EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Occupiers Occupied: The Hijacking of the First Amendment
A funny thing happened to the First Amendment on its way to the public forum. According to the Supreme Court, money is now speech and corporations are now people. But when real people without money assemble to express their dissatisfaction with the political consequences of this, they’re treated as public nuisances and evicted.
First things first. The Supreme Court’s rulings that money is speech and corporations are people have now opened the floodgates to unlimited (and often secret) political contributions from millionaires and billionaires. Consider the Koch brothers (worth $25 billion each), who are bankrolling the Tea Party and already running millions of dollars worth of ads against Democrats.
Such millionaires and billionaires aren’t contributing their money out of sheer love of country. They have a more self-interested motive. Their political spending is analogous to their other investments. Mostly they want low tax rates and friendly regulations.
Wall Street is punishing Democrats for enacting the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation (weak as it is) by shifting its money to Republicans. The Koch brothers’ petrochemical empire has financed, among many other things, candidates who will vote against environmental protection.
This tsunami of big money into politics is the real public nuisance. It’s making it almost impossible for the voices of average Americans to be heard because most of us don’t have the dough to break through. By granting First Amendment rights to money and corporations, the First Amendment rights of the rest of us are being trampled on.
This is where the Occupiers come in. If there’s a core message to the Occupier movement it’s that the increasing concentration of income and wealth poses a grave danger to our democracy.
Yet when Occupiers seek to make their voices heard — in one of the few ways average people can still be heard — they’re told their First Amendment rights are limited.
The New York State Court of Appeals along with many mayors and other officials say Occupiers can picket — but they can’t encamp. Yet it’s the encampments themselves that have drawn media attention (along with the police efforts to remove them).
A bunch of people carrying pickets isn’t news. When it comes to making views known, picketing is no competition for big money .
Yet if Occupiers now shift tactics from passive resistance to violence, it would spell the end of the movement. The vast American middle class that now empathizes with the Occupiers would promptly desert them.
But there’s another alternative. If Occupiers are expelled from specific geographic locations the Occupier movement can shift to broad-based organizing around the simple idea at the core of the movement: It’s time to occupy our democracy.
Robert Reich, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future; The Work of Nations; Locked in the Cabinet; Supercapitalism; and his newest, Beyond Outrage. His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
48 Comments so far
Show AllAnd how does one do that?
The conversation always seems to end here.
How do you transfer the wealth and power that keeps the supply chains open into the hands of a democratic process withouth disrupting the supply chain.
And at the same time the population of the planet continues to increase at three people per second.
And at the same time the climate is changing, oil is running out, water grows scarce and wars get worse to gather what is left.
The people who hold the wealth and power know the situation. They are rich, not stupid. They just don't know how to change our course because it's a very complicated question that could result in massive worldwide famine or nuclear war.
But they also know that staying the course is not an option.
So, what happens next?
As George Costanza might say, "Taxes, baby, taxes!"
q
"Yet if Occupiers now shift tactics from passive resistance to violence, it would spell the end of the movement. The vast American middle class that now empathizes with the Occupiers would promptly desert them."
Truer words have not been spoken.
This was always' going to happen. The surprising thing is that it took the establishment this long to start. And everyone knows that your first amendment rights do NOT include camping out in public parks or occupying private property. Only the brain dead would say it was. I'm surprised RR would claim that. He certainly knows better.
If the Occupy movement depends on occupying literally public places for its existence, it was always doomed to failure. Now we will see if what some claim is true. That it really is a grass roots movement. That it is widespread and growing.
FluffPo and Dopely Kos are that way ------------------------------------------------------------------>
Can't stand factual comments?
Only a mendacious troll would associate the occupation of public spaces (whether legal or not) with "violence."
Facts? there were no facts in your comment, just your authoritarian opinions stating that camping is not free speech.
Well guess what, there is a thing called Freedom of Assembly in the constitution. That could easily be seen as including occupying and camping in public space.
Why do you echo the arguments of the oppressors and the 1%?!
leftmhome,
Would you say that a corporation is a person? "Only the brain dead would say it was".
Occupying private property might not be constitutional, but occupying public property is much like living in your own house. It's public tax money that bought and maintains the property. Why shouldn't the public be able to occupy what their tax dollars are paying for?
I had this very debate with a TV reporter who asked my opinion on Occupy Vancouver.
She seemed taken aback that I supported them and asked "what about them occupying a public space". She seemed surprised that I even SUGGESTED that they were the Public and Public spaces were the very places they should occupy to allow their grievances to be heard.
Shen then went on about the football game. The grey cup and the impact of these 100 odd people occupying this space. I mean wow. We spent 500 MILLION dollars upgrading that stadium last year. 500 MILLION taxpayer dollars Some 50000 people are going to pay over 100 bucks per to go to that game. They are going to flood the streets, fill the bars and pee in alleyways when the game over. There might well be another riot and she was worried about the needs of those 50000 football fans over people that are homeless. on minimum wage jobs or can not find jobs.
The FOOTBALL fans needed a voice and apparently needed that space too.
Incredible. Thomas More is of that same mindset. How dare they exercise their right to assembly in ways HE does not agree with?
Your logic concerning occupying public or even private places holds no water. The battle will now be fought just as it was against King George. The revolution has begun. Point being, which side will you take? Choices are few, but it seems there was a line in the constitution of our United States about "promoting the general welfare of the people."
When the duly elected representatives fail to meet this need, the Democracy will demand representation. Oh, how they have failed.
That said how do we move forward to a new beginning? The existing system is corrupt and possibly beyond repair. Do we as a people wait to be oppressed like those who manufacture our clothing?
We will stand together as a family of the working class with demands for a decent wage for a day's work, decent and safe working conditions, and knowing we will not be slaves to give the Empire power on demand. This is only a repeat of the powerful enacting laws for their own self-protection. Their power results from the fear and intimidation of the workers. Their wealth is only derived from the sweat and labor of the workers,
This system of "democratic" government has been corrupted and needs for us to take responsibility for our own lives. We should not rely on companies to bring us cheaper goods from another country to increase the profit margin.
Buy "Made in the USA". There is an equalization happening in the global labor market. After WWII, the US was the manufacturing monster, but over the last decade or so the US has lost about 50,000 manufacturers. Want to guess how many workers?
I am so sick of these attacks on voting rights and the working class. If you are one of these corporate shills get your facts together and enjoy your brown nose.
Diversionary tactics from the purpose of the movement are not helpful or useful. Was the United States of America founded on laws written and approved by any governing body, or possibly the result of a revolt?
Critical thinking required... Did the people who stole this land from the previous inhabitants give thought to the repercussions?
To make these difficult questions answerable is impossible, but it seems that to promote the general welfare of the people is a common goal. Regardless of our current situation we need representation of the many, not the few.
The Occupy movement has wholeheartedly embraced direct democratic process that regards the on-the-ground learning process founded in mutual understanding that profoundly values dissent, breadth of perspective and that transcends the polarization/divide and conquer paradigm.
It is a remedy in perceptual terms - that democracy can respond to crisis - if the people lead, the leaders will follow. General Assemblies recognize servant leadership much in the spirit of the women elders of the Haudensaunee tradition of the Great Law of Peace, from which the better lights of our Bill of Rights was drawn. Notably absent in the case of the US was the role of the women elders whose task it is to rein in any chief not adhering to the spirit and function of the Great Law of Peace.
Ongoing presence, exercise of the General Assembly and other forms of non-violent witness and resolve are the treasure of this movement, and for which I am profoundly grateful.
Why has Robert Reich been silent about the abuses against the First Amendment on his own campus? I've checked his website and his Twitter account and there is no mention (though his TV appearances are among his recent tweets).
This is the same apparatchik who stood by silently while NAFTA was passed - didn't even resign in protest. OWS needs to steer clear of such people.
Reich did NOT stand by silently while NAFTA was passed -- he was vocal in supporting it. He still supports "free trade agreements" to this very day.
Noted.
Other voices pushing NAFTA are more prominent in my memory, and Reich hair-splitting after the fact, but he's gotten the most mileage out of claiming his heart's in the right place. CD shouldn't be posting him.
Preach it, brother! :-))
He's never had to worry about HIS job being off shored has he. He can sit comfortably in his office at UCB and send everyone else into battle. He's just another Prof. left hypocrite. Were on our own out here and Prof. Reich will be busy in meetings and not able to attend the demonstration, take my word for it. Been there with these folks.
I have a solution---The occupiers nationwide need to organize into corporations.--- It's not difficult to incorporate.--- Then, as a corporation, they'd have the same rights, privileges and legal footing as the wall street corporations they're protesting.---- Additionally, as a corporation the occupiers would be legally mandated (and protected) to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to maximize their profits (just like the bankers).--- Use the system against itself.
What a brilliant plan! May I cite you and post your idea to my fellow Occupy supporters?
Run with it my brother (or sister).
Reich talks in circles.
"Wall Street is punishing Democrats for enacting the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation (weak as it is) by shifting its money to Republicans."
Despite Reich's attempt to promote the value of the so-called reform (there-by suggesting conflict between the parties), he acknowledges that the Democrats are bought, he acknowledges that elections are bought, and acknowledges that the so-called constitutional rights are meaningless ....
but, he keeps referring to "our" democracy, clueless.
Wonder not about his conclusion;
democratic revolution via twitter.
Another one-sided argument by Reich, Wall Street is against the [poor, poor] Democrats; but fails to mention the millions in contributions the Democrats get from Wall Street which has bought them out.
Anyone that believes that your First Amendment rights include the right to occupy public spaces or to close off streets and deny access to others is just too stupid to reason with.
Doing it is one thing, that's called "civil disobedience" and its done for a reason. Claiming it is a right granted under the First Amendment is a talking point, but it is explicitly false. The courts have just made this abundantly clear.
I would like to point out that when you begin to believe your own propaganda or straw man constructs its the beginning of the end.
Nice rebuttal, but keep in mind you're attempting to enlighten a mind as fixed closed, and arrogantly centrist as Thomas More, a/k/a Mighty Mite, Caligula, and probably more screen name changes than executed by anyone else in this forum. When people see through his pro-U.S. exceptionalism, Jingoism, Texas-right-in-all-things, prejudice towards "illegal" aliens, blame public school costs for poor student performance, and other apologies for the status quo... he slips on a new name and begins the process all over again. Of course there's always the chance that someone who's not incurred a brain injury in their prior Marines training, might learn something vital from a post as intelligent as yours, Big Brother.
Cygnus & Old Goat: Wise words! You both see things way outside of "the box."
I applaud your sentiment and argument. Would it be incorrect to say that we are constantly arguing tangentially from the cause? Do these diversionary trolls consume our energy?
I really enjoy your point of view. Keep up the good fight!
______________________________________
Well said. And in any event, the ultimate authority is with the people. Not as much from the U.S. Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence itself:
______________________________________
“ ........ all men are created equal….. endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights…… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness……. to secure these rights, governments ….. derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and wherever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government……. in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”
______________________________________
The powers that be can either accommodate the movement in ways that will increase their "safety and happiness", or they will eventually be subject to an outright overthrow of their authority. And the ejection from Zuccotti is a definitive step in that direction.
As a faggot who spent most of his life cohabitating in defiance of the law, I have an extremely jaded view of associating law with ethics, morality, or just plain "doing the right thing." The primary function of law, after all, is to protect the powerful from the weak. The question of whether occupying public spaces is legal is ultimately immaterial. Material and relevant is the question: Is this the right thing to do, and how seriously are the socially vulnerable harmed by the actions? Because it's manifestly clear that the only people being harmed are THE PROTESTERS THEMSELVES, I submit that you're either obfuscating with the best of intentions, or trolling nastily for the 1% and either (or both) of its client political parties.
Excuse me, lefthome, but the exercise of the first eff-ing amendment trumps the convenience of shoppers and strollers. Why don't you go out and buy something. It'll make you feel better.
Lefthome: your authoritarian mindset disgusts me.
Yet the protesters (who seem to have nothing better to do than to protest something completely pointless nowadays) are forgetting the BIG picture. The economy is supply and demand of the middle class. The economy basically IS the middle class and I'm not surprised there are so many protesters. Protesting is outdated, they are making more work for the municipalities and civilians are starting to get scared about leaving their homes (who live near the protest sites).
Free speech may be all well and good but there is the issue of carrying it too far.
Thanks for playing. We have lovely parting gifts.
Yeah, Corvo! Chris Hedges, after long laments on the fall of our nation, suddenly sees "the light" in the protest movement, and others like Phil Rockstroh recognize this flame will burn for some time... yet what do we see on C.D. the following people trying to dampen what's going on: Donna, Moon Pie, Left Town and the "new" person you responded to, game-show style. Only very selfish persons, or those whose paychecks depend upon compliance, would pretend to be Left leaning and then post messages designed to decapitate this "headless" movement. Wolves hide here in sheeps' clothing.
F-ck you Laura D.
You are an authoritarian asshole.
"Free speech may be all well and good" MAY BE? Not too sure about that are you piggy?
Don't sugar coat it.
Why the intense negativity of response to a post that is, in essence, gibberish?
Ah, yes, the "free speech carried too far" argument. And of course, the authorities can be helpful in showing where the "too-far" line should be drawn.
This was a fine ploy used by many notable governments through history-- Athens in the time of Socrates, Germany in the 30s, the Soviet Union when it censored its writers of conscience...
Are these the sort of people you care to affiliate yourself with?
Unlike buying the government, which of course can't be carried too far.
They haven't gone far enough, frankly, but if they do it will be without the help of (and in spite of) the dead-weight of Americans who were too stupid to know their friends from their enemies.
I promise you, sweetie, the Koch brothers are not your friends.
"Yet if Occupiers now shift tactics from passive resistance to violence, it would spell the end of the movement. The vast American middle class that now empathizes with the Occupiers would promptly desert them."
Please allow me to retort:
I wouldn't.
If one has violence visited upon them by anybody: other private citizen or cop, retaliate!
Seconded.
Only fail to retaliate if it serves a strategic purpose. Non-violence is atactic, not a goddess. Fetishization of non-violence is bourgeoisie bullshit.
_______________________________________
Yes, such troubling misconceptions do exist, and you are right to point them out. This is a new day, a new era. We can learn from the past, but we must create our own future. Every social movement tactic known to man should be openly put on the table and debated until some kind of consensus is reached. The stakes are that high, and we not only have ourselves to think about, but a healthy home environment for us all --- planet earth ---, which is under a relentless assault. That MUST stop too!
We must remember, daily, that we, OWS, OCCUPY the MORAL HIGH GROUND ..... Today’s State rests in THE SEWER through the States’ own documented, corrupt, and undemocratic behavior … The longer that emotion is secure, then more, more, and more citizens will become aware ..... The more that join us OCCUPYING the MORAL HIGH GROUND, then, there will be true “HOPE”, and, there will be true “CHANGE” .... Thirty years of US/global economic data solidly support the 99% political economic position, not the monotonous, treacherous, false 1% party-line … Should emotion be expressed too soon, we’ll be handing the 1%, and their paid-for, bought-out lackey cohorts (including the MSM), what they want and need: a projected media twist to distort and paint the 99% as an overstated, un-American, group of adolescent evildoers, and, themselves - as always -“caring, tax-paying, proud, God-loving and church-going American citizens” ..... Let us keep this in mind.
Re. the offenses outlined by Robert Reich:
Much of the offensive governmental mind-set can be traced back to a long
history of Supreme Court decisions. Nothing much will be remedied about
" ... the increasing concentration of income and wealth ... ," and the USE
of that wealth to FURTHER concentrate wealth, unless and until some
reprehensable Court decisions are reversed; or until the Supreme Court
is radically re-constituted. [Do we need a larger number of justices?
Thirteen instead of nine? Term limits? No longer any justices for life?]
The Court has been saying [about corporations-as-people] that all people
are equal, but corporate people are MORE equal. The Court is playing
around with words in an Orwellian fashion: A department of government
sets itself up to tell lies, and calls itself the Ministery of Truth. Decisions
and legal doctrines that are in the category of travesty must not be let
stand. BEWARE of any corpus of governmental conceptualization to
the effect that the Supreme Court is the only one of the three branches
of federal government that is not subject to checks and balances by the
other two branches. We The People created a Supreme Court, and we
can impose some constitutional limits upon it.
_______________________________________
That is correct. The people have the highest power. The three branches of government only carry legitimacy with the people's consent. And there are perversions contained in Supreme Court precedence that must be stricken by the people.
I respect OWS's eschewal of spokespeople and old-style forms of organization. But, in the light of Robert's essay, there is an irony to OWS's depriving themselves of a voice in the media, especially given the popularity of the protests.
The nation desperately needs to hear what the Wall Street protesters (in whatever city) have to say. I don't want to tel them what to do, but I hope OWS gets over their shyness, or comes up with a solution to the problem of getting the message out.
The mind blowing power of exceptionalism. What makes people think that what happened (is still happening) in the Arab spring can not happen here? Why do we have political leaders who sanctify protests in other countries demonize them here? The times they are a changing and its going to get ugly before it is all over. The 1% are going to go down fighting but they will go down.