I don't get it. Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans care about the same stuff I care about: secure jobs, good schools, healthy environment, clean energy and responsible government. I am not surprised that people want these things; they are pretty basic, red state-blue state, ingredients for a good life. But it's not happening.
We have a democracy -- as in majority rule -- and yet we can't get action on what the majority wants. What's up with that?
Last year I called a bunch of professional activists who work on climate issues in Washington, D.C. I was curious why the strongest legislation under consideration in Congress was still far weaker than what the science tells us is needed to curb global warming. The explanation was consistent: "It's the best we can get."
It's the best we can get? Who says? We're confusing political reality with physical reality.
There's no reason we can't have an economy that provides secure jobs and a healthy environment. There's no reason we can't have clean energy, good schools and all the other basics that would make life in America even better. This is America, after all. We are blessed with natural resources and a can-do spirit: we dream big, we aim high, we work together to overcome challenges.
So, why can't we handle such basics as keeping our air clean, teaching our kids math, and providing safe drinking water?
I went back and asked my DC friends, 'What's getting in the way of real solutions?' Again, the answer was consistent: the manipulation of our democracy by big business interests.
This should not come as a surprise. A recent poll by Hart Research found that 85 percent of Americans say corporations have too much influence on our democracy. Corporations hire armies of lobbyists and corporate representatives sit on so-called" independent" advisory committees that feed policy recommendations to government. And, as we saw in November, corporations pour huge amounts of money into campaigns to support or oppose candidates of their choice.
If it seems like it's getting worse, that's because it is. We can thank the Supreme Court for that.
In the 2010 case known as Citizens United v. F.E.C. - the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much money as they want from their corporate coffers to influence election outcomes. The corporations say it's free speech, but there's nothing free about it. If corporations - say Exxon, which made $30 billion last year - spend even a tiny percentage of their profits on influencing election outcomes, they can dwarf the contributions from real live citizens (that's you and me), skewing election results to favor their own interests. Which, let's face it, aren't always the same as the interests of workers, families and the environment.
Democracy: government of the people, by the people, for the people. It's the platform where we work out our differences, dreams and desires and figure out how to move forward as a society. We can't have a healthy functioning democracy with corporations given legal status equal to real people. It just doesn't work.
And we can't solve today's pressing environmental, economic and social problems without a healthy functioning democracy. Which is why we need to band together to do two things: get the corporations out of our democracy and get the people back in. (It's also why I decided to devote my latest film - launched today - to this very issue. Please watch The Story of Citizens United v FEC: Why Democracy Only Works when People are in Charge, and pass it on.)
One way to put the brakes on the excessive influence of corporations on our democracy is to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision. And the most lasting, meaningful way to do that is with a constitutional amendment. It's a tall order, but many organizations are launching campaigns for one. An amendment needs to confirm that the free speech protections in the First Amendment don't extend to for-profit corporations.
A constitutional amendment won't solve all the problems with corporate influence of our democracy, but it is a great place to start. If the Citizens United decision stands unchallenged, elections will be no more than auctions, with political offices available to the highest bidder, and unavailable to those who prioritize public - rather than corporate - interests.
Regardless of whether you're passionate about healthcare or the climate, product safety or workers' rights, this is your issue too. Corporate influence is in the way of our achieving a healthier, more secure, more fair society.
So let's defend our democracy by putting it to use right now: join a campaign to get corporations out of politics. Then we can truly have a democracy of the people, for the people and get to work making America the best it can be.
Who is with me!!??? Come on! We are Americans, we are entitled to everything we want if we just put our hands together and vote for it! That’s how things really should work (sorry to those millions in other parts of the world that don’t even know what a shower is - you’re not taken’ er ‘ jobs! ) It’s really all plausible too and would happen – well…. if it weren’t for those dar-n meddling rich/successful people!
Now please excuse me, I need to catch a ride on my rainbow powered pumpkin car up my magic bean stalk to my castle made of hot fudge and mozzarella sticks.
Btw - I’d share the blueprints to this “Earth Friendly” “clean” “renewable” rainbow powered energy device (that contradicts the very laws of nature) but I just own too many shares of Exxon to care, sorry…
Now let the anti-grammar police rain down their blows upon my head.
Never before have the people of American nation so desperately needed a refresher course on American civics. It is not about semantics here, there is a fundamental, (frankly shocking) lack of understanding about everything from government to finance to the basic laws of nature – I mean MIND boggling knuckle dragging cluelessness – and yet, yet! The populace has seemingly never had as high of degree of confidence in their assertions. ??
Just hear the theme of this bl0g here – “I want it, thus I should get it”. Of course, “I” is replaced with “we” and thus some how becomes honorable to take from someone else - as if you deserved it.
We have forgotten the faces of our fathers.
Why doesn't Annie point out government subsidization of corn, and how corn is GM and how GM corn can be labeled as organic. Talk about the sustainable solution of farmers growing vegetables. Mixing the vegetable plants with appropriate other vegetation and animals to protect the plants. Permaculture!
Tell a story about all the false marketing so people have the solutions as consumers to spend differently. Tide might make better products if as consumers we all boycotted the bad ones.
As consumers the solution is looking for entrepreneurs who are participating in the conversation, providing support of those entrepreneurs, and asking more of entrepreneurs who are not providing healthy and sustainable services.
People are too quick to dismiss an issue... As TEAMS we can lead and educate each other. As TEAMs let's organize and self found politicians. Ignore the party lines and vote for people. The party lines are created as emotional distractions.
Good video Annie, but I'm disappointed I thought the season would start out providing your followers more direction like stop drinking bottle water or look for cosmetics without petrochemicals. People love you, represent and promote solutions.
If there were principles and fixed laws, n a t i o n s would not change our shirts and a man can not be expect to be w i s e r than entire nation....
No one may collect more to obtain an office than the office pays. Congress may provide additional funds. No one may contribute to a candidate for office who can not vote for that candidate.
Making the candidates go out and collect funds from their consituants would get rid of the kooks who seem to show up in every election (here in Missouri). Having Congress provide additional funds would let us keep the presidential pot we now have, and maybe a similar one for congress. And the last part about contributions would strike specifically at the corporate lobbist who now have more control on campaign spending than anyone else in the country, when it should be "We the People".
And stop nagging on corporations. I'm sure some of what you have said is true, ut if it weren't for corporations most of us would probably be unempolyed because everyone would have to employ themselves. I know a lot of people that might be great at a trade but aren't very good salesmen or businessmen and wouldn't be able to sell their work or balance their own books.
Corporations are a good thing.
Too bad for you.
Second, its hard to get people riled up about what MIGHT happen in 50 or 100 years (i.e. climate change) when a lot of them are more worried about taking care of their families, and all that entails, in our current economic situation. Even after the economy improves, most people will not worry about running out of fossil fuels or the climate getting warmer.....until the fossil fuels run out and the beaches start moving upland. If they move upland that is (its a pretty sure thing that we do not have an endless supply of oil and coal though).
Third, you will not get the corporations out of politics until you get all of the non-persons out of politics. This includes Unions, PACs, and any other organized body, as opposed to individuals, who are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. This is called special interest politics, and is not confined to Corporations.
If you are not sure, maybe that's because these corporations (Chevron, BP, Haliburton, etc) spent so much money for disinformation that you can't even see the truth.
America is the country in the world were corporations have the biggest influence and also the only developed country were there is still people doubting climate change.
As far as coporations having the biggest influence, it was not always so. There was a time that Unions had the biggest influence. If one beleives some of our current headlines, Public Employee Unions STILL wield influence in the legislatures far out of proportion to ehri constituency/membership.
If you want corporations ouot of politics, you have to pull Unions out of politics. You have to pull PACS out of politics. You have to pull ALL of the advocacy groups out of politics, and deny them the ability to influence campaigns. That is what is fair.
Personally, I do not like the fact that ANY of the groups can give large chunks of change. They should all be banned. but if you are going to give it to one, you have to give it to the others.
Moreover, who is to say that we are not currently in a warming period, or melting of the "Ice Age" that takes place over 10's of thousands of years, happening slowly for longer than recorded human history? How do you know that the glaciers haven't been receeding for thousands of years? For all you truly know the earth could get so warm that the polar ice caps melt, only to have them and much of the planet freeze again in another 50,000 years.
Ever heard of Panacea? Our planet changes, you shouldn't jump to conclusions that it is our fault.
I agree that you might be right, and I wouldn't mind doing LITTLE things that might help alleviate climate change, but I would not agree to investing any major money or making big sacrifices to do so. Long live the gasoline engine, coal on my barbecue and aerosol in my hairspray...
In the same way a Union can support a candidate sympathetic to the Union, yet an individual member can vote/support differently, company shareholders are under no obligation to vote in compliance with the wishes of the board, and yet they represent me.
And you must admit that on some level, companies advocating for their businesses are also advocating for their employees. What damages the company does harm to the stockholders AND employees.
Therefore, I would prefer if none of them were able to wield influence. I see little difference, a small select group of people pooling resources to exert influence over a decision maker to advocate for their position, which may or may not coincide with mine.
This should have already been done - and since it hasn't been done, helps prove the point that corporations are in charge.
However, a Constitutional amendment IS required to empower state and/or federal legislators to write rules that constrain any and all types of activities associated with political campaigns.
THAT is the key to having the chance of fixing government so that smart, creative, governance-interested people can run for office instead of it being relegated to the 'well-connected class' who can haul in the money needed to conduct a "modern" campaign. Clearly, the ability to attract campaign contributions does not correlate with an ability to make good decisions or good legislation.
Want to get corporate influence out of politics? You have to take away ALL of the special interests. Otherwise it won't work.
Corporate boardrooms influencing politics is not in the best interests of the nation. Neither is anyone elses influence. If you disagreee with that, then frankly you might be part of the problem, and not the solution.
Everyone has a special interest. People with Special interests vote on election day because they are citizens. They have voices and rights because they are citizens. Normally, "interests" are associated with a "policy." If I'm a cancer patient with a rare tumor, my special interest may be candidates who support faster permission of experimental treatments or some such. So the cancer patient will vote for a candidate that matches their interests. If I'm against abortion, I'll vote for candidates who take that position. If I work for a company and support candidates who help my employer, then that's my right.
With contribution limits, those 3 people (and everyone else) had a somewhat equal shot at having an equal voice in a campaign. That includes those most special, precious, and uniquely super smart people: those that sit on boards of directors.
The problem has never been that people have special interests - it's each person's relative ability to impose their interests on others. The problem now is that unions and corporations are given more rights to push their personal agenda. In 2011, it's illogical to agree that $1 of speech equals $25 million of speech.
That inequity is the issue. Portraying this as some amorphous issue of interests is surreal.
Well, there's your problem. We do not have a democracy, we have a republic form of government.
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/democracy.htm is how a Democracy is supposed to work, but it isn't because We The People aren't doing our parts.
Read Amendment 12. The people of each state, since Amendment 24, are to draft presidential and vice nominees and elect one of each during the primary, certify their elections to congress who recounts and notify the nation of each state's candidates [& qualifications] which eliminates conventions leaving the potential for 50 presidential and 50 vice candidates to be voted on during November's general election. Amendment 24 then say We The People will elect electors [from their congressional districts to vote according to the district's majority's vote] electors for the electoral college.
Following congressional procedures for electors, drafting and electing them, there's no room for corporations to finance their elections. That's the Constitutional means around corrupt government. Furthermore, Amendment 10 say what's constitutional and not done by the governors nor states the people are obligated to do. http://www.change.org/petitions/eliminate-capitalistic-military-regime?share_id=GzSVfJDUOH&pe=ws is the means I've taken to clean out DC's corrupt administrators and legislators. Once they're eliminated the new president who "ensures faithful execution of the laws" will eliminate the justices responsible for "citizens united" and other failings of their oaths of office.