~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your World Beyond The Sound Bytes We are all citizens of the world...stay informed! Look to this blog to bring you occasional, eclectic news, videos and viewpoints you might not otherwise be exposed to. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
An investigative report by ABC reveals that Republican Presidential Primary candidate Mitt Romney, who I have dubbed #TheTwoHundredMillionDollarMan on twitter, has avoided paying his fair share of taxes by hiding his money in off-shore accounts in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. Is it any wonder that he continues to refuse to release his income tax records as is the tradition of those running for the Executive Office of this nation? Watch:
Furthermore, two weeks ago a Freedom of Information Act request for records regarding Bain Capital, which makes up the totality of Mitt Romney's business experience, was refused by the F.B.I. on the grounds that such information was currently part of an ongoing criminal investigation: "there is a pending or prospective law enforcement proceeding relevant to these responsive records; and that release of the information contained in these responsive records could reasonably be expected to interfere with the enforcement proceedings." In fact, the only time the Bureau is allowed to deny such a request is during an active investigation in which acknowledgment of responsive records would compromise it. Read the F.B.I. response for yourself:FBI Response to FOIA Re: Bain Capital
In late December, the Montana Supreme Court upheld the state's ban on corporate spending in state elections, a ruling that stands in direct opposition to Citizens United, via its decision regarding the case of Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney General, 2011 MT 328.
Question Presented:Does the portion of Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act which prohibits a corporation from making “a contribution or an expenditure in connection with a candidate” survive the United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)?
Answer:Yes. The Court upheld the State’s ban on corporate expenditures, reasoning that Montana had a compelling interest to have the law in force.
Chief Justice McGrath wrote the majority opinion which Justices Rice, Cotter, Wheat and Morris joined. Justices Nelson and Baker dissented.
Majority Opinion
The Court began with history and noted that Montana had a compelling interest in preventing corporate corruption in state politics when it passed the original act in 1912.Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote about the famed Copper Kings, ”Those tumultuous years were marked by rough contests for political and economic domination primarily in the mining center of Butte between mining and industrial enterprises controlled by foreign trusts or corporation.” The Court decided that Montana would be particularly affected by the entrance of corporate dollars which would overpower donations made by individual Montanans.
With these compelling interests in mind, the Court framed the dispositive questions as “When in the last 99 years did Montana lose the power or interest sufficient to support the statute, if it ever did?” The Court concluded that the State of Montana still had a compelling interest to prohibit corporate expenditures.:
Issues of corporate influence, sparse population, dependence upon agriculture and extractive resource development, location as a transportation corridor, and low campaign costs make Montana especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.
Whether additional states will challenge Citizens United at the local level remains to be seen. But with Montana exhibiting the legal rationale for going over Citizen United's head (in claiming it only applies to federal elections), it's likely that other states, even those without existing local bans, will follow suit.
Let's hope that what has occurred in Montana leads to the ultimate reversal of Citizens United and the ending of Corporate Personhood which gave corporations the same rights to free speech as living, breathing, individual human beings. As has been said before, I will believe a corporation is a person when it can be imprisoned or subject to the death penalty-- just as can any living, breathing, individual who has committed a crime against humanity. With equal rights, should come equal responsibility and equal consequences, and that is simply not possible when it comes to treating corporations as persons.
"The Obama Justice Department hasn't tried a single Wall Street executive in a criminal court. Against a handful, it decided to let the S.E.C. bring civil charges of fraud, which are easier to prove. So if defendants' wrists are merely being slapped by the S.E.C. instead of cuffed by the Justice Department, Obama has only his appointees to blame.
For three important reasons, the President needs to explain why the Justice Department has filed away its investigations of big banks and Wall Street firms without indicting anyone. First, American confidence in the system is deeply shaken. Second, it strains credulity for millions of Americans -- and has impelled thousands of them to occupy public places in protest -- that no banking or insurance executive deserves criminal prosecution for the actions that brought on the financial crisis. Third, by failing to prosecute a single high-profile Wall Street actor today, the Administration is failing to deter financial fraud tomorrow.
The jury is out (alas, only metaphorically) on whether Wall Street practices that accompanied the financial crisis amounted to criminal fraud. Some legal commentators have concluded that the causes of the crisis were systemic and not the result of malfeasance or conspiracy. The debate about whether practices were illegal or simply unethical will never be resolved because only a jury can render a verdict after weighing the evidence, presented by opposing counsel, for each element of an alleged crime." --Excerpted from the Huffington Post
It appears that the Obama administration has eased up on prosecutions of Wall Street as part of a conscious strategy to prevent a collapse of confidence in our financial system, with the expected 50-state foreclosure settlement intended mainly to quickly move on from a generation of fraud. Geithner seems to believe that if fraud were aggressively prosecuted, and the world made aware of the incredible extent of the illegality in our markets, that international confidence in the American financial sector would plummet and our economy would suffer. The logic seems to be to stick a band-aid on it now and let the real mess happen later on, on someone else's watch, or at least in a second term, when there’s no need to worry about re-election.
Of course, this is exactly the wrong way to go about things. If the present administration really wanted to convince the world that America’s markets weren’t broken, they would effectively police fraud, and by extension prove to everybody that at the very least, our regulatory system is not broken.
As put so well by Matt Taibbi in the RollingStone, "By continually lying about the extent of the country’s corruption problems, they’re adding fraud to fraud and raising such a great bonfire of lies that they probably won’t ever be able to fix the underlying mess. If they looked at the world like public servants, and not like corporate executives, they’d understand that the only way out is to come clean. That they don’t look at things that way should tell people quite a lot."
So what can we do? I suggest we begin with a top agenda item of the Occupy Movement: Get Money Out of Politics.
The fact is, we need to get money out of politics before we will ever see any real change in our country. This issue is even more important than stabilizing the economy because there is always going to be some lobbyist flooding money into the system to water down the law, weaken regulations, cut deals, or hide crimes.
This is a non-partisan issue. The more people learn about this, the more they will want to support it.
We need to promote and support legislation to get the money out of politics. Go to Get Money Out, for more information and to sign the petition. Pass it on and help educate the masses.
Little Suzie Newsykins is learning all about picking the Republican nominee for president. She'll take you through the process of choosing Newt Gingrich as the GOP star!
According to the non-partisan Pew Research Center, since the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party has not only lost support nationwide, but also lost support in the congressional districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus. And this year, the image of the Republican Party has declined even more sharply in these GOP-controlled districts than across the country at large.
In the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 9-14, 2011, more Americans say they disagree (27%) than agree (20%) with the Tea Party movement. A year ago, in the wake of the sweeping GOP gains in the midterm elections, the balance of opinion was just the opposite: 27% agreed and 22% disagreed with the Tea Party. At both points, more than half offered no opinion.
Throughout the 2010 election cycle, agreement with the Tea Party far outweighed disagreement in the 60 House districts represented by members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. But as is the case nationwide, support has decreased significantly over the past year; now about as many people living in Tea Party districts disagree (23%) as agree (25%) with the Tea Party.
The Republican Party’s image also has declined substantially among people who live in Tea Party districts. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of the GOP, while 48% say they have an unfavorable view. As recently as March of this year, GOP favorability was 14 points higher (55%) in these districts, with just 39% offering an unfavorable opinion
GOP Loses Favorability Advantage in Tea Party Districts
The steep decline in GOP favorability in Tea Party districts means that these constituencies now view the Republican Party about as negatively as the Democratic Party. As recently as March, GOP favorability exceeded Democratic Party favorability by 15 points (55% vs. 40%). Today, both parties receive about the same rating from people in Tea Party districts (41% favorable for the GOP, 39% for the Democratic Party).
These results are particularly fascinating when one considers that the current crop of GOP Presidential candidates is genuflecting before the Tea Party. It simply confirms how completely out of touch the Republican Presidential Primary candidates truly are.
Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Orlando) appeared on the premiere of The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur on CurrentTV. Grayson spoke in favor of extending the payroll tax cut for the middle class, against which the Republican leadership in Congress is still fighting as of today. The interview took place on December 5, 2011.
As part of TIME Magazine's special issue on TIME's Person of the Year 2011: The Protester
, they produced this video centering on how an activist/journalist's (Tim Poole) live video stream from New York City's
Zuccotti Park garnered mainstream attention and helped galvanize a
movement. Tim has gone beyond Zuccotti and has traveled up and down the east coast and to California in the last several weeks to cover the other Occupy protests and to help others set up similar livestreams.
For the past two months, I have stayed up into the wee hours of the morning, watching his Ustream broadcasts and chatting with Tim, as well as with others who have begun to emulate his style of instant, raw documentation. I have tweeted out and shared those broadcasts on many occasions, so others may bear witness without the filter of the mainstream media.
As long known by those in the Occupy Movement and those who follow it: This Movement Will Not be Televised. Therefore, we have come to rely on tech savy individuals such as Tim Poole, who are breaking new ground in the growing phenomena of online media.
Truth in Media: A rare and delightful thing. A passionate rant that everyone needs to hear.Join in the effort to get money out of politics. Click HERE or copy and paste this URL into your browser to sign the petition: http://www.getmoneyout.com/
Thank the Occupy Movement. OccupyLA put the issue of Corporate Personhood on the Los Angeles City Council Meeting agenda. With a unanimous vote, we are one small step towards overturning Citizens United, regaining our Democracy, and a government for and by the people.
Do you know who Elizabeth Duke is? How about Donald Kohn or Kevin Warsh? No? Well - you should. Because while Congress was debating back in 2008 whether or not to bailout Banksters with a $700 billion blank check - these guys and girls were just doing it. They were funneling $7.7 trillion to Wall Street under the table - without one constituent phone call - without worrying about one election - without having to give one explanation.It is time that we essentially take the power of our monetary system out of the hands of private bankers and give it back to the people. WATCH:
Massive corporations hate being held accountable when their recklessness and greed hurt our economy, our environment and people in our communities — and they’re spending millions on lobbyists and campaign contributions to put their priorities on top.
So instead of policies that would actually help put Americans back to work, Congress this week is focusing on what the corporate lobbyists want: deregulation.The House of Representatives is set to vote later this week on bills that would sabotage the regulatory system and further rig the economy in favor of the top 1 percent. Don’t let it happen.
Tell your representative: VOTE NO on deregulation.
Here’s what you need to know about the THREE deregulatory bills coming to a vote this week:
The REINS Act (H.R. 10) would block all new safeguards put in place by regulatory agencies from going into effect unless Congress affirmatively adopts them. Given the gridlock in Congress, this means the regulatory system would grind to a halt.
Essentially, the REINS Act would undermine the whole point of having agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration — agencies that exist precisely because Congress cannot and will not write all the rules necessary to protect the public from business practices that endanger our health, environment and economy.
The Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 3010) and the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act (H.R. 527) would take a different approach, adding hurdles that would make it virtually impossible for agencies to write new rules.
Passage of any of these bills would have devastating results: virtually no new standards to ensure a clean environment, a fair and stable economy, or safe food, consumer products and workplaces.
This is the way Corporate America wants Washington to work. Instead of protecting people and our environment, priority is being given to those who profit by exploiting and polluting our communities.
The public’s power to prevent wrongdoing and hold reckless businesses accountable should be strengthened, not weakened.
Urge Congress to support safeguards that protect our financial security, our health and our environment. Its easy! Click to find out how: Common Sense Regulations
Then follow up your message with a call: Dial 1-888-291-9824 This toll-free number will connect you with the U.S. Capitol switchboard. When the operator answers, ask to be connected with your representative’s office.
All you have to do is tell the staffer who answers the phone that you want your representative to VOTE NO on H.R. 10, H.R. 3010 and H.R. 527.
