GET REAL: Email was bad enough. But now that we broke down and signed up for Facebook, we're inundated with well-meaning people forwarding idiotically simplistic solutions to complex problems which they and whomever started the chain took about three milliseconds to think through.
The latest started as a bogus email chain letter that continues to circulate regarding what was called the "Congressional Reform Act (CRA) of 2011" proposing a constitutional amendment that would cull congressional salaries and eliminate pensions and benefits, essentially making recompense almost non-existent.
Bogus or not it became exceptionally popular with those who forwarded it.
So what's wrong with the content? Well let's start with a maxim that we're sure those who distributed the above will agree with- you get what you pay for.
But moreover take a gander at a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan organization that keeps track of money in politics.
NPR reports that according Michael Beckel, a spokesperson for the CRP "244 current members of Congress are millionaires — that's about 46 percent and that includes 138 Republicans and 106 Democrats."
Now these guys and gals didn't exactly get rich by stashing away their salaries or even through corruption. They started out rich when they ran for office.
So why did we elect them and not, as the CRA folks called them, "citizen legislators (who) should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work (as) the Founding Fathers envisioned?"
Maybe it's because those citizen legislators can't just stop working and gallivant off to the state or national capitol and expect to not just continue to support their families but to have their jobs to be waiting for them when they get back.
Would your boss do that? Didn't think so.
And these CRA people want to make it worse.
We have two close friends who went into politics- just plain working folks who made for extraordinary office holders. But both are out of politics now, not because they were voted out of office but because essentially they were faced with giving up a job they had either trained their whole lives for and dearly loved doing- or at least one that gave them a steady income- for a "job" they had to re-secure every couple-o'-four years.
And in order to do that they had to raise bucketsful of cash and subject themselves to insults that people ordinarily wouldn't address to their worst enemy.
The people who took their places? In one case he's a longtime hack politician just coming off a get-rich stint out of office and working for a local developer. The other is a glad-handing TV personality whose main job in office is apparently to promote his show and every hotel on the island.
Yet when we suggest making service with both our local county council and state legislature full-time jobs with decent pay that's commensurate with the duties, instead we get crap like this CRA petition which is actually a measure to assure that the other 291 members of congress become part of the same rich "1%" against whom we're out in the streets protesting.
At the same time we'd bet dollars to donuts that "99%" of those who liked the CRA have never heard of another proposed constitutional amendment from the "Move to Amend" organization that would put the kibosh on "corporate personhood," as declared by the Supreme Court, which turned on full blast the already gushing corporate campaign money spigot. At the same time many have opposed programs for partial public financing of elections or even legislation- or if needed a constitutional amendment- ending all campaign contributions in favor of full public financing.
It's the penny wise and pound foolish of the world who scream about "paying for politicians to run for office"- as if they're not paying 100 times more on the back end as corporations buy and sell the pols and write the legislation- and would pay office holders poverty wages, who are the self-same ones that are perpetuating the corrupt system that has people's opinions of elected officials at all-time lows.
So do us all a favor- think it through before you hit that send or post button. We’ve got really important issues to attend to... like the Giants-49ers game this Sunday. Go G-men.
Showing posts with label Corporate Personhood. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate Personhood. Show all posts
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Thursday, April 1, 2010
TOO SMALL TO FLAIL
TOO SMALL TO FLAIL: The things that piss off the electorate really baffles us sometimes. Perhaps it’s the ease with which we fall for the misdirection ploy. Maybe it’s that when a scam is of the MEGO (my eyes glaze over) variety people go back to something they can understand rather than spend the extra time to figure it out.
But whatever it is it seems that the masses prefer to worry about getting a Woolworth’s Funereal (being nickeled and dimed to death) than receiving a full walletectomy.
That may explain why we generally get up in arms over the pennies our elected officials receive for their services instead of the legal- and not so legal- bribery system that is democracy American style which cost us untold riches on the back end.
A perfect example is Honolulu Advertiser columnist/blogger Dave Shapiro’s seemingly never ending crusade to mention the pay raise the legislature received a couple of years back at every opportunity as if it alone were at the root of all economic miseries.
But what Dave fails to mention other than occasionally and in passing is that the low pay for “part time” legislators has led to a system where the nature of the outside employment of most legislators is a direct result of the power of their positions.
It takes a special “boss” to let their employee spend three months away from their job as well as a slew of time between sessions. Just go down the list of legislators’ outside jobs and you will more often than not see “consultant”- usually with firms whose profits rise and fall with the actions of the legislature.
Combined with those direct bribes known as “campaign contributions” we’re stuck with a system that cost us billions in tax credits and special interest legislation often actually written by corporate crooks and cronies doling out the moolah..
But while we’re worried about the actual salaries that the reps and sens are being paid, keeping them low is what actually causes this fraudulent system to thrive.
In order to be a state legislator either you play the “consultant” game and ply the rubber chicken circuit or you’re independently wealthy. There’s no in-between and no opportunity for the citizen-legislator we all cite as ideal.
We’ve spoken to literally dozens of people over the years, ones who everyone wishes would run for office but don’t because they simply can’t afford it. Yet Shapiro and his mindless adherents want to keep the salaries at a low enough level to keep the current system in place.
And it’s the same nationally. This week we’ve noted four copies of a “chain letter” email we first started receiving about six months ago but has gone viral on the local progressive “lists”, entitled “An idea whose time has come”.
It reads:
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws... The self-serving must stop....
This is the same congress that has not just allowed but perpetuated the fiscal system, bailing out Wall St. and the banks while people are being thrown out of their houses after being scammed by the self same crew- a crew that refills congressional campaign coffers like it’s a 7-11 refilling your 87 ounce Dr. Pepper.
Yet there’s no real regulation even proposed at this point for the banks or campaign finance. Instead the email proposes a:
28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ".
Are you freakin’ kidding? This is what gets your panties in a bunch? Not constitutional amendments denying the demented recent Supreme Court ruling confirming “corporate personhood” or the 30 year old “money is speech” ruling than makes public financing of elections a Herculean task if not an absolute joke?
Parenthetically that’s another tangential idiocy- people who say “I don’t want my tax dollars financing these politicians campaigns”. For every dollar we’d spend taking money out of political campaigns we’d be saving literally millions doled out to those that pay the legal bribes under the current system.
For instance we are now faced with a give-away to insurance companies instead of a single payer Medicare-for-all that would save us trillions because congress actually admits they are too controlled by campaign contributions to get it passed. It’s just one example of the cost of privately financed campaigns.
It’s the same stupid mentality that has people claiming the “moral hazard” of helping their neighbor payoff the impossible mortgage the bank scammed them into while thinking the trillions given out to “too big to fail” institutions was done in order to “save the financial system”.
It’s the same idiotic cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face “pay cuts for the legislature” mantra that actually makes sure that they have to live a shady existence to survive and serve at the same time.
Get off it folks. While we argue with the teller over the quality of the free toaster they’re giving out in the front of the bank the CEOs are shoveling cash out the back door.
We’re just too distracted by our own petty jealousies and craven covetousness to notice the fixed nature of the game of three-card-Monte being played out on the corner.
But whatever it is it seems that the masses prefer to worry about getting a Woolworth’s Funereal (being nickeled and dimed to death) than receiving a full walletectomy.
That may explain why we generally get up in arms over the pennies our elected officials receive for their services instead of the legal- and not so legal- bribery system that is democracy American style which cost us untold riches on the back end.
A perfect example is Honolulu Advertiser columnist/blogger Dave Shapiro’s seemingly never ending crusade to mention the pay raise the legislature received a couple of years back at every opportunity as if it alone were at the root of all economic miseries.
But what Dave fails to mention other than occasionally and in passing is that the low pay for “part time” legislators has led to a system where the nature of the outside employment of most legislators is a direct result of the power of their positions.
It takes a special “boss” to let their employee spend three months away from their job as well as a slew of time between sessions. Just go down the list of legislators’ outside jobs and you will more often than not see “consultant”- usually with firms whose profits rise and fall with the actions of the legislature.
Combined with those direct bribes known as “campaign contributions” we’re stuck with a system that cost us billions in tax credits and special interest legislation often actually written by corporate crooks and cronies doling out the moolah..
But while we’re worried about the actual salaries that the reps and sens are being paid, keeping them low is what actually causes this fraudulent system to thrive.
In order to be a state legislator either you play the “consultant” game and ply the rubber chicken circuit or you’re independently wealthy. There’s no in-between and no opportunity for the citizen-legislator we all cite as ideal.
We’ve spoken to literally dozens of people over the years, ones who everyone wishes would run for office but don’t because they simply can’t afford it. Yet Shapiro and his mindless adherents want to keep the salaries at a low enough level to keep the current system in place.
And it’s the same nationally. This week we’ve noted four copies of a “chain letter” email we first started receiving about six months ago but has gone viral on the local progressive “lists”, entitled “An idea whose time has come”.
It reads:
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they didn't pay into Social Security, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws... The self-serving must stop....
This is the same congress that has not just allowed but perpetuated the fiscal system, bailing out Wall St. and the banks while people are being thrown out of their houses after being scammed by the self same crew- a crew that refills congressional campaign coffers like it’s a 7-11 refilling your 87 ounce Dr. Pepper.
Yet there’s no real regulation even proposed at this point for the banks or campaign finance. Instead the email proposes a:
28th Amendment to the United States Constitution
"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ".
Are you freakin’ kidding? This is what gets your panties in a bunch? Not constitutional amendments denying the demented recent Supreme Court ruling confirming “corporate personhood” or the 30 year old “money is speech” ruling than makes public financing of elections a Herculean task if not an absolute joke?
Parenthetically that’s another tangential idiocy- people who say “I don’t want my tax dollars financing these politicians campaigns”. For every dollar we’d spend taking money out of political campaigns we’d be saving literally millions doled out to those that pay the legal bribes under the current system.
For instance we are now faced with a give-away to insurance companies instead of a single payer Medicare-for-all that would save us trillions because congress actually admits they are too controlled by campaign contributions to get it passed. It’s just one example of the cost of privately financed campaigns.
It’s the same stupid mentality that has people claiming the “moral hazard” of helping their neighbor payoff the impossible mortgage the bank scammed them into while thinking the trillions given out to “too big to fail” institutions was done in order to “save the financial system”.
It’s the same idiotic cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face “pay cuts for the legislature” mantra that actually makes sure that they have to live a shady existence to survive and serve at the same time.
Get off it folks. While we argue with the teller over the quality of the free toaster they’re giving out in the front of the bank the CEOs are shoveling cash out the back door.
We’re just too distracted by our own petty jealousies and craven covetousness to notice the fixed nature of the game of three-card-Monte being played out on the corner.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
ASKIN’ FOR IT
ASKIN’ FOR IT: It hasn’t just been a kick we’re on lately- that of examining laughably lame and confusingly contentions, slanted statements from bumbling bureaucrats designed to amply appeal to our guileless gullibility.
But it certainly isn’t just here on little Kaua`i where a post plantation populous is too busy beachcombing and bathing to understand unctuous utterances from corrupt capos and cronies.
Behold the corporate actions in the case of the runaway Toyotas whose corporate overlords have apparently set up their own demise by just replacing the gas pedals.
We’ve spent the past few days asking our more mechanically inclined acquaintances, car mavens and repair people who have been following the story and not one- not a single one- believes that fixing the gas pedal alone will stop these cars from having a mind of their own.
One and all believe it has to be the electronic “brain” that they put in cars these days so that any repair at all starts at $1000 and can only be done at the dealership.
In that sense it was inevitable that those chickens would come home to roost and they would become so complicated that even they can’t figure out what’s wrong with their own Frankencoupés.
If you’ve been following this debacle you’ll know that Toyota has spent months- actually years now- trying to figure out why on occasion their cars accelerate but then won’t stop doing so.
First they said it was the floor mats, then it was something with the gas pedal. Meanwhile most who independently looked at it concluded that it had to be something in the computer electronics that control acceleration.
But when the feds told them to fix it NOW, in a “that’s our story and we’re sticking with it” manner they’ve settled on putting in new gas pedals in millions of cars and denying that it’s anything more in a move seemingly destined to destroy any future for the company when it continues to happen.
The hastily concocted explanation for what’s supposedly wrong with the pedal mechanism doesn’t even make sense. It basically says that due to “wear and tear” the mechanism sticks where two pieces come together, But if something “wears” it wears down not up and its not going to stick, rather it’s going to become looser, according what a couple of engineers told us last night after the “explanation” was given by Toyota.
So why should we care if corporate malfeasance brings down a car company other than the gazillion of manufacturing jobs?
It’s simply the other side of the corporate personhood that’s on many people’s minds after the US Supreme court humanized them for purposes pumping more money into elections.
Because while this personhood extends to elections it doesn’t extend to corporate wrongdoing and responsibility. Don’t forget, it’s people who are making the decision to do this without regard to the fact that it will almost assuredly blow up in their faces in a year or so once the crashes continue and we figure out that the “fix” fixes nothing.
But don’t expect anyone to be punished for that. If anything happens to Toyota it will be because no one will buy one, not because the company is arrested and tried for murder.
But by the time anyone figures it out the same executives that made the decision to do this will no doubt have passed the hot potato to another ambitious young executive, received their golden parachute and gone on to bigger and better corporate criminal capers.
If you live on Kaua`i and own a newish Toyota and are headed down to the dealership for your “fix” and are then planning on driving off as if nothing is wrong you’re probably the same person who believed that the new alignment of the bike path isn’t going to be on Wailua Beach and that the $7.5 million the county paid in the Ka Loko Dam tragedy settlement wasn’t due to culpability.
So we’ve just gotta ask you – what are you, a freakin’ idiot?
But it certainly isn’t just here on little Kaua`i where a post plantation populous is too busy beachcombing and bathing to understand unctuous utterances from corrupt capos and cronies.
Behold the corporate actions in the case of the runaway Toyotas whose corporate overlords have apparently set up their own demise by just replacing the gas pedals.
We’ve spent the past few days asking our more mechanically inclined acquaintances, car mavens and repair people who have been following the story and not one- not a single one- believes that fixing the gas pedal alone will stop these cars from having a mind of their own.
One and all believe it has to be the electronic “brain” that they put in cars these days so that any repair at all starts at $1000 and can only be done at the dealership.
In that sense it was inevitable that those chickens would come home to roost and they would become so complicated that even they can’t figure out what’s wrong with their own Frankencoupés.
If you’ve been following this debacle you’ll know that Toyota has spent months- actually years now- trying to figure out why on occasion their cars accelerate but then won’t stop doing so.
First they said it was the floor mats, then it was something with the gas pedal. Meanwhile most who independently looked at it concluded that it had to be something in the computer electronics that control acceleration.
But when the feds told them to fix it NOW, in a “that’s our story and we’re sticking with it” manner they’ve settled on putting in new gas pedals in millions of cars and denying that it’s anything more in a move seemingly destined to destroy any future for the company when it continues to happen.
The hastily concocted explanation for what’s supposedly wrong with the pedal mechanism doesn’t even make sense. It basically says that due to “wear and tear” the mechanism sticks where two pieces come together, But if something “wears” it wears down not up and its not going to stick, rather it’s going to become looser, according what a couple of engineers told us last night after the “explanation” was given by Toyota.
So why should we care if corporate malfeasance brings down a car company other than the gazillion of manufacturing jobs?
It’s simply the other side of the corporate personhood that’s on many people’s minds after the US Supreme court humanized them for purposes pumping more money into elections.
Because while this personhood extends to elections it doesn’t extend to corporate wrongdoing and responsibility. Don’t forget, it’s people who are making the decision to do this without regard to the fact that it will almost assuredly blow up in their faces in a year or so once the crashes continue and we figure out that the “fix” fixes nothing.
But don’t expect anyone to be punished for that. If anything happens to Toyota it will be because no one will buy one, not because the company is arrested and tried for murder.
But by the time anyone figures it out the same executives that made the decision to do this will no doubt have passed the hot potato to another ambitious young executive, received their golden parachute and gone on to bigger and better corporate criminal capers.
If you live on Kaua`i and own a newish Toyota and are headed down to the dealership for your “fix” and are then planning on driving off as if nothing is wrong you’re probably the same person who believed that the new alignment of the bike path isn’t going to be on Wailua Beach and that the $7.5 million the county paid in the Ka Loko Dam tragedy settlement wasn’t due to culpability.
So we’ve just gotta ask you – what are you, a freakin’ idiot?
Friday, January 22, 2010
LAPPIN’ IT RIGHT UP
LAPPIN’ IT RIGHT UP: Intellectuals and philosophy mavens can spend hours in sophomoric sophistry asking each other the question “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?”.
Let us clue you in- of course it freakin’ does... what are you a freakin’ moron?” (it seems to be that kind of week).
The ease with which people are bamboozled and bewildered comes to mind because what nobody seems to want to admit in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to flood elections with cash is that if Americans weren’t too-stupid-to-live and as easily swayed as the mythical soundless trees they wouldn’t be influenced by all the bogus, distracting advertising bought by company capital.
So which is it? Are “American voters are smart enough to see though all the nonsense” as some suck-up pols suggest? Or is it that “you can never underestimate the intelligence of the American voter.”
Only the silent tree toppling proponents could pick the former.
But what can you expect from a country that can’t tell that a “person” is a flesh and blood human being and not a piece of paper with the words “corporate charter” written on it?
Corporate personhood goes back to an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and this absurd notion is behind yesterday’s Orwellian “free speech for those who can’t speak” piece of true fascist flack.
Many in the progressive movement are busy today promoting a narrow constitutional amendment dealing with banning corporate cash in elections but a small cadre including Howard Zinn, Bill Moyer, Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower, Medea Benjamin and dozens of others have put together a “Move To Amend” web site and petition to “firmly establish... that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights”.
But then again to think that a constitutional amendment under what passes for democracy in the USA Inc. is in the realm of reality probably means joining that confederacy of dunces who debates noiseless arboreal thickets.
Let us clue you in- of course it freakin’ does... what are you a freakin’ moron?” (it seems to be that kind of week).
The ease with which people are bamboozled and bewildered comes to mind because what nobody seems to want to admit in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision allowing corporations to flood elections with cash is that if Americans weren’t too-stupid-to-live and as easily swayed as the mythical soundless trees they wouldn’t be influenced by all the bogus, distracting advertising bought by company capital.
So which is it? Are “American voters are smart enough to see though all the nonsense” as some suck-up pols suggest? Or is it that “you can never underestimate the intelligence of the American voter.”
Only the silent tree toppling proponents could pick the former.
But what can you expect from a country that can’t tell that a “person” is a flesh and blood human being and not a piece of paper with the words “corporate charter” written on it?
Corporate personhood goes back to an 1886 Supreme Court Case, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and this absurd notion is behind yesterday’s Orwellian “free speech for those who can’t speak” piece of true fascist flack.
Many in the progressive movement are busy today promoting a narrow constitutional amendment dealing with banning corporate cash in elections but a small cadre including Howard Zinn, Bill Moyer, Tom Hayden, Jim Hightower, Medea Benjamin and dozens of others have put together a “Move To Amend” web site and petition to “firmly establish... that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights”.
But then again to think that a constitutional amendment under what passes for democracy in the USA Inc. is in the realm of reality probably means joining that confederacy of dunces who debates noiseless arboreal thickets.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
A GOOD RAP ON THE SNOUT SHOULD DO IT
A GOOD RAP ON THE SNOUT SHOULD DO IT: Our over the top tirade in defense of Larry Geller against a personal attack by Ian Lind- apparently because Ian thought Larry “personally attacked” someone- was met by an ”ouch” from Ian today, saying
Whew. I’ve got pretty thick skin, but that was pretty harsh.
We just wanted to show what a personal attack really is and obtusely question the prevalent practice of personally attacking humorous ridicule by calling it a personal attack.
Actually our attitude is that using the English language to its full descriptive potential is not a personal attack and the only sin in poking- or even stabbing- fun is if it’s not funny... even if an especially unconventional sense of humor is required to find it such..
Larry’s sin was presumably a chart showing money bags as check marks for those legislators who support more corporate money in politics and smiley faces on those who would kill the measures in HB 539
And yesterday, after excoriating House Judiciary Chair Jon Riki Karamtsu, the poster child for corporate cash and the author of the now dead, HB 539, for holding an apparent corporate fundraiser- in session, downtown (not in his blue-collar district), and for $150 a pop- Geller warns us that though HB 539 was killed on the floor of the house, some reps aren’t giving up on opening the spigot further instead of banning corporate contributions by inserting the meat of HB 539 in HB 215..
But this morning Lind continued to defend corporate cash still deriding those who would try to take advantage of the fact that the legislature is at present dealing with a flawed law that is currently in the courts. Depending on how you look at it, the law either limits corporate money to $1000 a corporation or takes the caps off entirely.
Lind describes the legal situation quite well but first he says:
To be honest, I don’t think I qualify as a reactionary corporate stooge for trying to deal with some of the complexities of the campaign law and for pointing out where the public debate has gone off track. Nor do I apologize for taking the position that an assessment of risks and rewards should be a natural part of political strategizing.
What is clear is that how people view the proposed “limits” on corporate campaign contributions that were part of HB 539 depends a great deal on how you understand the status quo.
In describing the “status quo” Lind only expounds on the judicial case and the Campaign Spending Commission ruling that caused the circuit court to put the kibosh on the commission’s interpretation until a higher court decides.
But the core of his contention is an argument of misdirection. The court case might be the only “status” that counts if the legislature made the ambiguous law and was refusing to do anything about it.
The real “status quo” is that the people who made the law are at this very moment trying to deal with any “flaw” in the current law and in dong so are deciding the future of corporate money in Hawai`i politics.
And whatever they decide during this session it’s highly unlikely to be changed again any time soon
The broad view shows that as we write some are trying to flood the system with a massive moolah infusion from special interests instead of serving the public interest and just banning it completely, as 22 other states have done.
Does it really matter what the law currently says when the actual status quo is that the legislature is in the process of changing it? And if they are changing it should we sit still for legitimizing what, as Geller points out, is the virtual lifting of all limits by allowing unlimited numbers of $25,000 chunks to go to any number of political action committees as HB 539 would have done?
We and Geller- and dare we say just about anyone not greasing or getting greased under the current system- think that even one corporate dollar to one corporate PAC is one dollar and one PAC too many. But Lind says any limit- apparently even if it’s a fake one- is better than none at all and for some reason he thinks that that precludes any attempt to fully ban corporate money because he seems to think we won’t ever get a ban.
Well, you certainly won’t if you don’t demand or even ask for one.
Even in the name of the political expediency Lind cites, supporting a certain amount of corporate cash instead of a ban makes no sense. You don’t start bargaining over the amount an armed mugger will take from you by offering him five dollars when he wants it all.
It reminds us of the old joke that ends with the punch line “we’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we’re just haggling over price”.
Corporate cash in elections- and corporate influence in general- is actually the result of a uniquely American concept that is cited by many as the root of the dysfunction of not just the US campaign finance system but that of democratic capitalism in general
Its called corporate personhood and can be traced back to a somewhat bizarre ruling - and some say corruptly-divined misinterpretation of the constitution- by the US Supreme Court in 1886 called , Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.whereby corporations were given the same full consttional rights as actual people whereas previously corporate rights were limited to those of “articifical persons”.
Check out the wilipedia entry linked above if you want to know what’s at the core of the corporate takeover of the country.
But in the absence of an unlikey reversal of the decisions (actually the infamous “Buckley v Vallejo” is based on it in part) or some sort of legislation or constitutional amendment one thing we can do is to eliminate the legalized bribery that is pervelnet in 28 states including Hawai`i.
As we tried to point out in our origianal piece if you start with a “we’re defeated already so we’d better get behind something that sucks” .attitude you may well be a “reactionary corporate stooge”- although we would never stoop to that kind of name calling since reactionary is much too strong to be accurate
No matter what the current law says you can help put a cork in corporate infuence by sending an email to reps@capitol.hawaii.gov telling them to stop the madness and chuck any bill, including HB 215, that doesn’t ban corporate cash in elections into the same trash can onto which they threw HB 539.
Whew. I’ve got pretty thick skin, but that was pretty harsh.
We just wanted to show what a personal attack really is and obtusely question the prevalent practice of personally attacking humorous ridicule by calling it a personal attack.
Actually our attitude is that using the English language to its full descriptive potential is not a personal attack and the only sin in poking- or even stabbing- fun is if it’s not funny... even if an especially unconventional sense of humor is required to find it such..
Larry’s sin was presumably a chart showing money bags as check marks for those legislators who support more corporate money in politics and smiley faces on those who would kill the measures in HB 539
And yesterday, after excoriating House Judiciary Chair Jon Riki Karamtsu, the poster child for corporate cash and the author of the now dead, HB 539, for holding an apparent corporate fundraiser- in session, downtown (not in his blue-collar district), and for $150 a pop- Geller warns us that though HB 539 was killed on the floor of the house, some reps aren’t giving up on opening the spigot further instead of banning corporate contributions by inserting the meat of HB 539 in HB 215..
But this morning Lind continued to defend corporate cash still deriding those who would try to take advantage of the fact that the legislature is at present dealing with a flawed law that is currently in the courts. Depending on how you look at it, the law either limits corporate money to $1000 a corporation or takes the caps off entirely.
Lind describes the legal situation quite well but first he says:
To be honest, I don’t think I qualify as a reactionary corporate stooge for trying to deal with some of the complexities of the campaign law and for pointing out where the public debate has gone off track. Nor do I apologize for taking the position that an assessment of risks and rewards should be a natural part of political strategizing.
What is clear is that how people view the proposed “limits” on corporate campaign contributions that were part of HB 539 depends a great deal on how you understand the status quo.
In describing the “status quo” Lind only expounds on the judicial case and the Campaign Spending Commission ruling that caused the circuit court to put the kibosh on the commission’s interpretation until a higher court decides.
But the core of his contention is an argument of misdirection. The court case might be the only “status” that counts if the legislature made the ambiguous law and was refusing to do anything about it.
The real “status quo” is that the people who made the law are at this very moment trying to deal with any “flaw” in the current law and in dong so are deciding the future of corporate money in Hawai`i politics.
And whatever they decide during this session it’s highly unlikely to be changed again any time soon
The broad view shows that as we write some are trying to flood the system with a massive moolah infusion from special interests instead of serving the public interest and just banning it completely, as 22 other states have done.
Does it really matter what the law currently says when the actual status quo is that the legislature is in the process of changing it? And if they are changing it should we sit still for legitimizing what, as Geller points out, is the virtual lifting of all limits by allowing unlimited numbers of $25,000 chunks to go to any number of political action committees as HB 539 would have done?
We and Geller- and dare we say just about anyone not greasing or getting greased under the current system- think that even one corporate dollar to one corporate PAC is one dollar and one PAC too many. But Lind says any limit- apparently even if it’s a fake one- is better than none at all and for some reason he thinks that that precludes any attempt to fully ban corporate money because he seems to think we won’t ever get a ban.
Well, you certainly won’t if you don’t demand or even ask for one.
Even in the name of the political expediency Lind cites, supporting a certain amount of corporate cash instead of a ban makes no sense. You don’t start bargaining over the amount an armed mugger will take from you by offering him five dollars when he wants it all.
It reminds us of the old joke that ends with the punch line “we’ve established what kind of girl you are, now we’re just haggling over price”.
Corporate cash in elections- and corporate influence in general- is actually the result of a uniquely American concept that is cited by many as the root of the dysfunction of not just the US campaign finance system but that of democratic capitalism in general
Its called corporate personhood and can be traced back to a somewhat bizarre ruling - and some say corruptly-divined misinterpretation of the constitution- by the US Supreme Court in 1886 called , Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.whereby corporations were given the same full consttional rights as actual people whereas previously corporate rights were limited to those of “articifical persons”.
Check out the wilipedia entry linked above if you want to know what’s at the core of the corporate takeover of the country.
But in the absence of an unlikey reversal of the decisions (actually the infamous “Buckley v Vallejo” is based on it in part) or some sort of legislation or constitutional amendment one thing we can do is to eliminate the legalized bribery that is pervelnet in 28 states including Hawai`i.
As we tried to point out in our origianal piece if you start with a “we’re defeated already so we’d better get behind something that sucks” .attitude you may well be a “reactionary corporate stooge”- although we would never stoop to that kind of name calling since reactionary is much too strong to be accurate
No matter what the current law says you can help put a cork in corporate infuence by sending an email to reps@capitol.hawaii.gov telling them to stop the madness and chuck any bill, including HB 215, that doesn’t ban corporate cash in elections into the same trash can onto which they threw HB 539.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
