The ESRA (Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment)

[bobbolink]

I couldn't find this posted on DU by a search.

This is from an email from TIKKUN, and they are cool with things being re-posted.... actually, they want it spread. Thank you.

The ESRA (Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment) to the U.S. Constitution being introduced into Congress this week on the first anniversary of the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. The ESRA aims not only to overturn that decision but also to eliminate all private money in national elections and replace it with public funding. It requires media to supply free and equal time for all major candidates while banning private advertising during the months before the election, and it requires large corporations to get a new corporate charter once every five years — a process that requires them to prove a satisfactory history of environmental and social responsibility to a jury of ordinary citizens using the new bottom line as their guide for assessing corporate social responsibility. The ESRA also requires teaching the values of caring for each other and for the earth at every grade level in any school receiving public funding directly or indirectly (please read it and ask your elected representatives and your city council and state legislature to endorse it — www.spiritualprogressives.org/ESRA and join our campaign to build public support).


www.tikkun.org

[WhiteTara]

1. this is the way politics were done in the days of

yore when there were laws about the airwaves belonging to the public and the station owners' duty was to inform at their expense. That was during the time of debates and standing on the corner politics and 4th of July and Labor Day picnic speeches and not so much paid commercials.

[bobbolink]

2. In other words, are you saying this isn't of interest to you?

What is YOUR proposal?

[bluestate10]

3. You completely missed the point the poster was making.

Politics before wide spread application of television was a personal affair where politicians went to gatherings of citizens to be seen and heard. So participation in parades, fireworks displays, festivals, et al, by politicians was the norm. In the age of instant telecommunications and political consultants, the emphasis is on hitting as many people as possible with one's pitch, hence paid television.

My take is that the amendment is not going anywhere because neither democrats or republicans want it to. There will be change only when one party overwhelms the other in fund raising and the overwhelmed party sees that there is no way that it can match up. Expect to see change after 2012 elections. In 2012, I expect that democrats will out raise republicans by such a large margin that republicans will demand and vote for change. While the USSC ruling worked to the benefit of republicans in 2010, it did so only because democrats allowed themselves to get caught with their feet flat. Democrats have a much larger base of contributors wealthy enough to contribute hundreds of dollars, thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, expect to see democrats organize the types of entities that republicans used. Also, expect business to move to the sidelines, some have paid for getting involved in the 2010 elections, expect to see more suffer this year and next.

I question why you are so driven to see the ruling reversed. Equal time is a questionable measure. If one politician wants to give a 60 second statement on his/her campaign and that politician's opponent wants to read the Constitution in response and interpret each part, that technically is equal time. If equal time is pushed, expect reactionary republicans to buy up local tv stations while democratic millionaires and billionaires stand around with their hands inside the front of their trousers. Do you really want a Rupert Murdock controlling equal time access?

[bobbolink]

4. That is why I asked the question. People are so intend on brevity that meaning is often lost.

It is popular now to just ignore anything doesn't get...silence is the preferred method. I was questioning.

I have no ax to grind on this. It doesn't fulfill what *I* and millions of others need. I raised it because I hadn't seen it posted here before, and it seemed worth discussing.

The tone of anger in response is puzzling.

I am pushing NOTHING, OK? This is a discussion forum, and I brought something to discuss.

There is such a dearth of ACTION, which is getting us exactly nowhere, and if something I post gets at least a few to think and even do something as little as signing a petition, that is better than the malaise that is the soup du jour.

[WhiteTara]

6. Bobolink

ease up. We all agree with you.

As I was rereading the OP, I wondered if this was a way to connect with the TBers? TPer? TBer? Anyway, yes, I agree; we have passed on 10,000 calls to action and even with the internet, we are rudderless. We are disconnected and can't seem to get together to do anything since the WH has become democratic. Perhaps with the advent of the Orange One, we will be able to rally more people?

But, thanks for posting originally. Sorry I wasn't around to respond to your response. I only get to come here sometimes. :hi:

[WhiteTara]

5. no, no

I am not disagreeing with the OP at all! In fact, I was just sort of mentioning that I remember these things from my early childhood. It's wonderful and I support this whole heartedly.

[bobbolink]

7. Thank you, White Tara.....

I don't know that I agree with it.... I hadn't heard about it, and I posted it to get other opinions.

As I said above, while I can see the value in it, as with so many things now, it doesn't go near far enough. For instance, it doesn't address at all the demeaning treatment that poor and homeless people face, and the damage that is done with that.

I have become uppity enough that I don't care about things that only address the middleclass. If it doesn't make life better for poor and homeless people, then I can't take my time and energy.

I *DO* think there is value in working for an amendment. If there are a large number of people behind it, it will garner enough attention to get some issues brought to light and discusssed. That alone has value, as far as I am concerned.

Then there is the counter-argument that we only have so much energy and resources, and putting it into things that aren't likely to go far may not be wise.

However, again on the other hand, (how many hands is that so far?? ^_^ ), if it would at least get us off the dime, and spark some ideas that motivate people to take action, and give us a rudder or two.... that would all be to the good.

You see... just discussing all of this would be good, but that doesn't seem to be what "progressives are all about anymore. Seeing the pros and cons, brainstorming ideas...... we just don't seem to be capable of that, and we are losing out because of it.

[Tumbulu]

8. I hope that it is passed!

what a profound difference it would make!

[bobbolink]

15. Yes, it many ways it would. Please look it up on TIKKUN, sign it, and pass it on to others

if your wish is to come true.

Thanks!

[Swamp Rat]

9. k&r

[Warren DeMontague]

10. You're gonna put all that in the Constitution? Yeah, good Luck on that.

Beyond that, I haven't trusted Michael Lerner since he went on his tear against "intolerant Atheists" :eyes: ... I certainly don't want him jimmying with the Constitution as it pertains to what kids can or can't be taught in school.

[bobbolink]

11. Thank you for your input. It is most instructive.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Sure.

No problem.

If I might suggest paring the amendment down to something a little more reasonable, like one page.

[bobbolink]

14. Have at it. Apparently you are the one with the expertise.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Let's put it this way. The ERA was, what, one sentence?

Look how far that went.

[upi402]

12. kick n/t