The police...
Exactly. Go to where you will find a high concentration of 1%ers who also happen to be the people who have the power to change laws.
Like I said, I must have missed the episode wherein OWS was screaming at anyone other than the corporations and 1%ers themselves.
From the beginning, I've stated that OWS' animosity and efforts are aimed at the wrong half of the problem, and they've done absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise.
Wake me up when they start calling for every national politician to either drastically change our laws to eliminate our government's addiction to corporate money, or to step down -- up to, and including, Obama.
Step one: Get on a f'n bus and head to DC...
wow. what a great picture.
It's the people Wall St bought and paid for siccing the police on them.
Delegation of authority via corruption.
Occupy Wall Street’s popularity with the public may be sinking, but the group’s still making inroads in Washington. On Friday, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-Fla.) introduced the first piece of federal legislation directly inspired by the movement. Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) would amend the Constitution to outlaw the use of all corporate money in elections, not only undoing the biggest changes under Citizens United but also going after the legal concept of “corporate personhood” altogether. I talked to Deutch about the OCCUPIED amendment on Friday afternoon (interview lightly edited for length and clarity).
This might be what solidifies the movement around a single issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-constitution/2011/11/18/gIQA63CPZN_blog.html
I would make a large bet that the language carefully carves out 'corporate money' in a way that excludes unions or other Democrat-directed contributions.
I would make a large bet that the language carefully carves out 'corporate money' in a way that excludes unions or other Democrat-directed contributions.
And will be DOA due to those exclusions
Also news for Occupy Wall Street is lacking again today. Did the movement die after Thursday's protests. Maybe their Mommies told them to quit terrorizing children and preventing workers from getting to.from their jobs.
Oh, please. Rihgties always act as if Unions' money is some major force relative to corporate derived money when it's picayune by comparison.
The proposal is DOA, anyway, given big money Repubs majority in the HOR and their blocking position in the Senate. Claims to the contrary are obfuscation and denial of the worst sort. Righties can piss down their own leg & convince themselves that it's raining. It's a gift.
Hell, Senate Repubs blocked measures that merely demanded greater transparency w/o altering the ability to contribute in the slightest.
Oh, please. Rihgties always act as if Unions' money is some major force relative to corporate derived money when it's picayune by comparison.
Looks like Wall Street benefactors are having a temper tantrum.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street
As long as the amendment is designed in such a way that it disallows ANY exceptions, I would LOVE to see it passed! In fact, the creation of such an amendment is one of the the items I described in my 3-step solution earlier in this thread!This might be what solidifies the movement around a single issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-constitution/2011/11/18/gIQA63CPZN_blog.html
As long as the amendment is designed in such a way that it disallows ANY exceptions, I would LOVE to see it passed!
I need to find a copy...
Sorry, SEUI is consistently one of the largest contributors on either side, every year.
http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2012&disp=D&type=O
In fact, several unions on that list.
Look at 2010. SEUI spent about as much as the top 3 "C" leaning groups combined. Plenty of unions on the top of that list.
2008 is almost purely unions, with AFSCME spending more than every other donor on the list COMBINED.
So you can keep drooling and claiming that "unions don't matter!", the rest of us in reality world know differently.
So again, are we going to ban all money in elections? Or just money that might go to conservatives?
Looks like Wall Street benefactors are having a temper tantrum.
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street
The current text is certainly a step in the right direction, and it does look as though its application is NOT limited to corporations, specifically. However, I would prefer to see them spell out its application to PACs, Unions, etc.
Your contention is bunk, your selective use of facts misleading. As a % of total political spending, Unions are small players. Readers have but to click on the "Individuals" & "Individuals + corporations" links at the top of your own link to see that.
This is an important memo leak, as it makes clear a number of things.
One is that in the ongoing battle between the banks to control government against the interests of the people - which this lobbying group represents - one issue is how it's filled with 'former staff for John Boehner', the old 'people serving the lobbyists in office and then moving to nice lobbyist work after' issue; how they understand the occupy movement is a threat to shift politicians from so strongly backing the banks; and how they admit that Republicans are the primary party 'backing the banks'.
It also makes clear their approach - spending money to 'develop negative stories' about the movement for use in the media and to attack any politicians who support it.
Why don't you go ahead and quote the figures you are looking at, and lay it out here. Organizations and Organizations+Employees are the only relevant figures, so please, lay it out for us.
OK.. let's stop beating around the partisan bush and I'll ask you a simple yes/no question:I really don't have to do so. Anybody not steeped in the propaganda of the Right can see it almost at a glance, *from your own link*.
The current text is certainly a step in the right direction, and it does look as though its application is NOT limited to corporations, specifically. However, I would prefer to see them spell out its application to PACs, Unions, etc.
That said, I would LOVE to see something like this added to our Constitution... pipedream?
I really don't have to do so. Anybody not steeped in the propaganda of the Right can see it almost at a glance, *from your own link*.
I didn't skip it; and, like I said, it's certainly a step in the right direction. However, I just feel that the language is too vague, so we'd likely end up with the USSC being forced to interpret its application to Unions and other SIGs.I guess you skipped the part marked "Section 1". I can't blame you though, three pages is alot to take in at once.
I guess you skipped the part marked "Section 1". I can't blame you though, three pages is alot to take in at once.