Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson to run against the Democrat-Republicans

Today, former Mayor Rocky Anderson kicked off his campaign for President of the United States.  Amy Goodman of Democracy Now took time to discuss the upcoming campaign with Anderson. Here is the beginning of the interview.

AMY GOODMAN: A new political party has entered the fray as an alternative to Democrats and Republicans ahead of the 2012 elections. On Monday, the Justice Party formally kicked off its formation with an event in Washington, D.C. Former Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson will run for president on the Justice Party ticket.

Although hailing from a solidly red state, Rocky Anderson has been known as one of the most progressive mayors of any major U.S. city in recent years. During his two mayoral terms from 2000 to 2008, Anderson was an outspoken champion of LGBT rights, environmental sustainability and the antiwar movement in opposition to the war in Iraq.

Vowing to fight the influence of money over politics, Anderson kicked off his campaign Monday with a pledge to limit individual donations to $100 a person. He and the Justice Party say they hope to build a grassroots movement heading into the November 2012 elections.

To discuss his campaign, Rocky Anderson joins us from Washington, D.C.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Rocky Anderson. Why have you launched this party and a presidential bid?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Good morning, Amy.

We launched the Justice Party because the entire system is so corrupt. It’s so diseased. We know that the public interest is not being served by anyone in the system right now, particularly the two dominant parties who have sustained this corrupt system and who are sustained by it.

AMY GOODMAN: Third party, what does that mean now? How exactly will you run for president?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, actually, I consider this a second party. The Republican-Democratic parties have—although they’re at an impasse, much to the detriment of the American people, on some issues, they really, through their collusion, have brought this country to its knees economically. Without the Democrats colluding with the Republicans, we would not have engaged in an illegal, aggressive war against Iraq. We’ve seen Democrats and Republicans together granting retroactive immunity to the telecom companies. Then-Senator Obama promised this nation, before the primary, before he won the Democratic primary for the presidency, that he would join a filibuster against telecom company immunity. And then, as soon as he won the nomination, of course, he not only didn’t—he didn’t back off—only back off on his promise to join a filibuster, he voted for the legislation. Who in this country gets Congress to grant them retroactive immunity for committing clearly felonious acts?

And then, now we see the same thing. He comes into office, and he says, "Let’s look forward, not backwards," when it comes to war criminals, people who have engaged in torture, clearly in violation not only of international law, but domestic law. So, we have this two-tiered system of government. Not only a two-tiered system in terms of our economy, with very few privileged people cleaning up while the rest of us are suffering in so many dramatic ways because of the economic upheaval, but we have this special class of people who aren’t even held accountable under the law. And all three branches of government are part of this. The courts allow the executive branch to come in, and they dismiss cases on the basis of the subversive state secrets doctrine, where the executive branch gets to determine whether these cases go forward—victims of torture, people who are challenging illegal surveillance programs by the government. Amy, this is unprecedented in this nation and so completely contrary to the notion of an equal justice system.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama delivered a widely discussed speech in Kansas last week that many saw as an overture to the Occupy movement and its opposition to corporate dominance of the U.S. economy. In what was widely described as a preview of his re-election campaign, Obama positioned himself as a defender of working-class Americans versus Republicans who favor the wealthy.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: There are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that’s happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: we are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules. I am here to say they are wrong.

AMY GOODMAN: That was President Obama. Former Salt Lake City mayor, now presidential candidate, Rocky Anderson, your response?

ROCKY ANDERSON: Well, it’s total hypocrisy. President Obama received more money from Wall Street than any other candidate has ever received in a presidential or any other election campaign. And he surrounded himself with all these alumni from Goldman Sachs. Not one person, Amy, has spent one day in prison as a result of the massive financial fraud that we know took place by these Wall Street firms, and the people that work for them, that did so much damage to the American people. All any of us have to do is look at our pension plans, our 401(k) accounts, and we can see the direct impacts of this economic disaster, brought to us through, by and large, these criminal acts committed by these Wall Street firms and their employees. And not one of them has been brought to justice under the Obama administration.

When they make these campaign contributions, they get a very good return on their investment. But it’s no different, really, than the polluting industries making their campaign contributions, and then the EPA wanting to impose more strict ozone standards, and President Obama basically vetoing the EPA. We know that’s not in the public interest. President Obama has to know that’s not in the public interest. He’s serving the interest of those polluting industries. That’s why we don’t have real healthcare reform in this country. We’d have a universal healthcare system like the rest—every other nation in the industrialized world, were it not for the corrupting influence of the money flowing in from the medical insurance industry. So, that’s what—the failure, in terms of every major public policy issue, to serve the public interest can be attributed to that corrupting influence of money. Just follow the money, and you’ll see why Congress and the White House are pursuing these policies that are so inimical to the interest of the American people.

[The above excerpt re-published above pursuant to Democracy Now's Creative Commons attribution license].

Continue ReadingFormer Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson to run against the Democrat-Republicans

Bernie Sanders proposes constitutional amendment to combat Citizen’s United

As I watched this video of Senator Bernie Sanders introducing a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, I felt like standing up and applauding and, even though I was the only one in the room as I watched the video, I did stand up and and I did applaud. Yes, members of Congress.  You know it in your hearts that we desperately need to clean up our electoral process because it is arguably the only meaningful issue to be discussed.  Why would I say this?  Because without getting the money out of politics, we cannot have meaningful national conversations about any serious issue.  As Sanders indicates, the current system forces members of Congress to spend most of their time raising money and, worse, it invites big businesses to destroy any member of Congress who dares to rein in abusive business practices.   This corruption money=speech system is the reason that Congress is owned by big banks, insurers, telecoms, the military-industrial complex, big pharma and the fossil-fuel industries, and that Congress has repeatedly acted in deference to these industries, in ways that are harming ordinary Americans. Here is the proposed language to the Amendment Sanders is proposing:

SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state. SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press. SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people. SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
The text of Sanders' entire speech can be found at Huffpo.  Here's an excerpt:
I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. In my view, a corporation is not a person. In my view, a corporation does not have first amendment rights to spend as much money as it wants, without disclosure, on a political campaign. In my view, corporations should not be able to go into their treasuries, spend millions and millions of dollars on a campaign in order to buy elections. I do not believe that is what American democracy is supposed to be about. I do not believe that that is what the bravest of the brave from our country fighting for democracy fought and died to preserve.
PoliticusUSA discusses the above proposed amendment, offering this comment:

There is one interesting component to the Saving American Democracy Amendment that makes it different from all of the other proposed amendments and remedies designed to overturn Citizens United. Section 4 of the amendment strikes at the basis for every Supreme Court decision related to campaign finance. Sanders is also taking aim at the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision where the Supreme Court ruled spending money to influence elections was a form of protected free speech, and struck down limits on expenditures.

The amendment proposed by Sanders changes this by giving Congress the power to set expenditure limits on individuals, organizations, and candidates themselves. The Saving American Democracy Amendment would return the government back to the people by shutting off the money pipeline from the wealthy and special interests. It is also significant that the amendment limits the amount of money a candidate can give to their own campaign. This means that candidates would no longer have to be millionaires, or grovel at the feet of corporate America and the 1% in order to be able to run.

I agree with everything that Sanders' proposed amendment attempts to accomplish.   I'm concerned, though, that it doesn't go far enough because it appears to invite "non-profit" organizations to remain financially active in political campaigns.  To the extent that this is true, it is an exception that might swallow the rule.  Under the Sanders' proposed amendment, the logical move for a for-profit business would be to donate to a "non-profit" that just happens to advocate for candidates and legislation that benefit for-profit entities.  This would give rise to numerous disputes about whether an entity is a legitimate non-profit  that happens to be friendly to for-profits, or whether that non-profit is an illegal facade, agent or co-conspirator money-washer or  joint venturer of a for-profit entity. I have not yet considered all of the ramifications of the various constitutional amendments that have been proposed so far. I will need more time to do this.  It helps me to understand the Sanders proposal by comparing it to other proposed Amendments that attempt to get money out of politics. I would suggest that anyone concerned about these issues (everyone should be concerned) should also consider all of the ideas being floated, including the approach taken by Move to Amend, which does not limit the scope of its own proposed amendment to for-profit entities.   Here's that proposed language by Move to Amend:

Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]

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

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

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

Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]

Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.

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

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

Section 3

Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

Where the Sanders approach might be too narrow, the Move to Amend approach might be too broad.   Do we really want to say that Congress should be able to limit advocacy conducted by all non-profits?  I would think that we would want to control only those non-profits that serve as mouthpieces and money launderers for for-profit businesses.  Perhaps the Sanders proposed Amendment already makes this clear enough.  Is there any pragmatic way to quickly and accurately categorize whether non-profits sufficiently independent or whether they are puppets for businesses? As the Move to Amend proposal seems to invite, do we really want to allow Congress to limit the expenditures of individuals relating to the political campaigns of others?  My own physical voice is rather limited--could the use of a personal blog be considered an expenditure that could be limited under the Move to Amend proposal?  These thorny free speech issues suggest the reason that the Sanders Amendment starkly limits its scope to for-profit organizations. It is important to remember that what Sanders has proposed would become Constitutional law, not mere legislation, and it would strongly restrain further court decisions. The Sanders approach will reverse Citizens' United. A Supreme Court with integrity would still have some work to do in construing the Sanders Amendment, but it would also understand what needs to be done. I suspect that Sanders took his approach of carving out non-profits because he understands that non-profit organizations are the only meaningful way for most people to be heard. At bottom, under the Sanders approach, the task does seem to be to figure out a way to distinguish true non-profits from faux non-profits. Perhaps this can be done. I applaud Bernie Sanders for introducing his proposed Amendment.  I doubly applaud his speech, because it clearly identifies what most ails the American political system.   Hopefully the speech of Bernie Sanders will ignite lots of fruitful discussion on Capitol Hill, though the sad irony is that the waves of corrupt money currently flowing through Congress will likely stifle this critically needed conversation.

Continue ReadingBernie Sanders proposes constitutional amendment to combat Citizen’s United

United re:public – a new movement to reclaim democracy

United re:public is a brand new movement with the following motto: "Democracy is Not for Sale." United re:public is comprised of an impressive team, including Josh Silver (former CEO of Free Press) and Nick Penniman (former Executive Director of Huffpo). The group is partnered with Jimmy Williams' group, Get Money Out (which he started with MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan) and Lawrence Lessig's Rootstrikers effort. In short, this is a group with immense potential. Here is an excerpt from the "About" page of United re:public's new (but temporary) web site:

United Republic is a new organization fighting the corrupting influence of well-financed special interests over American politics and government. We welcome the energy and creativity of citizens of all stripes – progressive, conservative and independent – who envision a nation where the needs and ideas of the many aren’t drowned out by the influence of the wealthy few.

We believe our political system is dangerously out of balance. Thousands of lobbyists, billions of dollars in campaign contributions, shadowy political attack groups, and career politicians are distorting the government’s priorities at a time of great national need. We Americans no longer have the government or leadership we need to get the country back on the track of collective prosperity and responsibility. The Wall Street bailouts are the biggest example of this problem.

Making matters worse, recent Supreme Court decisions have not only stood in the way of common-sense reforms of the system but have actually knocked down many of the remaining safeguards against large-scale corruption and cooptation of the political process. What results? The kind of overconcentration of power that our nation’s founding fathers repeatedly warned against.

Continue ReadingUnited re:public – a new movement to reclaim democracy

Lawrence Lessig’s idea for leveling the political playing field

Here's an idea I hadn't heard before, presented by Citizens re:public:

Lessig proposes a system that reduces your taxes by up to $50 if you spend as much on a political donation. You could give it to any candidate you like, so long as they promise to only accept funds from the public, not corporations. $50 per American would be $6 billion dollars combating the distorting system we have in place:
Less than 1 percent of Americans give more than $200 in a political campaign. No more than .05 percent give the maximum in any Congressional campaign. A career focused on the 1 percent — or, worse, the .05 percent — will never earn them the confidence of the 99 percent.
By replacing the financial clout of the top tier of donors with public money, their influence disappears. Suddenly, politicians would have a pretty compelling reason to start listening to the rest of their constituents.

Continue ReadingLawrence Lessig’s idea for leveling the political playing field