The Cruel Manipulation of American Democracy Continues

What happened in Iowa only represents the latest regressive manifestation of how huge amounts of money are used to not only fund negative attack ads and to the determine to winner of the political process, but more importantly exposes how the cruel manipulation of American democracy continues.

Getting the "greed money" out of politics is now an urgent growing public demand. We have seen first hand how some in the ranks of the 1% that control the wealth of the nation will take any measure necessary to satisfy their narrow political will and exclusive ideology all at the expense of our democracy.

There is no accountability nor full disclosure of the greedy "hidden" damp hands that predetermine the outcome of elections across the nation. On Tuesday, the charade went down in Iowa. Next it will be in New Hampshire, then in South Carolina, Florida and so on. This is why we need a Constitutional Amendment to make elections publicly financed and free from monetary corruption. Let's stop this disgrace!

Income inequality leads to economic injustice that undermines basic fairness and democracy. Both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr demanded economic equality and justice for all. Occupy the Dream/Occupy Wall Street is now mobilizing throughout the country to challenge these inequities and to restore equal opportunity and a participatory democracy for all where the dream of freedom, justice and equality will be a reality for all.

Join us on January 16, 2012. Occupy the Dream today. Get the Greed & Money Out of Politics! Go to www.OccupyDream.org.

 

 

 

Follow Russell Simmons on Twitter: www.twitter.com/unclerush

Comments

[drhinesmid]

08:33 PM on 01/08/2012

All you need to do is manufacture a sex controversy involving your opponent and his own wife. Then let the MSM spread the rumor. You don't spend a dime and your opponent withdraws and the opposing party must scramble to run a second tier candidate against you. How cost efficient. Oh wait......Obama thought of that already (in his senate race). Never mind.

[Strings55]

07:39 PM on 01/08/2012

"What happened in Iowa only represents the latest regressive manifestation of how huge amounts of money are used to not only fund negative attack ads and to the determine to winner of the political process, but more importantly exposes how the cruel manipulation of American democracy continues."

I guess you missed the part where a candidate battled the big establishment $s to a standstill on a shoestring budget and a lot of hard work

Bo. Gus.

[filosofer989]

07:21 PM on 01/08/2012

If people are swayed by unending TV ads, nothing will save Democracy. People should be able to think for themselves. Then only democracy will succeed.

[Sundex]

07:18 PM on 01/08/2012

Well stated. Those in Congress that serve the greed monsters are an embarrassment to everything in this country that can be associated with patriotism.

[Andrew Neal]

06:23 PM on 01/08/2012

What part of the Constitution permits the government to tell the people what to do with their money, even if that money is being used for political purposes?

[Sundex]

07:16 PM on 01/08/2012

Answer to your question: "Government by highest bidder is not a democracy at all. It doesn't need to appear constitution to know this is NOT the way to go."

[Berettasskeeter]

07:36 PM on 01/08/2012

And yet, you haven't answered the question!
Semper fi

[Strings55]

07:41 PM on 01/08/2012

Yes it does, if we're going to make money illegal in political campaigns, including those supporting Obama at a goal of $1 billion, the Constitution DOES need to say something to inhibit the 1st Amendment.

[soisay]

08:35 PM on 01/08/2012

Where in the constitution does it forbid people from giving private or corporate money to corporate decision makers to route contracts to them? It called bribery and fraud. when done with a person purchasing items for the DOD, FAA, DOT, it is still bribery. when the recipient is a congressman or candidate? It still seems like bribery under the interstate commerce clause. hope can it be illegal for foreign nationals to donate to campaigns? What about foreign owned ”front corporations”?

[rsxsims]

05:54 PM on 01/08/2012

sir, possibly you should look up the word.. 'democracy'... "in a democracy, the individual, or any group making up a minority have no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. one would say that the majority doesnt care if the minority is happy or not..whether its call narrow political will or ideology..

[soisay]

08:49 PM on 01/08/2012

In a ”Pure Democracy” like the roman forum voting thumbs up or down or pirates voting someone to walk the plank. We have a ”constitutional democracy” that guarantees certain minimal rights, making CA proposal H8TE invalid, even if it passed 99%-1%.

[ZoeMB]

10:59 PM on 01/08/2012

The tyranny of the majority occurs when a larger group tries to legislate away another group's rights but we have a founding document that states all people have certain rights. That makes it non-negotiable.

[Miranda Wrietz]

05:42 PM on 01/08/2012

Money is THE problem in our politics. Specifically, money from the corrupt banking sector. Thomas Jefferson and our Founders were aware of this corrupting danger. Jefferson said, "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

[Locofoco123]

04:17 PM on 01/08/2012

How 'bout this idea. Eliminate all giving by Corporations, Unions, Pacts,etc.- make it against the law. Only entities that have a heartbeat and are registered to vote can make a political contribution. Contributions can be made for $100. or less to the candidate(s) of the voters choice. How hard is this?

[budeliao]

04:41 PM on 01/08/2012

This would be a fine idea. But the same people that have to enact it into law are the same that would have to impose term limits on themselves. Time for a constitutional convention to impose some new restrictions on the federal government.

[tnkeating]

07:31 PM on 01/08/2012

My friend, we are term limits. If my incumbent is not retiring, I'm willing to vote for anybody else to replace them, irreguardless of party. The best restriction we could impose is a total change of power, (total).

[Mugzi]

08:11 PM on 01/08/2012

It seems that half of congress is part of the 1%...see where it's going!

[bzimmerman]

02:47 PM on 01/08/2012

It is already too late. Our government has been bought.
When it takes $50,000,000 to campaign for public office, there is too much pressure for candidates to turn to the deep pockets of the capitalists. There is not one representative in elected office that does not owe his or her office to "the one percent". Eisenhower warned us 60 years ago!

[budeliao]

04:38 PM on 01/08/2012

50 Mill? Way too low. Can't run against a billion dollar Obama war chest with a paltry 50 mil!

[tnkeating]

07:33 PM on 01/08/2012

Alan Grayson out spent Danial Webster by 6 times and he still lost. But to be fair, thats Alan Grayson.

[Cecelia Nunn Haack]

02:45 PM on 01/08/2012

AMEN!!!!!!

[humanbeing-rick]

12:19 PM on 01/08/2012

Bravo!! Well said, and with gusto! We have a right to be angry for being manipulated!
As you say, "We have seen first hand how some in the ranks of the 1% that control the wealth of the nation will take any measure necessary to satisfy their narrow political will and exclusive ideology all at the expense of our democracy."
It is time to get our of our couches, and do something about it!

[roostir1]

11:52 AM on 01/08/2012

I'm sure nobody here has supported candidates which receive money from the 1%. Both sides do it folks and OWS won't have a realistic impact on it.

[aeuropeanvoice]

06:18 PM on 01/08/2012

You gave another good reason to recall the citizens united rule ,probably without wanting to do that: if both sides receive equal support from Wall Street then there is even less reason for this to exist.
Then both sides will have to pander to their overlords.
So what IS your point ?

[June25]

11:17 AM on 01/08/2012

So when Russell is up in the Hamptons partaking in cognac and caviar while promoting private jets I'm sure there is no "greed money"floating around.

[ironton07]

01:43 PM on 01/08/2012

How absurd, Russell didn't say he was St. Francis of Assisi . His post was spot on. F.D.R. was a rich man but he fought for the average guy. Being rich and successful doesn't disqualify one from being a good and thoughtful man.

[tnkeating]

07:16 PM on 01/08/2012

Yes, and being poor doesn't disqualify one from being a good and thoughtful man from becoming rich, you just got to really try, sometimes many times.

[blackradical]

05:05 PM on 01/08/2012

Be careful June, Russell's angry fans can get hostile, and they ignore any version of reality that doesn't fit their own.

Rose-colored-glasses are the new "Bling".

[VikingQuest]

10:43 AM on 01/08/2012

"Getting the "greed money" out of politics is now an urgent growing public demand. We have seen first hand how some in the ranks of the 1% that control the wealth of the nation will take any measure necessary to satisfy their narrow political will and exclusive ideology all at the expense of our democracy."

I'd say a $340 million net worth makes you the 1%.

I find it funny though how you stand for "getting money out of politics" but you'll be supporting the candidate that is hoping to spend $1 billion on this next election.

Is the plan to drain the pool by adding water or something?

[bacaja]

10:29 AM on 01/08/2012

A candidate needs money to get his views out. Unfortunately most candidates expressed views have little or nothing to do with reality. Even though the message is false, the voter doesn't really have much else to go on, so consequently the big money wins, literally.