Banks Think They "Own" Congress? Wrong -- We're Taking Congress Back

If you think special-interest influence in Congress perverts our public policy, last week saw an outrage that vindicates that belief entirely.

Sen. Dick Durbin offered a bill that would allow families at risk of losing their homes -- but with an ability to pay their mortgage if their monthly rates were lower and extended over more years -- to legally get that option.

The very banks that taxpayers kept alive with billions in bailouts had the audacity to spend millions lobbying Congress to oppose this bill. They also showered politicians with campaign contributions.

The bill was defeated. Senator Durbin declared that banks "frankly own the place." Will you continue to support politicians who support this corrupt system? Or will you demand that any politician you donate to support reform?

Please join Change Congress's political "donor strike" today.

Thousands of people are telling members of Congress they won't get a dime from us unless they co-sponsor Senator Durbin's Fair Elections Now Act to overhaul congressional campaign financing. It would replace our broken system with citizen-funded elections, a hybrid of public funding and small-dollar donations.

Already, our strike has withheld over $1.25 million from politicians (based on contributions last cycle). It's also been featured by ABC, NBC, the Associated Press, Politico, Huffington Post, and others.

Now is the time to send politicians a message that we absolutely demand they change the system.

Can you help take back Congress by joining the "donor strike" today?

Then, please forward this post to your friends who may have missed last Friday's vote, or are looking for some constructive way to respond. Ask them to join the fight for reform.

Together, we can fight back. We need to fight back.

Thanks for helping to Change Congress.

Comments

[joebhed]

Look, it's great to join a credit union, but WTFU America, it's OUR money.
It's OUR money system.
We OWN it.
It has been OUR money system since something happened about 233 year ago called the American Revolution.
We became a free and sovereign people and we established our free and sovereign government and we gave that government the right to have its OWN money system.

We have leased OUR money system to a private banking cartel, known as the Federal Reserve System. These private bankers have reneged on their commitment to economic stability and full employment. We need to terminate that lease. We need to take back OUR money system.

We need to repeal the Federal Reserve Act, or amend it so as the Fed becomes a true part of government by absorbing it's money-creation powers into the Treasury.
Google Treasury System versus Federal Reserve System.

Said Lincoln:
" The government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credit needed to satisfy the spending power of the government and the buying power of consumers. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the government’s greatest creative opportunity.
The financing of all public enterprise, and the conduct of the treasury will become matters of practical administration. Money will cease to be master and will then become servant of humanity."

[PenFighter]

A month of round-robin stupidity with a big credit card baron—an unfair $30 charge that lost them thousands in interest-paying debt—proved to me that these companies have forgotten both who their customers are and what their own best interests are. No great revelation: it's endemic in banking, customer "service" and government, but a pondering came upon me.

What would happen if some month (with July 4th in it?) their customers reminded them whose money is paying them by withholding payments? In the true spirit of the original Tea Party. One month. Millions of payments. Imagine.

Pro: They might realize that our sense of fairness, not just the law, makes us repay our debts, that we're less inclined when they aren't fair back and that their CUSTOMERS (and owners) don't think they're fair.

Con: "We'll kill your credit rating and raise your rates." If everyone's credit takes the same hit it becomes background noise. And suppose the "demonstration" included a caveat: if you raise rates over this, it ends only after you lower them again.

I guess it could crash the CC companies involved and hurt the economy. Wait... they already did that by deregulating themselves into this mess. Congress might even find solutions that help THEIR CUSTOMERS: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, who pay for this enterprise. (These corporations' 1000s of tax-haven subsidiaries disprove the argument that they contribute fairly.)

Parasites eventually bring down the host organism. The 21st Century has been a case in point.

[Hawaii5-0]

Mr Lessig, the point is that banks DID defeat the bill to give relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. HW do you see that as people taking power back? It is getting harder to hide the fact that banks and special interests OWN Congress. The only good that will come of this is this issue might become the new litmus test for re-election. "Did you support the people, or the banks?"

[GreatNews27]

ROTFLMAO. You one funny guy.

[carl99e]

People who are in the governing bodies of our government should not be allowed to vote on issues that affect the companies they accept money/favo­rs/tips/re­wards/vaca­tions/gift­s or contributions from. That is a conflict of interest and should be seen as such. Enough with the nonsense!!!

If a judge who was considering a case and there was obvious reasons for there to be a lack of objectivity he would be expected to recuse him or herself. Why isn't the same standard used in all branches of government ???? It sure would end a lot of Bull!

[Viola]

I agree with the outrage re: the cramdown failure. I also agree that finding a way to get corporate money out of politics, etc. is crucial. But my first reaction to this effort is that it seems like it will encourage the exact opposite of the stated goal. By threatening to withhold donations to politicians unless they vote for a publicly financed system you force a choice on them: do something they always seem to resist doing anyway, or turn around and accept MORE money from corporations. Based on past experience, which do you think they'll do?

Wouldn't it be more persuasive to threaten holdouts with primary challenges? Tell them money that would have gone to them will instead go to more progressive opponents?

And separately, shouldn't we be researching ways to make public financing something that the public can vote on, rather than leaving it up to people who have shown over and over again their reluctance to change the system, once they're in it?

[steelwheels]

This is something we've been posting about on the "Senators in their own words... with over 3000 posts so far. As long as we continue adoring him, and he being in the pocket of W.S&Bankst­ers due to campaign contributions, WE will have to light a fire under him to help him realize that he would rather not muck with US and his alternitive is to put THEM back in their place. Obama is being ambivalent on this because WE let him. We went grass roots with him for the election, now WE have to go grass roots ON him, to get him to take the action needed. Also, theres more than enough rage to go around. WE need to start getting involved in groups like RUGGERs http://change-congress.org/ and http://www.anewwayforward.org/demonstrations/rations/ and some of the others, posters have been putting up. Its not enough to sit at our keypads and rage about this, WE need to get out there and rage to 5 friends about this, who will in turn rage to five more. This is the way WE got him elected and this is the way WE will get him motovated to work on the peoples problem instead of the corporations problems. He's still a hero, we just need to turn up the heat and get him to be OUR hero again

[MBWinters]

Greetings Citizens,

The Congressional Nostra-Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid and Barney Franks

Follow the Rich White Men To Learn How Stimulus Money Becomes Protection Money. This is a very simplle process...­as Chris Tucker said in Rush Hour 2....to find the dirty money all you need to do is follow the rich white men...and I am sure he meant to include the rich white women...

The one with absolute power, in this case The Congressional Nostra (Rich White Men and Women)can extort money from the people and banks with impunity..­..they send their goons from the IRS to collect taxes from the people and small business; then they use the taxes to send stimulus money to the rich white men and women at the banks and then the rich white men and women send a portion of the stimulus money to the rich white men and women of the Congressional Nostra's campaign funds.....­Now many of you are thinking that they wouldnt risk their nice job in the Congressional Nostra to do this because they can get voted out of office....­That is true but their is one thing that they know that you do not know...by election day you will have forgotten all about their goons at the IRS and their pals at the banks....i­t is the perfect crime but technically it is not a crime since the make the laws...

Warm regards,

Michael Winters

[sime0n]

Don't get mad, get even. Join a Credit Union today: http://www.creditunionswork.org/

[TJCole]

"We have a system of legalized bribery..!­"

Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski­....

[vagabondvet]

In other words, you're mad at special interests funding Congress, so your group is keeping special interest money from going to Congress?

I'm against public financing just like I'm against most other public election laws. Notice how the tax forms ask if you'd like to give money to Democrats OR Republicans. Or how the Commission on Presidential Debates require 15% in polls before a candidate is allowed to debate. The problem with government isn't that there is too little regulation; it's that there are too many regulations that favor the one party with two heads.

[mlaiuppa]

We're where we are now because of the erosion of regulations over the last 4 decades and you're proposing fixing this by....elim­inating more regulations?

Are you insane?

[vagabondvet]

Our current election regulations are created to favor only the Republicans and the Democrats. Any more regulations based on the current system will only increase the death grip both parties have on our country.

[Sundialsvc4]

There are approximately twenty-one "mega banks" who, with bald audacity backed by clueless minds, proclaim that they:

- are banks

- are successful

- are "too big to fail" (because they)

- most-certainly have not already failed!

Uh huh. Right.

Ask the nearly ten thousand REAL banks in this country, who are still serving their customers and who are scrupulously tending to their books ... and showing real profit to their bondholders and stockholders.

Ask the hundreds of millions of account-holders whom they have shamelessly swindled. Ask the international bankers who plainly see that the truth is not in them.

No matter how many unscrupulous "political connections" these people may have... and no matter how corrupt and craven "their pet Senators and Congressmen" may be... the truth is inescapable.

They have already failed. They have failed utterly and completely. Having stolen (literally) trillions of dollars for themselves­... the "money" they stole, is gone too.

Their "wise counselor" was nothing but a leprechaun, and it is morning.

[mlaiuppa]

My money is in my local credit union. So is my one credit card.

The banks can ki$$ my posterior. If everyone took their money out and did the same see how the powerful the banks would be.

Home and auto loans through your credit union are competitive and sometimes the rates are even lower.

You don't need a credit card from Chase or BofA. You might be able to get one through your credit union. Often they'll have a check card that can be used as a credit card, thus eliminating the temptation to amass credit card debt. You take the credit cards away from the banks too and what do they have to hold over anyone?

There is no reason to use a traditional bank for your personal financing anymore.

We don't need the government to police the banks. We can do it ourselves by denying them our money.

If I could I'd write a letter to my bank telling them I'm canceling their credit card and taking my money out and putting it in my local credit union. And tell them why. Unfortunat­ely....I'v­e already done that. It would be much more effective if large numbers of people who still use banks did this.

[joeshuren]

I'm all in favor of withholding money from Congress, especially your money.

But Larry and Senator Durbin are wrong about the "special interests" opposed to cramdown of mortgages. As pointed out in http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139532998281787.html , US mortgages are actually owned not by banks so much as investors in mortgage-backed securities. The point that is lost is that these investors are in the end insurance companies, employee pension funds, charitable organizations, college endowments, and 401(k) plans, not the banks. Larry has probably lost money in several of these funds. These groups don't get TARP, nor do they lobby.

The banks originate first mortgages, but they also lend second mortgages. It is in the interest of the four biggest banks to have bankruptcy judges modify the terms, so that first mortgages the banks don't own are not considered senior to the second mortgages, the second mortgages are treated more equally, and they get paid more. Then the government TARP lender also gets more.

In any case, the cramdown bill was really an political exercise since when jobs are being lost it is difficult to forecast modification terms, and so it would have no effect on foreclosures. The foolish buyers should just rent. It is in the interest of all that contracts be honored and longterm investments be stable.

[Dredd]

Mr. Lessig,

A very worthy cause, but don't underestimate the context.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/05/phases-of-empire-freezing-to-death.html

[Derelict outlaw]

My reading of the era of enlightenment that our founding fathers inhabited indicates to me that they envisioned a government of and by the people. Not one of Professional Politician but of framers and ranchers and merchants and bankers and candlestick makers to occasionally take a sabatical in the interests of us all and in service, direct the agencies of the government and provide legislation etc. etc.

The problem manifest today in having a "Ruling Class" vetted and approved of by the majority of these politicians is the disenfranchisement of the true majority of citizens.

That can lead to statements like the we heard the other day describing our returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans as "possible domestic terrorists". Not of the ruling class, yet.

[econ1]

No amount of campaign funding reform will change the government as long as it holds court over more and more of the economy.

Public funding will help incumbents stay in office, since they have name recognition and new comers won't. People who can't give directly to a campaign will buy advertising for their issues. Etc.

We have more lobbying now than we have had in decades...­..because the government is handing out more money than ever before. Unless we act to reduce the growth of government at all levels we will see ever more people lining up with their "donations".

Only a big government is worth corrupting.

[Lawrence Lessig - Huffpost Blogger]

Let's assume you're right, econ1. How do we get to the world where your views have a shot?In this excerpt from one of my (insanely long but I'm sorry I'm a lawyer) speeches ( http://blip.tv/file/1640358 ), I describe the economy that drives even conservatives in DC to support bigger gov't. ONLY if we had public funding could a conservative afford to vote against big gov't, because again: big government is how Members of Congress have the leverage they need over those with money to raise the money they need to get back to Congress.

[Derelict outlaw]

You're describing the institutio­nalization of corruption.