April 3, 2014 – RI Future

April 3, 2014April 4, 2014

Spending money is not free speech, we need to take it to the streets

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

In the recent Supreme Court decision McCutcheon v. FEC, the right wing Bush appointed Supreme Court Justices tipped the scales and ruled essentially that spending money is free speech. When Abel Collins interviewed famed linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky, Noam asked rhetorically asked why not just admit that we have given up on democracy and admit that we are a plutocracy- accepting rule by the wealthy class, the 1%.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas- who may go down as the worst justice in the history, went further writing that “all limits on campaigns contributions are unconstitutional.”

This makes the Nobel-Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz article the 2011 Vanity Fair magazine article entitled “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%“, quite prescient:

“Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.”

So what’s the solution? Abel Collins offers this:

“We have the numbers. Let us freely assemble, muster our forces, and occupy politics from the bottom up. Put your name in the hat for city or town council. Start a blog, plan street theater, get arrested and be heard. By all means, we should start by reversing the effects of Citizens United. Municipal and statewide resolutions calling on Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution to say that corporations aren’t people and political campaign spending isn’t protected speech can get the ball rolling. Amending State Constitutions via voter initiative or legislative referendum to this same effect as I have proposed in Rhode Island is another step. Whatever else, let us not cede the political sphere to the corporations, whether they are people in the eyes of the Supreme Court or not.”

At least it is one strategy, but considering the ethics of our state legislature it seems rather unlikely. Getting mass numbers assembled and engaged seems a more likely strategy to succeed. But can we do it? That is up to you.

(This video is from 10-8-13 #2 Abel & Noam Interview Part 2 Money as Free Speech Produced by Robert Malin c.2014)

April 3, 2014

McCutcheon decision another reason to avoid Con Con

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Yesterday’s Supreme Court McCutcheon decision certainly means that the distorting power of money over what’s left of American democracy is not going to abate any time soon. Given this, perhaps we should think twice before opening the “Pandora’s Box” of a Constitutional Convention here in Rhode Island. At the forum held recently at Bryant University, Justice Robert Flanders Jr made the suspect claim that lobbyists would be at a loss to navigate the unknown corridors of power at a Con Con. Fortunately, Steve Brown of the ACLU quickly pointed out the paucity of this argument.

Lobbyists will be a part of the Constitutional Convention, were one to be held here in Rhode Island. Big money will enjoy yet another avenue to warp our politics and our society. Some say the risk is small, and the gains to be had are big. This is exactly what they tell you at Foxwoods, but gambling isn’t a sound economic plan or an intelligent political strategy.

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

Regunberg is running, Bell isn’t, for Fox’s House seat

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Aaron Regunberg, a recent Brown graduate and organizer of the Providence Student Union, announced his campaign for the District 4 seat in the state House of Representatives. THe seat is currently held by former speaker Gordon Fox and Sam Bell, previously a candidate for the seat, said he will step aside to support Regunberg.

“We need new voices and new leadership in Rhode Island,” Regunberg said in an email announcing his campaign. “I’m running to make sure that every one of our public schools is providing the high quality, empowering education our young people deserve. I have fought for education change that comes from the bottom up, with youth, parents, educators, and community members. My work advocating alongside students has shown me what a difference it makes to have leaders who listen to and stand up for our young people, which is what I will do every day as State Representative.”

Regunberg is also on the executive board of the Young Democrats of Rhode Island and he’s a board member of the Billy Taylor House, and East Side workforce development program. While a student at Brown, he founded Brown for Providence, which helped convince Ivy League school to pay the Capital City more in lieu of taxes.

“I’m proud to stand behind Aaron,” said Bell in Regunberg’s press release. “I know he will bring new leadership and a strong progressive voice to the State House, and I’m very excited to support his candidacy.”

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

On tax equity, RIPEC salves the souls of the House Finance Committee

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Last evening the RI House Finance Committee heard testimony on two bills that would increase the marginal tax rate on people making more than $200,000 a year. Representative Maria Cimini proposed a 2% increase, from 5.99 to 7.99% on incomes over $250,000, while Representative Larry Valencia proposed a 4.01% increase on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,00 for married couples.

Valencia asked the committee to explain the effectiveness of tax cuts for the rich (starting in 1996) given that these were supposed to bring more jobs to Rhode Island, not less, as evidenced by our high unemployment. Appeals to reason however, were not found persuasive by the committee.

At least ten people spoke in favor of the bills, some telling very moving stories about the way they struggle in a state that continues to cut services and cut assistance to our cities and towns, resulting in higher property taxes. In fact, it’s the property taxes that are hitting these Rhode Islanders the hardest, even as the myopic House Leadership continues to champion a policy of across the board tax cuts, curbs on spending and other austerity measures. The impassioned pleas of struggling Rhode Islanders fell on deaf ears, because appeals to compassion were not found to be persuasive.

Everyone knows that the bills proposed by Cimini and Valencia are going nowhere this year. Chairperson Raymond Gallison, recently appointed to his position by Speaker Mattiello, shaped the discourse by calling up all those in favor of the bills and listening politely, reserving the last word for John Simmons, executive director of a right wing think tank, the Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC). Gallison and Simmons are on a first name basis, and Simmons’ testimony was welcomed as a breath of fresh air.

Simmons simply restated the same things RIPEC says every year. Increasing taxes is wrong. The rich already face a higher tax burden than the poor. We shouldn’t be targeting the job creators. Philosophically, why should we be punishing those who are successful? The rich are rich because they are better than the poor, more deserving than the poor, and more important than the middle class. Here’s Simmons’ closing argument:

“Then there’s the philosophic issue, I guess I want to address that. It’s a little bit different. Is it because we can tax people who can make money and are successful that we should? Is that the philosophy we want for people to come to Rhode Island and grow a business here? If you make money we can take it from you? I don’t know that that’s the right message to send to people who want to come to Rhode Island. It’s the opposite. If you are successful we would like you to come to Rhode Island.”

Note that Simmons is not all that interested in those who already live in Rhode Island. He isn’t talking about improving the lives of Rhode Islanders, instead he’s talking about making Rhode Island a haven for the rich and successful. If Rhode Islanders are lucky, I suppose, we might find jobs shining the shoes and cleaning the yachts of our more deserving citizens.

This is what Gallison, representing House Leadership as Chairperson of House Finance, found persuasive: A naked appeal to everything he wants to believe is true, despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s called motivated reasoning, a process of having a conclusion and then searching for reasons to believe it. No contrary examples, no logic, no amount of suffering and no evidence contrary to the deeply held belief will be truly considered.

So what do you say to the man who eases your mind and continues to guide you down the primrose path of massive economic inequality? What do you say to the man who confirms all your biases and tells you that everything you sincerely wish were true is true and good, despite the nagging fear at the back of your mind that tells you it’s all a lie?

Gallison said, “Thank you very much John, I appreciate it.”

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

ACLU raises concern about pension settlement voting

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

With the first round of voting in the controversial pension reform settlement set to conclude today, the ACLU of Rhode Island has announced plans to submit testimony at an anticipated “fairness hearing,” if one occurs, in order to raise concerns about the settlement’s opt-out voting process.

In the past month, the RI ACLU has received dozens of complaints from union members and retirees about the settlement’s “opt-out” voting process, which counts all unreturned ballots as votes in support of the settlement. In a letter to the complainants, the ACLU acknowledged the legitimacy of those concerns, noting that:

Although opt-out voting is a common practice in class-action litigation, such a procedure occurs after a class has been approved, not before.
An opt-out process fails to give voters the opportunity to abstain or otherwise remain neutral. “The opportunity to take no position on this agreement is one that current union members and retirees should have, and that a normal voting process would allow,” the ACLU letter states.
Referring to reports of qualified individuals who did not receive ballots, and noting other reasons why some voting members might be unable to return theirs, the letter said that “the inadvertent loss of a right to vote is worrisome enough, but the problem is compounded if the loss of that vote actually counts as a vote in one – and only one – particular way.”

A fairness hearing, in which the court decides whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable, will only be held if none of the designated “classes” of voters reject the proposal during the two rounds of voting that will take place.

While planning to submit testimony at that hearing, the ACLU advised complainants it would not be taking any independent legal action. The letter concluded by emphasizing that while the ACLU did not “question the good faith of all the parties who have been involved in this intricate litigation . . . an opt-in process is the only fair way to conduct a vote like this.”

April 3, 2014April 3, 2014

SCOTUS McCutcheon ruling further erodes US democracy

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Not since Roe v. Wade has a U.S. Supreme Court decision permeated the public consciousness quite like the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) case. In 2010, the nation’s highest court opened the campaign finance floodgates when – in a 5-4 decision – they sided with lawyers for the anti- Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC) Citizens United who argued that PACs not be required to disclose their donors identities or the amounts of money they had contributed.

Bold and continuing campaign finance reform in our nations capitol began in Washington, D.C., in 1971 and continued until 2002. The 1971 Federal Election Campaign Act required the disclosure of donors’ identities and the amounts they contributed to federal election campaigns.

A little known Supreme Court decision that, at its heart, concluded that the spending of money equals free speech was handed down in 1976. A Supreme Court majority held that a key provision of the Campaign Finance Act, which limited expenditure on election campaigns was “unconstitutional”, and contrary to the First Amendment.

The leading opinion viewed spending money as a form of political “speech” which could not be restricted due to the First Amendment. The only interest was in preventing “corruption or its appearance”, and only personal contributions should be targeted because of the danger of “quid pro quo” exchanges.

The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act – better known as the McCain-Feingold Act after the bill’s primary sponsors, Republican John McCain and Democrat Russ Feingold – strengthened restrictions, but did nothing to challenge or reverse the Supreme Court’s previous rulings.

Essentially, the Citizens United case boiled down to this.

According to the U.S. Constitution, corporations are afforded the same rights as people, and therefore should be given the same protections as individuals when it comes to political donations. This decision, by correlation, asserted that the spending of money equates to the exercise of our First Amendment rights to free speech. While the Supreme Court’s decision may be true to the letter of U.S. law, it raised a widespread concern amongst Americans as to whether corporations should, in fact and practice, be afforded the same rights as people, and whether the spending of money constituted free speech.

[vsw id=”xQqzhjstb7E” source=”youtube” width=”550″ height=”400″ autoplay=”no”]

Just this week, the Supreme Court dealt another blow to campaign finance reform advocates in the McCutcheon v. FEC ruling. In essence, the decision did not affect federal campaign finance laws, save for one small factor. Prior to the decision, individuals and PACs were forced to abide by a hard-and-fast limit on aggregated donations to political candidates or PACs in support or opposition to particular legislation or candidates.

Let’s look at it this way.

Prior to the McCutcheon decision, there was a limit as to what I could donate to any and all political campaigns within an election cycle. That cap was $123,200. I could spend that total in any way I saw fit, as long as I abided by current FEC guidelines of $2,600 per federal candidate in each primary and general election or $32,400 per PAC in each cycle.

While the Supreme Court’s decision did not eliminate the $2,600 or $32,400 guidelines, it did declare the cap of $123,200 unconstitutional. This means I can donate $2,600 to any candidate in any state, and $32,400 to any PAC in any state, without restrictions, up to infinity dollars.

If I had the money to do this, I would, but therein lies the rub.

I don’t.

You don’t.

98 percent of the people in the U.S. don’t.

The McCutcheon decision has basically told big time donors that they can start buying candidates and PACs throughout the country, and in turn buy legislative influence.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has rightly ruled in both of these cases. As they stand, the only way to rescind these decisions is to amend the U.S. Constitution to say plainly that corporations are not people, and spending money is not free speech. This is where the nationwide movement to amend the U.S. Constitution comes into play.

Amending the U.S. Constitution is no small task. 38 of the 50 states must ratify an amendment. Our first step in Rhode Island is to amend our own constitution. As it stands, the Rhode Island chapter of the Move(ment) to Amend has bills before both the R.I. Senate and House. On their face, these bills do nothing, but when combined with bills in other states, we send a loud and clear message to the U.S. Supreme Court, and our legislators in Washington.

CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE.

SPENDING MONEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FREE SPEECH.

Please, for the sake of our country, and our children and grandchildren, sign the petition to amend our Constitution today.