Demand to Get the Money Out of Politics: A “One Demand” for Occupy Wall Street?

Categories: Discussion, Open Mic, Reflections

cross-posted from:
http://www.truth-out.org/demand-get-money-out-politics-one-demand-occupy-wall-street/1320088085

Thank you for your bravery Occupy Oakland.

There is one problem with many of the excellent demands and proposals I have seen floated by those in the OWS movement, from re-instating Glass-Steagall, to ending the Federal Reserve, to enacting a jobs bill. That is, they have little chance of passing in effective form as long as Congress answers to the corporate powers which flood the system with money. If the incentives are skewed, the results will be skewed. Even if the demands are agreed to in principle, politicians beholden to money will constantly be busy finding ingenious and enterprising ways to undermine the intent of the laws.

It has been argued that Occupy Wall Street should not validate existing power relationships by making demands for change within that system. This is true. Occupy Wall Street must wisely choose its initial demands to those which fundamentally change those power relationships. Once this is done many other reforms fall into place. The majority of the population is now against the wars yet the wars continue. Bank bailouts are unpopular yet they are passed. This is because the politicians are answerable not to the voters in their districts, but to money from everywhere. When money is removed all outcomes will more accurately reflect the popular will, which politicians are fully aware of yet simply do not care.

On many issues, from pollution to predatory financial practices, the problem is not so much that we do not know exactly what to do, and what will work, as finding the political will among politicians to do them.

One of the little-known and most startling facts of American politics is that, on average, 80% of congressional campaign contributions come from outside the district, and largely from outside the state. Citizens should only be allowed to give money to candidates who would represent them in Congress. Giving money to one who would not should be considered bribery. Citizens who would not be represented by a particular candidate have no business giving money which dilutes the influence of citizens in other districts on their own congressmen.

The legal definition of “bribery” is: “The offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of something of value for the purpose of influencing the action of an official in the discharge of his or her public or legal duties.”

When I give my local candidate for office $20 for no particular reason except that I believe her or him to be honest, dedicated, and generally supportive of many different issues which make up the sum total of my politics, I have no particular piece of legislation in mind. By no stretch of imagination can the same be said when the financial services industry or the telecommunications industry bundles vast amounts of money to go toward members of committees which design particular legislation they are interested in, who represent districts far away. In the first case my political contribution is a result of my belief in the general integrity of the person whom I hope will directly represent me in Congress, who I may even disagree with on many things, but support him or her for no other reason than I believe her to be an honest person. In the second case, a corporation’s, industry’s or special interests’ monetary contributions to candidates have been shown over and over to generate tangible monetary returns: bailouts, further contracting for wars. This meets the legal definition of bribery.

The US Supreme Court not only erred, but twisted the meaning of language in Buckely v. Valeo to the point where it should have been impeachable as “bad behavior,” the standard for Supreme Court impeachment which is as open as “high crimes and misdemeanors” on the part of the president. Just as with the impeachment of a president, the impeachment of Supreme Court Justices was deliberately meant to be a political remedy not requiring the commission of a crime. Although spending money may indeed be an act of self-expression, my right to express myself when attempting to give an officer the many reasons why he should not give me a speeding ticket does not extend to me handing over a 100 dollar bill. It is inconceivable that the Founders, in protecting free speech, intended speech to be so interpreted.

Congress may pass laws which will force the Supreme Court to revisit Buckely v. Valeo, which equates giving unlimited amounts of money to any and all political candidates to “free speech.”

I propose getting the money out of politics by setting a limit on campaign contributions to $2,000, per cycle, to come only from private individuals who are living within the district. No corporate contributions from within or outside the district, no contributions from special interests of any kind, be they union, NRA, or corporate PACs. Only people who can actually vote for a particular candidate can give money to him.

This would solve a number of problems:

1. Committee member-shopping. Special interests and corporate PACs seek out congresspeople on key committees who can influence the legislation they are interested in. Now committee members will have to look at legislation from the standpoint of the common good, and of their district’s interests. No longer will some congressmembers be princes of financial services, defense contracting, or telecommunications, as many are now, who are able in turn to support colleagues through their own PACs who are cooperative.

2. Candidates would be forced to go back to door-to-door campaigning, public meetings, and rallies, and re-establishing their connection to the people of the district.

3. Many current incumbents will decide they cannot survive by these rules and resign, thus eliminating the need for term limits for deeply-entrenched incumbents. Others will see the changes as an exciting challenge and seek to re-establish their connection to the voters, and very possibly be re-elected. The rules will weed out politicians whose hearts are not in the right place, whether they are incumbent or challenger.

As well, television and radio stations will be required to give ballot-qualified campaigns a rate equal to 50 percent of the lowest commercial rate for equivalent time slots, as a condition of renewing their broadcast license. The airwaves belong to the public and it is proper for the public to impose conditions on the leasing of frequencies for commercial purposes. This would automatically reduce the cost of most congressional campaigns by nearly half.

Of course, nothing can or should prevent any citizen from donating his or her own volunteer time to any candidate he or she likes, unpaid. If my brother is running for Congress on the opposite coast, I should be free to take time off to help him. This is many steps removed from the corrupting influence of money.

These same campaign finance rules can apply just as well to the Senate. In the case of each senate seat the “district” would consist of the entire state.

Without question these rules will meet fierce resistance as Wall Street sees its ability to bribe congressmen to grant bailouts melt away, as will defense contractors’ ability to perpetuate wars of aggression. It will meet fierce resistance from the host of special interests which subvert representative democracy. But the power taken away from organized and monied interests will be power returned to the people. Union leaderships will balk, but the rules will not prevent rank-and-file members from contributing to their own candidates who stand for union interests. Opposition will be fierce, but nothing less than taking the money out of politics will make the rest of the Occupy Wall Street demands possible.

Taking a typical, expensive US House campaign which now costs around $1 million, just 500 citizens in a typical 700,000 person district who contribute the maximum $2,000 would make up that $1 million, or 10,000 people contributing $100, or 100,000 people contributing $10 each. Thus the cost of what is considered a “modern campaign” is easily achievable with relatively small, local contributions, should that candidate generate a modicum of sincere enthusiasm. The difference is, it will be the constituents that the congressperson must answer to at election time, not outside money which can easily bury the voice of any meritorious challenger.

I hereby submit this proposal for debate and consideration of the General Assemblies and pertinent working groups of the Sovereign People of Occupy Wall Street.

cross-posted from:
http://www.truth-out.org/demand-get-money-out-politics-one-demand-occupy-wall-street/1320088085

SOURCES:

“Remote Control: U.S. House members raise 79% of campaign funds from outside their districts.” (MAPlight.org, using data from the Center for Responsive Politics)
http://www.maplight.info/remotecontrol08/RemoteControl08Report.pdf

“House Campaigns Get Most $ Outside Districts” (Hartford Courant)
http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/10/house-campaigns-get-most-outsi.html

“Why the Wars Roll on: Ban Campaign Money From Outside the District” (TruthOut.org)
http://archive.truthout.org/090409A

MAPLight.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAPLight.org

“Challenging Buckley v. Valeo: A Legal Strategy” (Akron Law Review)
https://www.uakron.edu/law/lawreview/v33/docs/wright331.pdf

Related posts:

“BoA Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers, Super Committee Looks Away. Seize BoA Now.”

Who is the “99%” Anyway? What Does OWS Mean by This?

“Occupy Wall Street Talking Points: Who You Calling Slacker?”

Occupy Wall Street Media Talking Points

Why the Wars Roll on: Ban Campaign Money From Outside the District

5842

11 Responses to “Demand to Get the Money Out of Politics: A “One Demand” for Occupy Wall Street?”

  1. David Heatherly

    Well said MVSN. My fear is that the Occupy movement is becoming radicalized to the extent that we will not be able to use this moment to change our system. Too many people have adolescent fantasies about overthrowing all of capitalism and the Republic itself. In order to constructively help the 99%, which is to say ourselves, we need to recognize that we are all members of the Republic and that the Constitution has remedies built into it which we can seize and use for our purposes. “Vote Green Party” isn’t enough — we need a Constitutional Amendment to clean up the Republican and Democratic Parties and get the money out of our politics. Then we will start to see politicians reflect the wishes of the people again, and a real debate can begin about what direction this country is headed in.

  2. a_small_voice

    I think that 90% was chosen because it’s pretty close to 100% – which is what OWS uses in its GA. In OWS, blocks are allowed. That means that even if one person disagrees, the vote will not go on until the minority opinion is heard and a dialectic conversation can be had in order to reconcile the two ideas. Most of the movements around the country base their processes on what OWS started.

    The notion of a “general assembly” supports the anarchists’ aim in coalescing as a cooperative, autonomous body.

    A group of like minded individuals get together and make decisions based on consensus. It’s not about replicating what we do in the US government with a 2/3 vote or a simple majority. From what I have read and what I understand, consensus shows agreement to work together without the imposition of an authority telling people that there are rules and regulations in governing the society.

    I think that a lot of people are unaware that these movements are based on anarchist ideals and notions.

  3. MoveOnSucks

    Thank you. In my own personal opinion that is way too high. What do unions require to adopt new by-laws?

    I couldn’t get a vote from my own family at 90%.

  4. a_small_voice

    90% is the favorability threshold. I think you can find it on the General Assembly page.

  5. MoveOnSucks

    At the risk of asking a stupid question, what is the threshold for adopting a resolution? Seems to be like 2/3 majority should be enough for most things. Unanimity is not realistic and even the unions we are marching with, a good thing, don’t by that in their own rules. 2/3 means GA would have come close to adopting a paper ballot resolution. If Congress passed that it would show the country that we have power and we know how to use it well. We could also do it with take the money out of politics.

    Right now we are getting slammed because people say they don’t know what we want or why we are here. That’s just a fact. We need the support of middle-of-the-road people who don’t want to hear about changing the consciousness of human beings overnight. That is a good goal, but right now we need the folks watching on the sidelines to keep the cops at bay. We need them to call mayors and say “Hold on there, sonny, I want to hear what these people have to say.” The way we do that is to start delivering.

  6. MoveOnSucks

    Exactly dead-on. And these corrupt parties did not spring into being out of thin air. They were bought by the one percent to keep making them richer and everyone else poorer. The banks didn’t bail out themselves, and mayors don’t give orders to their police chiefs without the pressure of people who finance them at election time. Until you take the money out, the republicrats will bury any third party challengers. Money is their oxygen supply, their blood flow. To kill the beast you have to go for the jugular.

  7. MVSN

    Nothing is going to change until the republicrat lock on power is broken.
    When people are made to understand that in the end there is no real difference in the two parties and they must be thrown out of power then things can be changed.

  8. David Heatherly

    That’s a great idea, thanks “moveonsucks”. You’ve said it so much better than I could right now, because I’m still a bit caught up in particular problems we’re trying to resolve here. I agree, we need to have focus on the money. If we can get the money out of elections, I mean I kind of thought that was what Occupy Wall Street was supposed to be about. Take the money out of war, take the profit out of it, and you end most the war. Take profit out of the prisons, and you start to close prisons and re-open schools. I thought that was what we wanted. The only thing Occupy Oakland could agree on the other night was to march with the unions. With no real stated purpose. So we’re being used by anarchists (Derrick Jensen spoke in Oakland today; he did not allow for the Q&A period that members of the crowd requested) and we’re being used by corrupt unions. Beautiful. We need to get our focus back if we really want to accomplish something real, something that will improve people’s lives.

  9. MoveOnSucks

    Very interesting. I agree that paper balloting/open source voting software is right up their with money in important reforms. As for getting involved in electoral politics, I hear people argue that you can’t work within a system which is rotten to the core but in this case the system is money. Take it out and it would be an entirely different system. And it one thing you hear agreement on coming from both the left and the right of the spectrum.

    OWS now has the power to strike at the heart of the beast: the corrupting influence of money. It would be a shame if it squandered the opportunity to make one radical change which itself would change almost everything else, end the wars, end special treatment for corporations etc. Politicians keep doing what is clearly against the will of most of the people because they don’t care. They can always raise money to bury challengers. Take that away and much of the rest falls into place.

    BTW 60% is pretty good for the paper ballot proposal, Perhaps those who agree with the clean elections proposal can split off into a working group and do their own lobbying for the law, without purporting to represent the entire GA.

  10. David Heatherly

    Awesome proposal; I hope that it catches on in the many General Assemblies in this vast land. Unfortunately I think you have very little chance of success here in Oakland. Last night I was present when our GA failed to pass a resolution that showed solidarity with activists movements attempting to require backup paper ballots and open sourced software. Right now there are many districts in the U.S. where the election system is in great danger, and people in general are very apathetic about this threat. There are no paper ballots to do an actual recount at a later date; all the information on votes is stored on corporate software controlled by corporations over which there is very little oversight (and that oversight comes from the politicians they are in control of electing). Regardless of the fact that this measure would directly and specifically address the theft of elections and the theft of our Republic by corporations, it was unable to get more than about 60% of the support of Occupy Oakland. Why did those other 30 or 40% vote against it? I can’t speak to their exact individual reasons, and to do so would be itself somewhat worse than presumptuous. But the objections brought up in the “Pros and Cons” mostly related to seeing this proposal as an endorsement of electoral politics. How depressing, huh? But I hope that you will be able to get enough people in the OWS movement to get their heads out of their asses and realize that there are remedies built into our Republic which we could use to fix a lot of our problems, if we have the will and the courage.