"I do not believe that people fought and died for democracy so that billionaires can buy elections."

[brentspeak]

This nation needs this man to be President.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/217675-sanders-lays-out-agenda-for-america-in-iowa-speech

September 14, 2014, 03:01 pm
Sanders lays out 'Agenda for America'

"We have got to restore the democracy to the United States of America by overturning this disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision. ... I do not believe that people fought and died for democracy so that billionaires can buy elections,” Sanders said.

[RobertEarl]

1. I'm in

Sanders in 2016, and beyond.

This is gonna be fun.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. Senator Sanders has his heart in the right place, but why try to amend the Constitution when

Congress already has the remedy to work at overturning SCOTUS' disastrous Citizen's United ruling?

It only takes a new law to pass Congress to stop this pro-corporate SCOTUS from ever deciding the financing of election campaigns again.

Supreme Court decisions legalizing private interest financing of election campaigns have enabled a vast increase in private interest control over our federal government. The 1 percent contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in election campaigns to empower themselves and disempower the 99 percent. To keep that money flowing to themselves, elected officials waste enormous sums of taxpayer's money on government contracts, subsidies, bailouts, wars and tax cuts for the rich. The 1 percent thus receive enormous returns on their political investments. By contrast, the government uses the resulting deficits to justify cuts in needed spending on education, health care, environment, safety and infrastructure that would benefit the 99 percent who do not buy elections and influence.

Here is why a constitutional amendment is not needed to end this disenfranchisement of the 99 percent. The revolutionary leaders who wrote the Constitution, fresh from overthrowing the tyranny of King George, included sufficient checks and balances on all three branches of government - including the courts - to prevent the kind of tyranny we now suffer.

Under our existing Constitution, Congress already has the power to stop the court from making any more of the decisions that have allowed the 1 percent to buy elections. Then Congress can pass legislation reversing the unconstitutional decisions the court has made to corrupt elections.

Here is the provision the founding fathers included:

The Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make (US Constitution, Article III, Section 2).
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/6089:constitutional-amendment-not-needed-congress-already-has-a-remedy

Why is Senator Sanders taking the far more difficult course of trying to amend the Constitution when he should be campaigning for Congress to pass a law forbidding SCOTUS from ever taking on another case regarding financing election campaigns? That's what I'd like to know.

[Ed Suspicious]

54. Symbolism, permanance, it more effectively brings attention to the issue, and

it reinforces the extent to which he believes what he's saying.

[BlueCaliDem]

58. I understand that, but wouldn't it serve this election and encourage GOTV

when we know that a new Congress with Democratic majorities would pave the way to pass a new law that would remove jurisdiction over financing election campaigns from the courts once and for all?

Consider the practicalities as proposed by Senator Sanders and compare to the quickest, most efficient way on getting rid of Citizens United:

Senator Sanders proposal: A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote in each House plus ratification by three-quarters of the states within seven years, an incredibly high bar.

The quickest, most efficient way: A law requires only an ordinary majority in each House to deny court jurisdiction over funding elections and to pass legislation removing private interest money from election campaigns.

And as a double-whammy, wouldn't it put Democrats in Congress on notice that they'll have to put their votes where their mouths are? For all their complaining about Citizens United and using it for fundraisers, the people will know that, should Democrats win the House and Senate this election, Democrats will then have the power to overturn CU quickly and efficiently.

I mean, now that the lower courts are filled with judges by President Obama and for the first time in more than a decade, shifted the balance of the courts to favor Liberals over Conservatives, we can use that new law to hamstring SCOTUS from taking on any more Republican lawsuits that would result in billionaires buying our government (since they can't get elected) and lawsuits can be filed to chip at CU before completely eliminating it.

Senator Sanders should spend his precious time promoting the second option rather than the constitutional option that's impossible to realize. I don't understand why he hasn't done that.

[Dont call me Shirley]

69. The SC continues it's radicalized agenda of illegal constitutional review.

The congress would need to pass a law stating that the SC will no longer be allowed to use constitutional review, which has been in place since 1803, Marbury vs Madison. So fat chance in hell.

Constitutional Amendment cannot be reviewed, at least not yet, by the SC.

[cascadiance]

75. Roberts will still use his ACTIVIST interpretation of the 14th amendment...

... to say that any law that Congress passes that violates "corporate personhood" SUPPOSEDLY provided by the 14th amendment would be "unconstitutional" in his criminal mind (THAT SHOULD BE IMPEACHED!) to keep in place corporate corruption to get us moved over to fascism as quickly as he's able to!

This is why a constitutional amendment to take down not only Citizen's United, but to EXPLICITLY take down corporate personhood is the only way to shut down SCOTUS from being the big problem here. And if they try after such an explicit amendment is passed, THEN would be a time to impeach some of these justices that insist on carrying out their fascist agenda!

[Dont call me Shirley]

76. Agreed! Well said!

[BlueCaliDem]

81. And they can be stopped - using Marbury vs Madison.

From the same article at the link provided in my previous post:

"As early as 1803, in a case called Marbury v. Madison, the case in which the Supreme Court established judicial review, the court also recognized that it must not decide questions that are "in their nature political." Regulating elections and their funding to prevent corruption is a quintessential political question. For 173 years, the courts followed this mandate and declined jurisdiction over such political questions."

So no. We shouldn't be so eager to raise the white flag on this just yet. All we need is a powerful spokesperson to bring this to the media ... someone like Senator Sanders, for example, and have him/her make it vital to GOTV in order to win back the House and retain majorities in the Senate. Because it's just a that it's going to be impossible to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified in this polarized country.

[Dont call me Shirley]

82. Thom Hartmann shouts pretty loudly about this.

[decrepittex]

83. Congress has the means but

Hoping this Congress will do the right thing, or anything for that matter, is futile. These clowns couldn't agree on a lunch menu. If there is a honest man among them he must feel like an outcast. Instead of the suits and ties those bastards should wear jackets with sponsors names so we'd all know who owned them. Hoping they'll do anything to stop the flow of money into their accounts is a pipe dream.

[abelenkpe]

2. K&R

[99th_Monkey]

3. So far, Bernie has earned both my respect and my VOTE ~nt~

[Initech]

4. Amen Bernie!!!!

[chknltl]

5. He has my vote too.

Indy or Dem, hopefully Dem, this man has my vote. nuff said

[JEB]

6. Bernie is probably the most sensible person in DC.

[merrily]

7. Please sign the petition

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025534410

[NealK]

8. K&R

[elzenmahn]

9. DAMNED STRAIGHT!!!!!!

...and I'll bet that there are more than a few servicemen and women (active and otherwise) who feel EXACTLY the same way.

I'll support Sanders. Even if he doesn't get the nomination, he'll alter the debate to the point where Hillary will have to take notice and, perhaps, start taking on a more progressive stance (not to mention the rest of the party.)

[calimary]

11. THAT is what I'm hoping. That he'll pull her a little more to the left.

[sabrina 1]

15. What good would that do, for Hillary to start talking more like progressive in the campaign?

Just because she fears losing to someone like Bernie? I wouldn't believe her frankly. No longer will I judge politicians by their words, I will judge them by their actions and by their record.

There is no point in Bernie entering the race to try to get candidates whose records we KNOW like Hillary, to start 'talking' differently during the campaign. They will go right back to their old ways if we are stupid enough to fall for that.

Bernie needs to run to WIN. I will never support Hillary and neither will most liberals who have watched her actions over the years. And her associations, like Kissenger eg.

Bernie's record is very different. He doesn't change his 'words' just for campaigns, he ACTS on his words. That is rare these days as we all know due to believing words when there were signs that maybe they were only words after all.

[Enthusiast]

23. PLUS ONE, a huge bunch!

[woo me with science]

26. Amen.

[Nay]

32. Thank you. I no longer care what candidates say, frankly, unless their words

have been backed up by years of action in service to their words. If Hillary starts sounding all progressive, I won't care.

[Le Taz Hot]

36. Correct.

Both of them have a record to examine. No reason to believe Hillary would be anything but the corporate darling she has proven herself to be time and again.

[DiverDave]

38. I agree

I am very suspicious of Clintons ties to big money. While it's a necessary evil, she hasn't said anything about changing that.

[raouldukelives]

40. Exactly! nt

[navarth]

66. sadly must agree. nt

[ReRe]

10. K&R

Go Bernie! I wish he would change parties to Democrat and be the first Democrat to announce that he was running for the office of the Presidency in 2016!

[sabrina 1]

16. I hope he doesn't change his party. The largest voting bloc now in the US is Independent as more and

more voters, according to polls, are dropping their party affiliation and becoming Independents. No one can win anymore without that vote as we saw in 2010 when they stayed home disappointed in Dems who they came out for in 2008.

If Bernie can capture that vote AND Dems who refuse to support Hillary on principle, and some moderate Conservatives, he can win. As a Dem he limits his chances imo.

[ReRe]

18. I kind of like the sound of that...

... and think you might be correct. I had a little chit chat with a brother of mine, who happens to be about as right wing as they come. Of course, I am exactly the opposite. After about 40 minutes, we were on the same side agreeing to vote for Bernie if he ran. I can tell you right now, that was nothing less than a miracle! Brother and I on the same side, politically! But you know how the Corporatists are in the Democratic Party. They'll Ralph Nader him if anything stands in the way of HRC becoming President. You know how our Nader-haters are. They will campaign against him. I can't imagine ANYONE saying a bad word about him, because he's really more of an old-fashioned Democrat than most, if not all, of the Democrats. Heck, I imagine the real Democrats (not the Corporatist DINOs) would vote for him themselves when they go in the voting booth! This is pretty much turning out to be a show-down between the DINOs and the Democrats for the heart of the Democratic Party.
I hope you're right, s1. I hope he wins, whichever way he goes.

[cali]

24. I hope he does. He has no chance of winning in any case. If he runs

as a democrat, he can challenge Clinton's positions. If he runs as an independent he'll be invisible. Furthermore, he'll lose a lot of support here at home.

[pampango]

25. If he runs as an independent, might he not be the "Ross Perot" of the left and split

the anti-republican vote? Clinton got 43% and 49% of the vote in 1992 and 1996. Perot got 19% in 1992 and 8.4% in 1996. As a genuine liberal Sanders will certainly attract many more votes from the left than he will from the right.

republicans can never hope to get more than the 47% that Mitt received. Their only hope of winning is to split the opposition vote - kind of a PUMA II.

I agree that Sanders should run as a Democrat so that his positions get more publicity. In the long run that will be persuasive in moving voters to the left.

[JDPriestly]

35. He needs to run as a Democrat.

If he runs as an independent, Hillary or some other Democrat will also run, and the liberal/progressive votes will be split.

I think that Bernie Sanders could attract more independent and even Republican votes than Hillary. And a Hillary candidacy could cause a lot of Democrats to stay home.

[Ikonoklast]

41. The problem with that reasoning is that the biggest group calling themselves "Independents" now

are all Republicans who are embarrassed to be known as such...but still reliably vote for any Republican that runs.

[sabrina 1]

56. That is completely wrong information. Independents are who helped Obama win the 2008

election. And they stayed home in 2010 disappointed that Democratic policies were not being pushed as they had expected.

Polls show now that members of both parties are dropping their party affiliations and voting as Independents.

Bernie referred to this recently, I guess he pays attention to what is going on in this country which without a doubt is a shift in the political landscape due to the fact they believe they have NO SAY anymore understanding the fact that it is Corporations that influence policies and no matter how big the opposition to policies may be, the people are ignored.

People are looking for a real change and on big issues such as SS and FP eg, there is a huge consensus across the board.

As Bernie said, half the country doesn't vote due to a belief that it doesn't matter. He plans to give them a reason and I believe he can.

The country may be going through a real shift politically where the two parties better start paying attention the people or the people will simply ignore them as they have ignored the people.

[Ikonoklast]

71. Wrong, yet again. They do not vote for Independent candidates, they vote party line.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/08/most-political-independents-actually-arent/


http://cookpolitical.com/story/6608



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/03/there-are-no-true-independent-voters-in-american-politics.html


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0707/Political-independents-rarer-than-many-think-poll-suggests

[cantbeserious]

12. Right On Bernie

eom

[Cayenne]

13. I don't want it decided by politicians and bureaucrats either

The ACLU does not want our free speech given back to the government so it can regulate political discourse.

[polynomial]

14. example one of the billionaires Bruce Rauner

They know who the billionaires are they know the good the bad and the ugly that is associated with these very successful people.

As an example one of the billionaires Bruce Rauner running as the Republican nominee for Governor against Pat Quinn in Illinois has an impressive record of philanthropy, and a huge list of awards not really detailed for what the achievements were.

For me the real curiosity is that list of two hundred business entities that are underscored as part of the Rauner investment strategies. From a theoretical theme most current Republican business plans are becoming very interesting to me.

Especially in Rauner’s family his father was the senior vice president of Motorola. This is a special curiosity because Motorola built the first most advance electronic manufactured portable telephone centered here in Illinois, Schaumburg which was an historical mile stone in current communication industry then with the Galvin family in Illinois Motorola eventually spun off a lot of the company.

Manufacturing job gone for better profits. In my opinion America also lost a lot of edge in technology since Motorola always had an insider view of research and development via connections to the huge military research that is always ongoing at the advantage by the American tax payer.

What is troubling is Rauner likely through investment management companies as listed in Wikipedia are Cayman accounts known for secret stuff. Now Google and Motorola are in a multibillion dollar technology deal. Little news about those types deals are talked about in the mainstream media. Is Rauner one of those who would like to capture and control Google Internet…

[Enthusiast]

22. I'm with you on that.

[JDPriestly]

37. Interesting post. Thanks.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, brentspeak.

[newfie11]

19. He's got my vote!!! Nt

[grahamhgreen]

20. Truth.

[Enthusiast]

21. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Even a Hillary supporter should acknowledge the wisdom of Bernie's words.

[woo me with science]

27. Bernie speaks for me!

[djean111]

28. Hillary couldn't carry her OWN party the first time.

Looks like the only way she can do it this time is to somehow drive all other candidates out before the primaries.
Move her to the left during primaries? That will just be lip service, methinks. Just alter the campaign blather a bit, nothing will change.
And for those who tirelessly jump in with current polling - then why worry about other candidates? If you feel she has a lock, then just sit back, IMO. You are just more polarizing then she is, which is really really polarizing.

[logosoco]

29. Any politician who speaks those words has my vote. nt

[Nye Bevan]

30. Yep. It was horrible how the billionaires swooped in and installed Barack Obama as president,

thwarting the will of the ordinary people who clearly preferred Mitt Romney.

[Romulox]

33. Um, the first thing he did was bail out the Banksters. And then nobody else.

[Dragonfli]

62. That was done out of compassion.

[YoungDemCA]

65. Exactly

Just horrible.

[brentspeak]

68. Looks like someone got their Daily Caller marching orders n/t

[HereSince1628]

31. That hangs on the meaning of 'so'.

People, mostly men, did die thinking it was for democracy. The objectives of democracy have pretty much always been influenced by the money the rich dedicated to it.

Half the people will usually grouse about how government is doing things, add in a push from big money and shit happens...as when the Boston tea-party was effectively sponsored by a wealthy guy motivated by the Brits wanting to collect a tremendous pile of his unpaid back-taxes.

[JDPriestly]

39. Our government invited hard-working people to go into the wilderness and homestead

land. The original idea was to build a nation of farmers and small businessmen.

By "wealthy guy" what do you mean? Are you talking about the Koch brothers' level of wealth? Or more something like John Hancock?

Here is the wealth that John Hancock inherited.

Thomas Hancock was the proprietor of a firm known as the House of Hancock, which imported manufactured goods from Britain and exported rum, whale oil, and fish.[6] Thomas Hancock's highly successful business made him one of Boston's richest and best-known residents.[7][8] He and Lydia, along with several servants and slaves, lived in Hancock Manor on Beacon Hill. The couple, who did not have any children of their own, became the dominant influence on John's life.[9]

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

A company that imported manufactured goods and exported rum, whale oil and fish is a far cry from the Koch Brothers' empire.

Wealth is a relative term.

The American Revolution was a reaction to British tax policies that favored the huge corporations of the day like the East India Trading Company. The taxes that the colonists rebelled against favored the extremely rich corporations to the disadvantage of wealthy but not mega-rich folks like John Hancock.

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

John Hancock and other similar Americans were wealthy by the then American standards, but the goal of early Americans was to encourage the development of a healthy and large middle class. The idea was that if we remained a nation of farmers we could govern ourselves. The Founding Fathers would be horrified at our current concentration of wealth and extreme disparity of income.

[HereSince1628]

73. Nothing posted above changes the reality that it all hangs on the meaning of 'so'

Men (mostly) who have answered the call, or if you like, the coercion of mandatory induction served for various reasons...but 'answering the call' and avoiding the punishments for not doing "so", were at leastresponding to the calls of the influential.

The rich have always been in a position to influence just how those punishments and incentives were defined.

The revolution wasn't fought for frontier people like Daniel Shay, who had to later rebel against the federal government and the government's support of foreclosures.

It was fought for the benefit of bigger players. We kid ourselves when we think it wasn't so, but -that- makes popular history popular.

[JDPriestly]

85. Did any of your ancestors fight in the Revolution or the War of 1812.

Those in my family who did were idealists, not rich. That is very clear from what they did after the American Revolution and the War of 1812.

Some of the things we read in books are not true.

[HereSince1628]

86. Yes, I had ancestors who fought in the revolution

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 06:09 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't think that much changes the calculus, even if I also introduce that I had ancestors who 'rebelled' against the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

I don't really see the point of your last comment. Its logical conclusion is that that once subtracting "some" of the things we read in books the remainder is true. Which is after all to say, that some of what is in books is true.

[JDPriestly]

87. So, Tom Paine, Benjamin Franklin, the many, many soldiers including the backwoodsmen

and all those who supported and fought for and conceived of our revolution were upper class.

Hardly. The only shows an ignorance about what was considered upper class or nobility in the 18th century.

My ancestors were farm and backwoods people who fought for the Revolution. They understood very well what they were fighting about. There were some wealthy people. Very few of the revolutionaries were at ll what you would call the oligarchy or nobility of the time. Maybe Lafayette. Some had more money than others, but the classes were very well defined in the 18th century. Very few of the revolutionaries were what was then viewed as upper class. Jefferson was a gentleman farmer, but not a member of the aristocracy. They were middle class.

[HereSince1628]

88. You are really working to justify opposing this...

I'm sorry for whatever mechanism is at work on your psyche.

[Romulox]

34. I've *never* been stupid enough to fight or die for our phoney baloney "democracy".

[MissDeeds]

42. "This nation needs this man to be President."

I could not agree more. Go Bernie!!!

K&R

[WillyT]

43. K & R !!!

[toby jo]

44. Hope he runs as an independent as long as possible to capture the independent vote.

Switch to D as late as you can, Bernie.

[Duppers]

45. IF someone does NOT believe in 1 person, 1 vote

They do not believe in or accept democracy!

All votes should be equal.

[L0oniX]

46. Mega K & R

[Xyzse]

47. Sure I will, if he wins the Primaries.

[Coventina]

48. I support Bernie for Prez.

[The2ndWheel]

49. Can he prove that?

Or is it just a belief?

[Octafish]

51. Do you know a combat veteran?

Ask him or her why they were willing to give their life for the country.

[Octafish]

50. With that line, Bernie could win as an Independent.

Hope he runs as a Democrat.

[treestar]

52. It takes money to win elections

What billionaire has ever bought one? Ross Perot?

People could pay attention to what the candidates say if they choose. It doesn't have to take a lot of money. We have to stop being shallow and start paying attention.

[rhett o rick]

57. I paid very close attention to candidate Barack Obama for all the good it did. nm

[cascadiance]

77. Yep, I was never really sold on either Clinton or Obama then...

... as this photoshop I made during the primaries shows...



I rooted for John Roberts before I knew his "secret", which I think was what the PTB wanted me to do instead of looking at someone like Kucinich!

[marions ghost]

55. K&R

[bobGandolf]

59. Thank god for Bernie.....

none of the others have the balls to go public fighting this crap.

[Madmiddle]

60. Nothing will get done with the republicans in majority.

If Democrats don't vote, as we have all been lead to believe, the republicans will make this country even fucking worse.
So, people that believe their vote doesn't count, well it's just not true. Every vote does count. Get out and vote in November.

[hifiguy]

61. Go, Bernie, GO!!

KICK!

[blkmusclmachine]

63. Don't tell the 1% that OWNS both Parties!!!

"The banks own the place."

[YOHABLO]

64. What does Hillary think about the Citizens United decision?

Someone has to hold this so-called centrist third way candidate's feet to the fire.

[navarth]

67. I also would like to know that answer to that. nt

[Adam051188]

72. just as long as no real progress is made everything should be fine.

hands off the electoral college(which perpetuates our two party nonsense), hands off the bankers, military industrial complex, and our national oil reserves("national oil reserves"<---if that doesn't make you snort you aren't properly informed)

[Donald Ian Rankin]

74. You could take out words 6 to 13.

"Exert non-trivial influence on", yes. "Buy", no.

[Enthusiast]

78. This post has hundreds of recommendations!

[sulphurdunn]

79. Who do you suppose

sends all those warriors to die for democracy?

[Faryn Balyncd]

80. K and R

[Maineman]

84. This is THE issue of our time, by far the most fundamental and most serious.