Barney Frank was bloviating his ass off on Rachel's show

[bertman]

as he was trying to explain how Congress and the American people might react to today's SC ruling. He started going on about changing corporate law blah blah blah blah and NEVER once did he say "this is about whether AMERICAN CITIZENS, the PEOPLE will decide who and how this country is run or whether the big money and foreign-owned corporate entities will run this country."

He does not grasp that this is THE battle for this democracy's life. If this ruling is not overturned we Americans will be ruled by whatever nation, individual, cartel, or incorporated "interest" has the most money to pour into undermining our democratic institutions.

My god, we're in deep shit if Dems like Barney cannot boil this down to its essence.

[gateley]

1. He understands this. He understands what it will take to get it neutered.

He also understands that We the People don't hold a candle to the power the corporations hold.

[bertman]

8. "He also understands that We the People don't hold a candle

to the power the corporations hold."

That is absolutely the most wrong-headed and demoralizing statement I have read in a long time.

We the People hold more power than they, but we just don't know how to use it. Yet.

[BeFree]

11. Yes we do

We can vote them out. Using these new fangled vote counters ought to make it easy.

[bertman]

14. I know you were just snarkin' me big time.

[DJ13]

2. I've always liked Barney, but since the banking crisis he seems

kind of timid in the face of big money.

He talked tough about reregulating the credit markets, then came out with a weak, compromised bill that has so many holes in it you could drive Goldman Sach's HQ through most of them.

[Meldread]

3. There is only one way to overturn the SCOTUS ruling.

Well, correction. There are two ways.

The first is the easiest. That requires waiting until enough Justices die or retire, then appointing Justices that will overturn the ruling, similar to what pro-life activists have been trying to do with abortion. Of course, from this point forward every new Justice will be appointed at the whim of corporate interests, as if they did not already have such sway - it has merely increased greatly. This makes this path unlikely.

The second is the most likely, but also the most difficult. That would be through a Constitutional Amendment. It will not pass through this Congress, however, and therefore the States will have to ask for a Constitutional Convention. But the process to do that assumes that we could get enough State Legislatures to support the motion. Once a Constitutional Convention starts, the new amendment is put forward, and then is sent back to the states requiring 3/4th of them to ratify it. Only then does it become part of the United States Constitution.

The third path, the easiest path, is simply to do what Barney Frank is suggesting which is to modify the corporate law. UNDERSTAND: The government CREATES corporations. It gives them benefits and all sorts of goodies, and therefore also has the ability to restrain them. This is the best path to take to obtain the desired solution, and it works in our benefit because it allows Unions and the like to still benefit from the SCOTUS ruling.

[clear eye]

4. I think there is something a little more likely than even your 3rd suggestion.

Actually two things.

=>One is to make sure that our states have provisions expanding on what's in McCain-Feingold at the federal level requiring that all ads about candidates for election contain visible and audible full disclosures of their funding sources. Full disclosure means not only the group or coalition name, (such as "Americans for America") but all the contributors to the creation and running of the ad.

=>The second and most important, is to work at both the federal and state levels to pass voluntary public financing of campaigns, similar to what is available in Presidential campaigns. There is a bill to do that for Congressional races which Sen. Durbin has been introducing for years but which has gotten little interest until now. We must resurrect it. It is called the Fair Elections Now Act or FENA, for short and has a parallel bill in the House. The website of the coalition of over 38 NGOs supporting it is here. They also accept membership by individuals, and provide suggestions for useful activities to support the effort.

Most states have PIRGs which have been trying for years to get programs at the state level. I know that NYS also has a group called Citizen Action of NY that has recently gotten Gov. Patterson's support for the measure there.

Here's the group from Iowa: www.iowacan.org/campaigns/campaign-finance-reform/

I like your idea about reforming corporate law, too. I'm just a little more sceptical that we could overcome the enormous forces that would be motivated by all the collateral consequences of the changes--things which might not be immediately apparent. The corporations have gotten a lot of mileage out of their "personhood" status in many ways, and they'd be pretty determined not to let it go. Also SCOTUS might well overturn any reform that was enacted.

[Meldread]

5. I support both completely.

=>One is to make sure that our states have provisions expanding on what's in McCain-Feingold at the federal level requiring that all ads about candidates for election contain visible and audible full disclosures of their funding sources.

I would require this on any individual or group that gave more than $500, and full disclosure for EVERYONE to the FCC which they then make public. Otherwise, candidates who receive a lot of small donations could be penalized for requiring more time spent on announcing who all went into making the ad possible. However, I do believe that every single penny given to a campaign, PAC, or other group involved in political advocacy should be made public via the FCC.

=>The second and most important, is to work at both the federal and state levels to pass voluntary public financing of campaigns, similar to what is available in Presidential campaigns.

Completely 100% supported. Outlaw private contributions to individual political campaigns, and any gifts given to politicians worth more than $1,000. Allow any candidate who meets the requirements to run for elected office receive public funding. The funding would cover the cost of staff, advertisement, events - and anything else required for a successful campaign. It would also require the candidates to face off in at least three publicly funded debates, with the possibility of more debates if agreed to by the majority of the candidates.

However, I also believe the corporate law aspect must still be passed in order to restrain corporations from donating to PACs and other groups. I do not think the SCOTUS would overturn modifications to the corporate law. The reason being is that it is effectively a contract. It is saying: 'In exchange for these benefits and privileges you shall not do X, Y, Z.' It is really no different than a non-disclosure agreement. Does it limit free speech? Yes. But it is a contract that you legally agree to in order to participate in something that the individual(s) involved do not want disclosed to the public.

[clear eye]

7. I think the SCOTUS ruling allows detailed disclosure only for corporations.

Not sure though. We need a lawyer to post a nice long article in a journal letting us know exactly what is in that ruling in plain English.

[defendandprotect]

6. Grayson has a PETITION . . .

PETITION TEXT

I support the "Save Our Democracy" Package:

We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?ac...



NEW LINK --


http://us.mc1114.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1264130547&.rand=9296f93d3dl0t#_pg=showMessage&sMid=10&&filterBy=&.rand=737750676&midIndex=10&mid=1_24690_AIQPw0MAAJrKS1eX2AsweFx71yQ&m=1_32465_AJYPw0MAAFPvS1itzQhugTpvVtc,1_31022_AKIPw0MAAKxMS1il0wJJ6gTdE9Q,1_29357_ANIPw0MAAB8wS1ik3Q9B2kvcJNY,1_30401_AJwPw0MAAPbOS1ik9g4zDAplRM8,1_25994_AKgPw0MAATotS1hRSQ4DCiyQzGA,1_24690_AIQPw0MAAJrKS1eX2AsweFx71yQ,1_24001_AJYPw0MAAG%2B0S1ePPQLo3k%2B7y1A,1_21011_AIQPw0MAASe4S1dRoQDhIm5R6lU,1_19710_AMAPw0MAAKd%2FS1cdWQ3FX1zQVuo,&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&hash=e483702fe0e240f94fdde0b3c77cf388&.jsrand=2760845

[clear eye]

9. "Save Our Democracy" doesn't come up from your link.

Maybe he realized that Congress can't overturn a SCOTUS ruling?

If you have a better link, please post it. I'd really like to sign.

[defendandprotect]

10. I see that . . . here's the link again . . .

http://us.mc1114.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1264130547&.rand=9296f93d3dl0t#_pg=showMessage&sMid=10&&filterBy=&.rand=737750676&midIndex=10&mid=1_24690_AIQPw0MAAJrKS1eX2AsweFx71yQ&m=1_32465_AJYPw0MAAFPvS1itzQhugTpvVtc,1_31022_AKIPw0MAAKxMS1il0wJJ6gTdE9Q,1_29357_ANIPw0MAAB8wS1ik3Q9B2kvcJNY,1_30401_AJwPw0MAAPbOS1ik9g4zDAplRM8,1_25994_AKgPw0MAATotS1hRSQ4DCiyQzGA,1_24690_AIQPw0MAAJrKS1eX2AsweFx71yQ,1_24001_AJYPw0MAAG%2B0S1ePPQLo3k%2B7y1A,1_21011_AIQPw0MAASe4S1dRoQDhIm5R6lU,1_19710_AMAPw0MAAKd%2FS1cdWQ3FX1zQVuo,&sort=date&order=down&startMid=0&hash=e483702fe0e240f94fdde0b3c77cf388&.jsrand=2760845

[TxRider]

12. I disagree with the OP

Frank clearly stated corps are entities of law.

Entities of law created through legislation.

Entities of law regulated through legislation.

And that they intend to curtail use of corporate funds for political purposes in some way, and he is confident they have constitutional authority to do so.

[bertman]

13. I hope you're correct, TxRider.