Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Wisdom at 100: Defend Democracy Against the Corporate State
Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.
Well, we got some reform bills passed, but things seem worse now than ever. Our good government reform groups are trying to staunch the flow of special-interest money into our political campaigns, but they are mostly whistling in a wind that has become a gale force of corrupting cash. Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example.
The Supreme Court, representing a radical fringe that does not share the despair of the grand majority of Americans, has today made things considerably worse by undoing the modest reforms I walked for and went to jail for, and that tens of thousands of other Americans fought very hard to see enacted. So now, thanks to this Court, corporations can fund their candidates without limits and they can run mudslinging campaigns against everyone else, right up to and including election day.
The Supreme Court now opens the floodgates to usher in a new tsunami of corporate money into politics. If we are to retain our democracy, we must go a new direction until a more reasonable Supreme Court is in place. I would propose a one-two punch of the following nature:
A few states have adopted programs where candidates who agree to not accept special-interest donations receive, instead, advertising funds from their state. The programs work, and I would guess that they save their states more money than they cost by reducing corruption. Moving these reforms in the states has been very slow and difficult, but we must keep at it.
But we also need a new approach--something of a roundhouse punch. I would like to propose a flanking move that will help such reforms move faster: We need to dramatically expand the definition of what constitutes an illegal conflict of interest in politics.
If your brother-in-law has a road paving company, it is clear that you, as an elected official, must not vote to give him a contract, as you have a conflict of interest. Do you have any less of an ethical conflict if you are voting for that contract not because he is a brother-in-law, but because he is a major donor to your campaign? Should you ethically vote on health issues if health companies fund a large chunk of your campaign? The success of your campaign, after all, determines your future career and financial condition. You have a conflict.
Let us say, through the enactment of new laws, that a politician can no longer take any action, or arrange any action by another official, if the action, in the opinion of that legislative body's civil service ethics officer, would cause special gain to a major donor of that official's campaign. The details of such a program will be daunting, but we need to figure them out and get them into law.
Remarkably, many better corporations have an ethical review process to prevent their executives from making political contributions to officials who decide issues critical to that corporation. Should corporations have a higher standard than the United States Congress? And many state governments have tighter standards, too. Should not Congress be the flagship of our ethical standards? Where is the leadership to make this happen this year?
This kind of reform should also be pushed in the 14 states where citizens have full power to place proposed statutes on the ballot and enact them into law. About 70% of voters would go for a ballot measure to "toughen our conflict of interest law," I estimate. In the scramble that would follow, either free campaign advertising would be required as a condition of every community's contract with cable providers (long overdue), or else there would be a mad dash for public campaign financing programs on the model of Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut. Maybe both things would happen, which would be good.
I urge the large reform organizations to consider this strategy. They have never listened to me in the past, but they also have not gotten the job done and need to come alive or now get out of the way.
And to the Supreme Court, you force us to defend our democracy--a democracy of people and not corporations--by going in breathtaking new directions. And so we shall.
27 Comments so far
Show AllThat's a *very* nice idea! Brava, Granny!
World War II vets must feel especially slighted...having fought to rid Europe of fascism, only to witness Ronny Raygun and his successors accelerate fascism in America to a level that would do Hitler, Mussolini and Franco proud.
Good on ya, Granny! I'm just a young punk (72) but we both remember when the system worked and the corporations and monopolies were curbed.
Now they own and control most of the planet. Most of the Founding Fathers warned of the danger to the Republic from allowing the corporations and bankers to take over. They warned that eternal vigilance was needed by We the People to prevent that.
Now we have sports and American Idol instead of vigilance.
-"A few states have adopted programs where candidates who agree to not accept special-interest donations receive, instead, advertising funds from their state"
er, America, if you cared about money in politics, why did you vote massively for McCain and Obama, both of whom, before the election, chose to "flip-flop" on their use of the meagre public financing made availably. Don't you think that was a little indication of what both the Dems and the Repubs think about "defending democracy"?
What a lady! I was not a Gore supporter but when the Supreme Court stopped the recount and gave the election to Bushwacker that was tandamount to a coup d' tat, by the Supreme Court. Doris D. Haddock: " And to the Supreme Court, you force us to defend our democracy--a democracy of people and not corporations by going in breathtaking new directions. And so we shall". Well said. How in the hell can you expect justice from the unjust?
Go! Granny. GO!! We should ALL get out and push YOU this next year!
Great idea. I got another...it should be illegal, flat out illegal to profit from someone else's suffering. Fortunately every Christian in America has to agree with this or else they're betraying Jesus, so there should be tons of support!
We need to determine a balanced response, one that balances the needs of the people versus corporations. Corporations aren't people; they have no moral center and exist solely as a means of making profit. Can they govern? Should they be allowed to shape the laws? Choose who's elected through campaign contributions?
There's no denying things are bad. Bias inundates the Courts, the White House, and Congress. The corporate entity shapes the discourse and debate. Media consolidation assured this.
If change can't come from within, it must come from without. If Washington insiders won't relinquish power, it must be wrested from their hands. How? Legally and non-violently of course.
The Federal Government doesn't have any rights or privileges beyond those granted it by the Constitution, which are reserved to the States. States' rights represent the ability for people to determine how they are governed not by Washington but by those they elect to send to their state capitols. Of course the federal government takes whatever actions it wants, ignoring this fundamental restraint of its authority. Perhaps the worst abuse of power is federal control over our money system.
Still, the states are vulnerable to the same pattern of corruption and influence-peddling that's ruined Washington. They seem no less capable or managing the people's money, which though taxation deprives them of their property (or when deficit spending occurs, their children of the fruits of their labor.)
There is hope, through what's called an Article V convention. The Constitution--the highest law in the land--has an Article V (Five.) That article states that the people can elect their national representatives through an Article V convention. For more, see http://www.foavc.org/
Compared to a violent upheaval, using the Constitution makes sense. It's in place to assure that government serves the people, not enslaves them, which is what we see in Amerika today. Corporate influence has decimated the right of representation. An Article V reasserts that right.
Here is Article V of the US Constitution:
" The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
As you can see it establishes a way to call for a Constitutional Convention where Amendments to the Constitution shall be drafted and then ratified by either of the processes provided therein. It is a complex process but one which needs to begin forthwith!
Let Freedom Ring...
The "needs" of corporations? They are businesses and only "need" what any business needs: a level, fair playing field with only those govenmental regulations necessary to protect the commons - people's health and safety and the environment.
That, of course, would rule out the monopolies and polluters and food poisoners and hazardous product makers (cigarettes, etc.), all of whom are now allowed to legally bribe 'our' lawmakers.
A corporation does not "need" in the sense that a person, an animal, a plant, or a fungus might.
If any balance of needs might involve corporations, it should be a balance of what persons, animals, plants, and fungi need from them.
I find it coincidently amusing that on the same day the CD headlines: "Obama At One" and "Wisdom At 100."
"And to the Supreme Court, you force us to defend our democracy--a democracy of people and not corporations--by going in breathtaking new directions. And so we shall."
Wow Granny, I mean Wow! Those are the most inspiring words I've heard for a long, long time.
I wasn't proposing anything in my post; only trying to clarify what Article V contains. As you will note, the States can call for a Convention, too, not just Congress.
I agree that we need viable third, fourth and fifth parties as the D's & R's are just puppets of the corporations. Unfortunately the recent Supreme Court decision is going to make things even more difficult...
>>viable third, fourth and fifth parties<<
Why fourth and fifth parties instead of just a third one -- to insure none will elect a President? Mandate a collation party which can't agree on sh!t?
I don't get it?
I remember your hike cross country and have tremendous admiration for you. For your ethics and determination as well as your physical ability. I am psyched to see you are writing still, we need heros. You are one of mine.
God Bless You, Granny D.
Sioux Rose
Happy Birthday, Granny, and bravo for a lifetime of service and still-luminous wisdom! Your spirit is timeless, and I'm glad you're still with us to keep the torch of Truth burning! It's amazing how clear your reasoning remains, while your spirit has managed to remain undaunted even having seen the many horrific events of the past 100 years. You are quite a lady! A willow tree that bends, but never breaks when confronted with the rising flood waters. Bravo!
Worth saying again:
"And to the Supreme Court, you force us to defend our democracy--a democracy of people and not corporations--by going in breathtaking new directions. And so we shall."
We must begin to live as as "Granny" lives, as a Citizen.
I have posted this before, I believe it is worth repeating:
Our Government must begin to operate as it was intended, as a Democracy. The Constitution guarantees a Republican form of Government to the State as a political subdivision of a Nation. The principles of Democracy established in our Declaration of Independence are seminal. They inform the operation of these political subdivisions as members of a Federal Union.
Many members of our National Legislature act on the belief that our National Government is a Republican form of Government. Under this philosophy, “sovereign will” is transposed to the judgment of the elected and abused. We are left with a Government that lies, whose deed is not consistent with its word. That position is ultimately destructive, whether it is practiced by Government or Individual.
We must become the Citizen envisioned in our Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in our Constitution. The "How" will come when it is time.
Change first begins with that feeling of uncertainty, which moves people to act. No one individual coalesces the array of force that brings change. Change results from a collective consciousness that old ways won't do. Change requires abandonment that is more than just a mere releasing, old ways must be consciously denied. There is a Time and Event that unalterably seperates us from that which we can no longer endure and we must go. Whether our going is of our will or whether we go upon the wings of fate, we go.
"We need to dramatically expand the definition of what constitutes an illegal conflict of interest in politics"
Congratulations to Granny D for 100 years of progressive life, and counting...
Expanding such a definition of illegality is an expression of the people's BETTER INTERESTS, in terms of the rule of law. There are other ways to express them, and other ways to uphold them. The most effective way is to have several ways that work best in specific areas. There's certainly no need to argue over our various "beliefs" and "views" about how to go about this, because we don't need to rely on beliefs/views and we don't need regressive battles. We have empirical evidence, and rational minds. And most importantly, we have the will. But we do need to defend ourselves from the onslaught of elitevil propaganda because it greatly erodes our will, confuses our minds, obscures the evidence. The elitevil keep upping the ante. They're paranoid. They think they may be ostracized from the society.
Either regroup and ACT, or stick a fork in "us" we're done.
"And so we shall."
So why don't I hear anyone demanding the impeachment of at the very least, the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court, if not all five of the right wing wack jobs. Look all that you want, the only reference you will find to any kind of business in the constitution is in freedom of the press. The Founding Fathers had no intention of giving equal rights to corporate behemoths! As usual the Congress F---ed up by not going after the five supremes who enabled Bush v Gore. The Senate would probably not be able to get a coviction in an impeachment trial, but that would let the American people know which elected officials to target for removal from office!Time to grow a pair or move!
People need to understand that Congress has refused to obey and honor the Constitution by not calling the first Article V convention. The only requirement for a convention has long been satisfied with some 750 applications from all 50 states; these can be examined at foavc.org, this nonpartisan group has done what no agency of government has done by making the applications available to the public. If you are not a constitutional hypocrite, then support the convention approach and become a member of Friends of the Article V Convention, whose only mission is to make Congress obey the Constitution by giving us a convention, which the Founders knew we would eventually need to use. Want to get money out of politics? Then understand this can only be done by a constitutional amendment that Congress will never propose.