to tell the truth. And the truth is the system in Washington is corrupt. It is rigged by the powerful special interests to benefit they very few at the expense of the many. And as a result, the American people have lost faith in our broken system in Washington, and believe it no longer works for ordinary Americans. They’re right.
…
While the American people personally rose to the occasion with an enormous outpouring of support and donations to both the victims of Katrina and 9/11- we all saw our government’s neglect. And we saw greed and incompetence at work. …

And in Iraq - while our nation’s brave sons and daughters put their lives on the line for our country - we now have mercenaries under their own law while their bosses sit at home raking in millions.

Corporate executives at United Airlines and US Airways receive millions in compensation for taking their companies into bankruptcy, while their employees are forced to take cuts in pay.

Companies like Wal-Mart lobby against inspecting containers entering our nation’s ports, even though expert after expert agrees that the likeliest way for a dirty bomb to enter the United States is through a container, because they believe their profits are more important than our safety. …

Trade deals cost of millions of jobs. What do we get in return? Millions of dangerous Chinese toys in our children’s cribs laden with lead. This is the price we are made to pay when trade agreements are decided based on how much they pad the profits for multinational corporations instead of what is best for America’s workers or the safety of America’s consumers.
…
This is not the America I believe in.
…
Today Hillary Clinton has taken more money from Washington lobbyists than any candidate from either party - more money than any Republican candidate.

She has taken more money from the defense industry than any other candidate from either party as well.

She took more money from Wall Street last quarter than Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama combined.

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

We have a duty - a duty to end this.
…
America lives because 20 generations have honored the one moral commandment that makes us Americans.

To give our children a better future than we received.
…
I am not perfect - far from it - but I do understand that this is not a political issue - it is the moral test of our generation.
…
We, you and I, are the guardians of what America is and what it will be.

The choice is ours.

Down one path, we trade corporate Democrats for corporate Republicans; our cronies for their cronies; one political dynasty for another dynasty; and all we are left with is a Democratic version of the Republican corruption machine.
…
Or we can choose a different path. The path that generations of Americans command us to take. And be the guardians that kept the faith.
…
We will keep faith with those who have gone before us, strong and proud in the knowledge that we too rose up to guard the promise of America in our day, and that, because we did, America’s best days still lie ahead.

From Studs on Sunday:

In 1978, with broad public support, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which placed national security investigations, including wiretapping, under a system of warrants approved by a special court. The law was not perfect, but as a result of its enactment and a series of subsequent federal laws, a generation of Americans has come to adulthood protected by a legal structure and a social compact making clear that government will not engage in unbridled, dragnet seizure of electronic communications.

The Bush administration, however, tore apart that carefully devised legal structure and social compact. To make matters worse, after its intrusive programs were exposed, the White House and the Senate Intelligence Committee proposed a bill that legitimized blanket wiretapping without individual warrants. The legislation directly conflicts with the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, requiring the government to obtain a warrant before reading the e-mail messages or listening to the telephone calls of its citizens, and to state with particularity where it intends to search and what it expects to find.

Compounding these wrongs, Congress is moving in a haphazard fashion to provide a “get out of jail free card” to the telephone companies that violated the rights of their subscribers. Some in Congress argue that this law-breaking is forgivable because it was done to help the government in a time of crisis. But it’s impossible for Congress to know the motivations of these companies or to know how the government will use the private information it received from them.
…
I have observed and written about American life for some time. In truth, nothing much surprises me anymore. But I always feel uplifted by this: Given the facts and an opportunity to act, the body politic generally does the right thing. By revealing the truth in a public forum, the American people will have the facts to play their historic, heroic role in putting our nation back on the path toward freedom…

I rarely use the word “patriotism,” because I do believe it’s the last refuge of scoundrels, and a battering ram against those who question the government and the status quo.

But Edwards and Terkel are true patriots, caretakers of whatever is left of the American ideal of freedom and equality.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At October 30, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  Right on!

Some of you vegans out there know Frances Moore Lappe’ because of a book called Diet for a Small Planet that was originally written in 1971 and revised in the early 80’s.

Ms. Lappe’ has just written and published her 16th book called Getting a Grip: Clarity, Creativity, and Courage in a World Gone Mad. In it she explores how “clean election” systems can restore sanity to our political system. This video is about Deb Simpson, a single mother and waitress in Maine, who ran under the “clean election” system and was elected to the legislature.

For more information about the “clean election” movement in Washington State, please visit Washington Public Campaigns website.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At November 2, 2007, Mark Douglass wrote:

  This is an important fight and an inspiriing story. DfV is now one of about 20 groups which has embedded this video. Any one should feel free to embed a viewer or link to this film.

  Thank you for your work, DfV!