Let's WORK to Get Money Out of OUR Government!

[humble]

Let's work to get CORPORATE money out of our GOVERNMENT!

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

It's Time to GET MONEY OUT of politics

Bailouts. War. Unemployment. Our government is bought, and we’re angry. Now, we’re turning our anger into positive action. By signing this petition, you are joining our campaign to get money out of politics. Our politicians won’t do this. But we will. We will become an unrelenting, organized wave advocating a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.

As the petition grows, the wave grows. Email, Facebook, Tweet -- GET MONEY OUT. We are using The Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC, and our ability to influence other media outlets as a platform to force this issue to the center of the 2012 elections. Join us.

From our former Washington Lobbyist, Jimmy Williams, here is a DRAFT of our Constitutional Amendment for public debate this fall:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

 

[humble]

This is an email I received from Dylan Ratigan:

Three years ago, I left my 15-year career as a financial professional because I was disgusted and disturbed by the rampant evidence of corruption in the relationship between our banking system and our government.

At the time, the Tea Party was emerging and I was confident that between their exploding wave of anger and our newly minted President’s soaring aspirations for all of us - we would align to confront and resolve the blatantly corrupt relationship between banking and our government and more broadly BUSINESS and STATE.

I was sure that the obviously aligned interests of Obama’s constituents combined with the Tea Party’s libertarian principles about money and government, rigorous bank reforms in a simple, fair and transparent way would follow. And more importantly, I believed Obama’s energy and the Tea Party's would align to separate BUSINESS and STATE in order to bar banks, or any other special interest, from corrupting policy in a way that breaches fundamental fairness in our nation and prevents adaptation in a time of rapid change.

Their combined wave of energy was magnificent: Obama, scintillating and inspiring, harnessing a digital wave AND the Tea Party, raw and rebellious, screaming in unison: “We’re not going to take this any more!”

Little to none of this happened and I was wrong. And I feel I must do something about it.

As it turns out, I'm not alone. In just five days, 80,000 of us have signed a petition to get money out of politics. To make this happen, we will need to grow this movement, and that starts with your voice.

When we hit 100,000 signers, we are going to do a special show on getting money out of politics from Washington DC, deliver our 100k signatures to Congress, and issue what we call a “High Surf Alert." Attached to the high surf alert will be a link to a 3-paragraph letter from all of us explaining that we have signed this petition with the intent to send it to others.

This way we can harness the wave to grow our effort, lest we waste it on a bought and paralyzed government. When we are bigger we can then direct our attention at them.

I want to explain to my viewers why I feel so strongly about this and I want to hear your thoughts too!
http://www.getmoneyout.com/comments

You can tell me your story in one of two ways. One, click here and leave a comment on why you want to get money out or two, film yourself talking about GetMoneyOut.com, put it on YouTube and send it to dylan@dylanratigan.com. I will use these video clips and stories on my show. I want people to see that it's not just me, that there are hundreds of thousands of us, millions of us, with one message: Get. Money. Out.

After 3 years of doing my best to marshal resources with dozens of impassioned collaborators to highlight obvious corruptions and solve problems together on TV, in person and on the Internet -- I found it doesn’t matter what I or anyone else thinks or does about a given policy idea -- because the entire media, and the two-party political apparatus that sets the debate is being funded by a relatively narrow group of major interests and any solution that threatens those funders is simply never discussed.

While our healthcare, educational, banking, military, energy, trade and tax policies all have great room for improvement, I believe that the events of the past few years make it clear that until we get money out of our political system, we cannot begin on any of it.

I recently learned that 94% of the time the candidate that raises the most money wins. Policy, race, gender, tie color, voice, age... all can be ignored in a candidate because – 94% of the time the candidate that raises the most money wins.

So this past weekend when I saw the Occupy Wall Street/Occupy America protests spontaneously erupting in 60 cities, as the New York protesters heading into their 3rd week - I decided to walk over Friday evening to Zuccoti Park to see what they were doing.

I live 5 blocks away and worked 2 blocks from the square they are in for years, this Friday was one of my first trips back to that street corner in years and I was both fearful and excited to see what was going on. I have also never been to a protest like this.

On the internet it said their message is this:

“Occupy Wall Street is leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are the 99% will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.”

They said they we non-violent, had a policy of no drugs or alcohol in the Park, and didn’t allow bullhorns or amplifiers of any kind – they communicate by repeating out loud a given speakers words in short sentences. The short sentence requirement for speakers (not easy for me!!) has the duel benefit of keeping speeches short -- and avoids that being “talked at” feeling that can result from electrical speech amplification.

When I arrived Friday there was a boisterous crowd in good spirits from all walks of life -- the hippies, young people and Tea Partiers I expected -- the old ladies and local lawyers I was encouraged to see as evidence for this group's broader appeal.

I was able to talk to different groups over a few hours and it was clear that we were in agreement. Our government is bought, and we need to do something about it. In fact, you don’t have to go to Zuccoti Park or any other protest to know that!

Unrelated to any of these protests, we have started this petition to get money out. We have done so because we all agree, that until we do so, we will be prevented from engaging in the debate we all desperately need on virtually every issue to end this corruption.

I wanted them to know that I agree with them and that I support their principle, to learn from them and share with them my own efforts.

I asked on Friday if I could return the next day, Saturday, to address their General Assembly in their unusual speak and repeat fashion in Zuccoti Park. They told me if I came back the next day and signed up at 6:30 I could secure 5 minutes, I did so and a few hours later was granted time to speak.

Here is what I told them:
“My name is Dylan. I live five blocks from here. I think you people are crazy. I love the way you communicate. The world has noticed your voice. You have been here for three weeks, and you should be very proud of what you have accomplished. For fifteen years I worked as a financial services professional. Have you guys said that yet? I can't believe I'm here talking to you. I'm here because I agree with you. I made the decision three years ago to leave the financial services industry. I did that because it was clear that the financial services industry was purchasing both political parties. I believe that the fundamental problem with our collective desire to demand the debate America deserves is that both of our political parties are funded by well-heeled individuals, because they are bought. So I have been asking myself what the hell I'm going to do about this. I have decided that I am going to devote all of my resources, whatever those resources may be, with the knowledge that the decision to devote resources is much more important than what your resources are. I believe that you and every other group of people who know for a fact that the government is bought and are making the decisions to make 2012 the year our voice will be heard. I ask myself -- what do I do with my voice? I look at myself like an angry villager. I am irate. I know that if I cannot harness my personal rage for positive change I will harm myself and not help anybody else. My question to myself has been how do I harness fire in myself? You can either burn yourself in the town square or you can deliver a single a message to your government. My message is that the government is bought. If we do not separate business and state, and harness this energy to make that the central mission of this years' election we cannot begin to do the work we have to do. Thank you for giving me some of your time and congratulations on your success.”
I agree with their principle, I don’t know what will become of their movement, but I know I want to help them because I agree with them. I also agree with Ron Paul, Lawrence Lessig’s #rootstrikers and millions of other disgusted and disenfranchised American’s who know that their government is bought and are mad as hell about it.

In fact I think the singular message of ending our corrupt government function and the money that changes hands to facilitate it is the one goal almost everyone shares. Not surprisingly our efforts at aligning in a world of divisive issues makes us an underdog. Last week Politico described our effort like this:

“MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan is bent on banning money from political campaigns through a constitutional amendment, which is about as likely as the Cubs winning the World Series the night lightning twice strikes a massive earthbound asteroid.”

But I believe if we approach the disparate communities with humility and shared principle, and a narrow focus, from Occupy Wall Street to factions of the Tea Party and beyond -- to offer support, debate and learning, we have in 2012 our best chance yet to end the blatantly corrupt relationship between BUSINESS and STATE.

The battle for me now is how best to harness all the fire that I feel for actionable positive change.

Since I devoted myself to this issue of about how blatantly corrupt our government has become -- I feel I have tried three methods to resolve it:

1. Scream! -- It felt good to express myself, but I found it to be an intense energy that alienated people with no positive harness to direct it.
2. Fight! -- This also felt good, but rarely led to any resolution or positive action.
Or
3. Help! -- Convert that rage into action everyday FOR something that is based on broad principles with a narrow goal. (You can start by adding your voice!)

I believe our decision to form this petition and use our voice to demand a real debate about an Amendment to get Money Out of politics in 2012 gives all of us something to be FOR -- and a tool that can do it. We may agree on nothing else, but can we all agree to do this.

Truth to Power,

Dylan Ratigan
http://www.getmoneyout.com/

 

[humble]

 

[humble]

Using the link below, I sent this email to my 3 congressional members (2 Senators; 1 Rep)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=NY

Dear Congress member,

I am writing to urge you to support the reinstatement of the Glass–Steagall Act. This act created separation between investment banking which issued securities, and commercial banks which accepted deposits. Additionally, this act enforced the prohibition of investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, effectively removed the safe guards that were in place previously. There are economists that believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms.

The deregulation of the financial services industry will bring order back to the global financial markets and will create many jobs for individuals that are interested in working in this industry, because there will be a range of specialized banks and services for people to choose from.

Please do something about the mess that has been created by "too big to fail."

Sincerely,

humble

 

[SPECTRE1]

When employees step up, organize and buy shares of their company they work at - instead of being absentee/disorganized investors with their mutual fund, 401k, ETF, or stock purchase, then can you can tell your employer not to pay off Congress members with campaign contributions or pay for Swiftboat ads...

 

[Upgrade Dave]

I like both answers.

Gotdamn, humble, you are a machine. Keep up the good work.

 

[humble]

 

[humble]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=44777659&width=420&height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=44777334&width=420&height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=44777273&width=420&height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=44762509&width=420&height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

Email from GetMoneyOut.com

We have reached our first threshold!

In the past 7 days, one hundred thousand of us have decided to GET MONEY OUT of politics once and for all!

The force is breathtaking. We know the problem -- we are now building the tools to fix it.

Only if we harness this massive, aligned wave -- across all political spectrums -- do we stand a chance at forcing the debate and passage of a Constitutional amendment to ban all private money.

Which means the decision to tell another person we are doing this -- is our greatest power today.

If we simply tell one other person -- we seize the unprecedented benefit of asymmetrical growth. If we ALL do this -- the numbers go like this: 100k…200k….400k….800k…1.6m…3.2m…6.4m…12.8m….25.6m…51.2m…102.4m!

I consider you -- the first 100,000 -- to be founders. We know our country stands at great risk, but we also have massive untapped potential. Let’s seize it.

Onward and Upward!

Dylan


Dylan Ratigan
http://www.getmoneyout.com/

 

[humble]

This is an email I receieved from my House Representative in congress:

Thank you for contacting me about the Return to Prudent Banking Act. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, H.R. 1489, the Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011, was introduced by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio on April 12, 2011. This bill would enact a number of provisions to revive the separation between commercial, investment, insurance and securities. Specifically, this bill would reinstate the provisions of the Federal Banking Act (known as Glass-Steagall) which in 1933 prohibited banks from engaging in both commercial banking and investment banking. H.R. 1489 was referred to the House Financial Services Committee, where it awaits further consideration.

You may be pleased to learn about a provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill which I supported and was enacted into law last summer. Specifically, the Volcker Rule was included in that legislation to limit the ability of commercial banks to engage in proprietary trading. Some have referred to the Volcker rule as a "new Glass-Steagall Act for the 21st century." The Wall Street Reform Act gives Federal Reserve the authority to implement a rule on this new requirement. They are currently working through that process.

Should I get the opportunity to vote on additional legislation on this issue like the Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011, please be assured I will keep your views firmly in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to do so again on any matter of concern. You can also visit my website (http://house.gov/israel) to learn more about the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-mail updates.


Sincerely,

STEVE ISRAEL
Member of Congress

Please get involved in the political process!!!

 

[nittie]

This is a moot point because those protest on Wall Street will turn into a full fledged nationwide armed revolt in a few weeks if something isn't done soon. Getting money out of govt is not the goal, thats a diversion tactic, the people in power are throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks. This is going to be like whats happening in the Middle East, powerful people are about to be brought down, the status quo could crumble, the question is who will the people go after first.

 

[humble]

This is a moot point because those protest on Wall Street will turn into a full fledged nationwide armed revolt in a few weeks if something isn't done soon. Getting money out of govt is not the goal, thats a diversion tactic, the people in power are throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks. This is going to be like whats happening in the Middle East, powerful people are about to be brought down, the status quo could crumble, the question is who will the people go after first.

I'm with you brother, and I'm hoping something is done soon, so that there isn't a full fledged revolt. The least we can do is to get money out of politics, but I'm hoping more is accomplished along the way towards POWER for the PEOPLE!

 

[QueEx]

Let's work to get CORPORATE money out of our GOVERNMENT!

Proposed Constitutional Amendment:

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."​

​

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Humble,

Pardon my lateness but I've had a second or two to take a look at the proposed amendment and, it goes without saying, its radical -- vis a vis -- the wide-open system we have now since the January 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and its antecedents.

Question: If as the proposed amendment states on its face, no person, whether human or otherwise, may donate to a "federal campaign", how would campaigns for federal offices (House of Representatives, Senate and the Presidency) be financed ? ? ?

Just asking; and trying to get a "practical understanding" of whats being proposed.

`

 

[humble]

Humble,

Pardon my lateness but I've had a second or two to take a look at the proposed amendment and, it goes without saying, its radical -- vis a vis -- the wide-open system we have now since the January 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee case, McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and its antecedents.

Question: If as the proposed amendment states on its face, no person, whether human or otherwise, may donate to a "federal campaign", how would campaigns for federal offices (House of Representatives, Senate and the Presidency) be financed ? ? ?

Just asking; and trying to get a "practical understanding" of whats being proposed.

`

Hey what's up brother QueEx,

I honestly don't know the answer to your question. The reason why I support this initiative and am spreading this message is because I believe that corporate contributions has led to the destruction of our "democracy." Admittedly, the goal set forth in this proposed constitutional amendment is lofty, but it has the correct framework of getting money out of politics or government. Thus, this framework is a working document that may or may not be revised to reflect the conundrum that you point out in your question. My hope is that this proposed amendment at most prevents corporations from contributing monies towards political candidates' campaigns, which has shown to have an undue influence in policy making. Thanks for your question bro!

 

[QueEx]

Hey what's up brother QueEx,

I honestly don't know the answer to your question. The reason why I support this initiative and am spreading this message is because I believe that corporate contributions has led to the destruction of our "democracy." Admittedly, the goal set forth in this proposed constitutional amendment is lofty, but it has the correct framework of getting money out of politics or government. Thus, this framework is a working document that may or may not be revised to reflect the conundrum that you point out in your question. My hope is that this proposed amendment at most prevents corporations from contributing monies towards political candidates' campaigns, which has shown to have an undue influence in policy making. Thanks for your question bro!

Thanks for responding bro.

I agree with you that corporate contributions are destructive and put everyone else at a distinct disadvantage. I believe that the Supreme Court erred in the Citizens United case and that McCain-Feingold too was far from ideal.

People movements carrying with them the probability of change are few. I don't know whether this OWS has even the possibility of change, especially campaign finance reform, but I find this proposed amendment troubling. Of course, there may be solutions to my concerns staring me in the face but, unless I'm just oblivious to the obvious, I'm not keen on pushing facially defective plans. You have to be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

I've visited the GTMO website and I intend to add my 2 cents, for whatever its worth.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

[humble]

Thanks for responding bro.

I agree with you that corporate contributions are destructive and put everyone else at a distinct disadvantage. I believe that the Supreme Court erred in the Citizens United case and that McCain-Feingold too was far from ideal.

People movements carrying with them the probability of change are few. I don't know whether this OWS has even the possibility of change, especially campaign finance reform, but I find this proposed amendment troubling. Of course, there may be solutions to my concerns staring me in the face but, unless I'm just oblivious to the obvious, I'm not keen on pushing facially defective plans. You have to be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

I've visited the GTMO website and I intend to add my 2 cents, for whatever its worth.

Thanks for your efforts.

No doubt brother. Thanks for voicing your concerns on the GMO website. We need to continue to speak out and be apart of government, because that is what a DEMOCRACY is all about!!!

 

[QueEx]

"Karl Rove’s team and the Koch brothers’ operatives quietly coordinated millions of dollars in political spending in 2010 . . . [and] planning to dwarf its 2010 effort. The billionaire industrialist brothers David and Charles Koch plan to steer more than $200 million – potentially much more – to conservative groups ahead of Election Day, POLITICO has learned. That puts their libertarian-leaning network in the same league as the most active of the groups in the more establishment-oriented network conceived last year by veteran GOP operatives Rove and Ed Gillespie, which plans to raise $240 million."






​

 

[humble]

[FLASH]<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc8a252d" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=44864908&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc8a252d" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=44864908&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>[/FLASH]

 

[QueEx]

Congressman Kurt Schrader's proposed constitutional amendment (as discussed in the video in the post just before this one) that would give individual states and Congress the authority to limit the influence of special interests in elections:

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to a federal office in the United States and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for federal office in the United States.

Whenever Congress should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the United States.

Whenever Congress should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the United States, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the United States.

Section 2. Each of the several States shall have power to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate the contribution of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the State and to prohibit, limit, and otherwise regulate expenditure of funds or donation of in-kind equivalents used to support or purchase media advertisements intended to influence the outcome of an election for public office or plebiscite in the State.

Whenever a State should exercise such power, it must apply equally and uniformly to all individual persons recognized as citizens of the State.

Whenever a State should exercise such power on associations of citizens of the State, it must apply equally and uniformly to all associations of citizens of the State.

Section 3. No person who is not a citizen of the United States, association of persons not citizens of the United States, foreign governments, or persons acting as agents thereof may contribute funds or donate in-kind equivalents to candidates standing for election to public office in the United States or otherwise expend funds or donate in-kind equivalents in a manner intended to influence the outcome an election for public office or plebiscite in the United States.

The Congress shall have exclusive power to enforce this section by appropriate legislation.

Section 4. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.​

http://www.democrats.com/rep-kurt-s...titutional-amendment-to-allow-clean-elections
​

What Schrader says about his constitutional amendment which he says comes in response to the controversial Supreme Court ruling Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission earlier this year:

“In America access to money should not equal free speech,” said Schrader. “No special interest with access to unlimited financial resources should have the ability to use those resources to determine the outcome of an election.”

“While I am a cosponsor of the DISCLOSE act, which addresses the Citizens United decision, I am concerned that it does not go far enough,” said Schrader. “My amendment will provide a solution to the long-term impacts of the Supreme Court’s decision by clarifying Congress’ and the States’ authority to protect free speech without the corrupting influence of big money in politics.”

​

http://schrader.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=24&itemid=275
​

 

[humble]

QueEx,

What do you think about Schrader's proposed amendment? It gives power to congress to decide the limits of campaign contributions. Do they have the integrity to police themselves?

I agree with you that totally getting money out of politics may be impractical, but I believe that eliminating corporations from donating to campaigns is definitely possible.

 

[QueEx]

H, I will respond later in the day. I've got a youth football game to get to and my son is getting anxious at my delay!

 

[humble]

Thanks to more than 200,000 people and the digital age, we all have the tools to separate Business and State in America -- through the drafting, debate and passage of an amendment.

Our goal is be a massive, focused, unrelenting digital wave for that singular principle. And we are issuing our second “high surf alert” to practice making huge waves next year by telling others what we are doing right now: http://www.getmoneyout.com/high_surf_alert?utm_campaign=balls_of_fire&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getmoneyout

Like a bright sun on a vampire, we are now 200,000 balls of fire who agree on ONE THING. We must end private interest's ability to prevent real debate by purchasing our government in a fundraising auction.

So let's start today as partners by agreeing to expose the auction itself. Every time one of us receives a political fundraising solicitation, we can post it here for all to see: http://www.getmoneyout.com/constitutional_moments_the_peoples_voice?utm_campaign=balls_of_fire&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getmoneyout This way we can start to shine a bright light on the toxic brew of money and politics corroding the principles of our nation: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/platinum-citizenship_b_1015571.html

Twenty one days ago, this partnership didn’t exist. Today it’s an aligned surge of energy that we can use to pursue the short-term mission of exposing this auction. We can convert our frustration and energy into the valuable foundation of what we will need to achieve our ultimate goal.

100,000 plus 100,000 = 200,000

200,000 plus 200,000 = 400,000.

Here's to our first digital double and a speedy trip to our next! See you at 400,000!

Dylan Ratigan
http://www.getmoneyout.com/

 

[QueEx]

QueEx,

What do you think about Schrader's proposed amendment? It gives power to congress to decide the limits of campaign contributions. Do they have the integrity to police themselves?

I agree with you that totally getting money out of politics may be impractical, but I believe that eliminating corporations from donating to campaigns is definitely possible.

H,

Your point is well taken. In the present climate, to allow congress to decide upon campaign contributions is much like having the fox guard the hen house. Shamefully, it appears we've come to this ugly impasse where it appears "we the people" cannot rely upon "those people" (in congress) to step forward and do the right and reasonable thing.

I believe Schrader's approach is aimed at remedying the situation created by the SCOTUS. In the past Congress has stepped in to pass legislation in the area of Civil Rights to alter the scope SCOTUS interpretations that seemed to have run afoul of common sense or the intent of Congress.

If, as I believe it does, the Citizens United case goes waaaay too far in allowing near unlimited contributions to elections; and if, as I believe it does, the Get the Money Out of Government's opposite approach which proposes an absolute constitutional ban on contributions to federal elections likewise goes waaaay too far, then we are left/stuck, I believe, with the legislative branch proposing an enactment which provides a reasonable framework for such donations. In that regard, I believe it would then have to be up to the people (I know, this is weak) to send the message to congress that they want reasonable campaign contribution/funding reform.


SIDE POINT: We have just witnessed how a polarized congress has been near ineffectual in resolving important economic issues facing this country; and we see how the same polarized congress can hardly be trusted to reasonably propose effective campaign contribution/funding reform. AND, the primary force driving the "Polarization" is: Open the envelope please . . .


.

.

.

Big Corporate Contributions.

 

[QueEx]

As rage at Wall Street rises, its
moneymen shower cash on candidates
​

McClatchy Newspapers
By David Goldstein
October 17, 2011



WASHINGTON — Even as protests over its political influence grow louder, Wall Street is one of the leading sources of money so far in the 2012 race for the White House.

Not surprisingly, the biggest beneficiary has been Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, according to a new analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group.

A former chief executive of a successful private investment firm, Romney has attracted $7.5 million from the financial community, the center found. That’s nearly twice as much as President Barack Obama has received from it, and almost a quarter of the $32 million that Romney’s campaign has taken in overall.

“Romney brings with him a lot of connections in the business world and Wall Street community and those connections are paying dividends as he runs for president,” said Michael Beckel, a spokesman for the center. “We noticed that, so far, the biggest financial institutions have all preferred Mitt Romney.”

Indeed, the former Massachusetts governor is the top recipient of campaign cash from employees of the five biggest Wall Street banks. Goldman Sachs gave the most — $352,200. The firm paid a $550 million settlement last year in a fraud case that grew out of the subprime mortgage scandal that helped bring the U.S. economy to near collapse in the late 2000s.

The other banks were Morgan Stanley ($184,800), Bank of America ($112,500), JP Morgan Chase & Co. ($107,250) and Citigroup Inc. ($56,550).

A spokesman for the Romney campaign could not be reached for comment.

Financial support from the big banks and investment houses associated with the 2008 Wall Street meltdown could cut both ways, however.

Anti-Wall Street protests are growing in number across the country and the around the globe, but their political impact remains unclear and will likely depend upon their staying power.

At a minimum, the protests have become a channel for public anger over rising economic inequality and Washington’s ineffectiveness.

“They are a pretty good thermometer for the level of discontent in the country,” said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. “But the connection between Republicans and Wall Street and the banks will surely be an election issue next year.”

Romney used to run Bain Capital, a private-equity firm that bought and sold businesses. Wall Street’s largesse might say as much about its comfort level with the possibility of having a former financial-industry colleague in the Oval Office as it does about the sluggish economy and concerns over Obama’s policies.

Obama had raised about $3.9 million in Wall Street contributions as of the end of September. That’s more than 4 percent of his overall haul so far of $89 million, which dwarfs the GOP field.

Rick Perry, the Republican governor of Texas, was third in the Wall Street money chase. A late entrant to the race, Perry has raised about $2 million in support from the financial community. That’s out of the $17.2 million that he has raised to this point.

The Center for Responsive Politics said that financial-sector contributions represent about $1 out of every $9 that Perry has collected.

The Wall Street contributions listed in the candidates’ most recent campaign expense reports are largely from individuals, who can give a maximum of $2,500 for each election. But those donations don’t necessarily account for all of a candidate’s support from the financial industry.

Court rulings in recent years have eased restrictions on giving and triggered the rise of so-called “super PACS,” independent groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for or against a candidate. In some cases, they can keep the identity of their donors secret.

Most of the leading candidates, including the president, Romney and Perry, have super PACS in their corners. A few months ago, a former executive from Romney’s old investment firm gave a $1 million donation to a super PAC backing his campaign.

“Generally, after a donor has maxed out, that’s the end of the story,” Beckel said. “Now they’re going out and writing additional checks to these new super PACS.”






http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/10/17/127486/as-rage-at-wall-street-rises-its.html

 

[humble]

CHANGE Begins With Collective ACTION!

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=44935992&amp;width=420&amp;height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=44935929&amp;width=420&amp;height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

Email I received from getmoneyout.com

Sharing our own moments in history is real. It’s humbling.

I remember a moment I had back in late July when I was sitting in my spacious office down on K Street. I had just taken a call from yet another Member of Congress, asking me to raise him $25,000. My initial reaction was to smile and reflect on simpler but poorer times when I was a Senate staffer, MAKING $25,000 a year!

I spent almost seven years, the best years of my life by the way, doing policy in the Senate and I take great pride in my public service. Back then I did what was natural: I became a lobbyist, with the hopes of continuing my economic policy expertise from the outside. Key word here: policy.

But here's the rub: lobbyists today rarely get to use the policy they learned in the halls of Congress. Instead they are forced to spend a majority of their time raising money and shuffling from cocktail reception to cocktail reception.

The "fundraising circuit" is deafening. It's sick and it makes me nauseous to think of having to write check after check after check to a Senator or Representative just so I can get a meeting with him or her later. Anyone that tells you that's not true is flat out lying to you.

So, back to my "moment in history." It began at my desk. A physical chill came over my body. The smile of "making it" as one of the top lobbyists (apparently the Wall Street Journal thought so!) in Washington turned into something different.

That's when it hit me. That's when I knew I had to stop. I had two choices, be a cog in the wheel or destroy the wheel. I literally shuttered at the thought of losing everything I'd ever worked for: my home, my ability to travel, to live a life of luxury, to provide for my family, etc.

I left my lobbying firm and bunkered down on an island for the month of August and did some major soul searching.

Skip a couple of months forward and a new door opened: my friend Dylan Ratigan approached me to lead the Get Money Out Foundation. Great offer but I needed a sounding board, so I picked up the phone and called my brother Robert down in South Carolina. What I heard in my brother's voice was this theme that Washington, DC isn’t just broken but corrupt. He confirmed what I suspected: that the country at worst hates its capitol and at best thinks our politicians have no clue about what it means to live outside the echo chamber known as the Beltway.

My brother and I couldn't be more different; He's a Republican, I’m a democrat. He's straight, I’m gay, he's reserved and more cautious, yet I was the kid in the family that threw it all out there. But there’s not a single person in this world whom I love or trust more than my brother, and when he tells me the country's pissed off at Washington, I knew I had to do this.

Robert asked me how I was going to make Washington wake up and give up its power; what's the strategy, he said. Here's what I told him:

First, Get Money Out will debate openly and with the public's input. We’ll write the best Constitutional Amendment possible and put it forward to the people. We wont always agree but if you have something to say, I’ll listen.

Second, we will take the best amendment language to Congress and find allies to introduce it for debate. Do I expect Congress to debate this immediately? I’m not that naive but that’s where you come in.

Third, I need a wave. As I write this, we know we have nearly 220,000 followers who believe in this mission. We need more. We need MANY more. I wont be satisfied until we reach 2 million or more. Why? Because Congress won’t listen unless the wave overtakes them. I've said it before: Congress doesn't pro-act, Congress only reacts. This is where you come in: http://www.getmoneyout.com/high_surf_alert?utm_campaign=exec_director&utm_medium=email&utm_source=getmoneyout We need your help (and your friends and family’s help) to get Congress to react. Lets build a wave so big they can’t ignore by exposing the auction for this "government to the highest bidder" mentality for what it is: corruption through and through.

Fourth, if we can get Congress to pass a Constitutional Amendment, then we turn our focus to the states, which have to ratify it to actually make it law.

Campaign finance reform isn't a new idea. Congress has passed reform measure after reform measure. Yet, the Supreme Court continues to insist that corporations are people and that money is speech. I just don't agree. I don't think the Tea Party movement agrees. And I definitely don't think the Occupy Wall Street movement agrees that Exxon is a person. What we all agree on is the system is broken, that Washington DC is nothing more than an auction house, with the highest bidder always winning.

There are others out there spearheading similar movements, many with good intentions. There are many roads to Rome. Some want to take the back-roads, some want to take the interstate. In the end, if we all want to reach Rome and agree on the same goal, to Get Money Out of Politics, then I don't care how everyone gets there. I just care that we all make it to the finish line and pass an amendment banning money in the halls of Congress.

That’s the strategy for the Get Money Out Foundation. Its simple, its concise, and its honest. We don’t need to complicate a solution to something so inherently and blatantly wrong.

As the executive director of the Get Money Out Foundation, I give you my word (and my word is all I have in this world) that I will run this movement to ban money in politics as openly, honestly, and transparently as I possibly can. With your help, we will reach Rome.

Lets get money out and give America its government back.

JFMW

Jimmy Williams
http://www.getmoneyout.com/

 

[humble]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=45040809&amp;width=420&amp;height=245[/FLASH]

 

[humble]

[FLASH]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640?launch=45070527&amp;width=420&amp;height=245[/FLASH]