Sorry to be so late responding, but my wife and I go camping most weekends when it's nice . . . we both need the trees to wind down from the week and we have a very nice spot to go to . . . and I just got back.
Anyway, Civil Disobedience.
First let me point out that the direct confrontation sort of civil disobedience advocated by some, like lying down in front of important buildings and blocking them, or simply clogging up some street with a bunch of bodies and no “permit” — cannot work any more. If it is tried, a bunch of people will get their skulls cracked and then be arrested, the corporate media will then either not carry the fact of the demonstration at all or will distort the event all out of proportion to suit their own ends --- and then after an immense effort and sacrifice on the part of a bunch of people . . . the whole thing will fizzle out to nothing. This is because for the most part the mass media are, to put it simply, our enemies. They are owned by the same corporations that are exploiting the war for profit and are generally looting our society. The corporate mass media has near complete control of the means to direct public opinion in any direction they chose. The technology they have to advance this end is awesome. I say this from the perspective of a guy who once got a MA degree in Social Psychology. The reason marketing types make such big bucks is because the return they inevitably bring back for their clients is immense. Would you have believed you could sell rocks as pets? Some marketing guy did, and made a bundle doing just that. The last I heard some 70% of Americans STILL thought that Saddam and Osama loved and aided each other, and etc. All because of corporate marketing of their larger agenda.
All of which sounds very daunting. But there is a weak point that can be exploited, and the clue can be found in Frank’s book “What’s the Matter With Kansas.” (At least I think that’s the title, its been a while since I read it.) In this book Frank points out that the citizens of Kansas consistently vote against their best interests,
because they think it’s the moral thing to do. In other words, morality trumps self-interest for a great number of people — and personally I think that this is a rather good thing. If the people of Kansas actually learn how they have been manipulated by the GOP with a horrid pack of lies, and downright evil behavior, there could be a backlash that will make the French revolution look like a Sunday School picnic. Screwing with Fundies is dangerous business for that very reason, a fact that the Repugs don’t seem to have learned. Yet.
With that as background, consider the impact upon a basically moral person from Kansas if he is exposed to something like this:
In the early part of the last century Henry Ford got into trouble by trying to be a nice guy. He wanted to use corporate profits that he viewed as excessive to raise worker salaries and reduce the price of his company’s automobiles. His stockholders objected, however, and took him to court (Dodge v. Ford, 1919). They wanted that money for themselves. The judge ruled that the whole purpose of business is to maximize shareholder wealth, and if Ford “wanted to pursue a (charitable end) he should do it with his own money, not with other people’s.”
The principle forged into law by Dodge v. Ford continues today to force corporate management to maximize stockholder profits. The law has been modified slightly since 1980 to allow for a slightly more “social” flavor, but the “fiduciary responsibility” of corporate management this principle established remains firmly directed towards maximal profits for the stockholders. CEOs are therefore required to have a clear and “reasonable expectation of profit” when they spend stockholder money.
The requirement that a “reasonable expectation of profit” be present applies to corporate political campaign contributions just like any other expenditure. In 2002 contributions to politicians exceeded $1.2 billion dollars. Some examples will illustrate the practical effect of this money.
In 2002 over $95 million was contributed by the health care industry to our politicians. Where was the “reasonable expectation of profit” that the health care industry was investing in to come from? Politicians have nothing but their legislation to offer in return for this money, and common sense tells us that promoting legislation that would reduce profits — wasn’t really the idea. Indeed, any politician receiving a portion of the health care industry’s $95 million giveaway could be expected to irritate his “benefactors” mightily if his legislation were to, say, actually reduce health care costs — and thus industry profits. Common sense also tells us that any such congressman would be immediately “cut off” from his health care corporate largess, and would last about as long in his job as any faint hint of real morality currently does in congress.
Other examples of the influence of corporate “political contributions” on legislation abound. The cumulative cost of this practice to the public is immense, but we pay the price of this practice with far more than mere money.
The FDA has tried repeatedly to ban the use of antibiotics to fatten meat animals, but has been overruled by congress each time. It is well established that antibiotics used in animal feed have two primary effects: they cause meat animals to fatten more with less food, and they breed antibiotic resistant bacteria. The pharmaceutical industry sells 70% of its antibiotics for meat production, and gives a pile of money to congress each year to protect that market. Protect it primarily from the FDA, which has been trying to protect us from exactly this sort of practice. People die because of antibiotic resistant bacteria. And the patents on the antibiotics used to fatten meat animals run out at about the same time feeding these antibiotics to animals renders them useless — thus making newer, more costly, and more esoteric antibiotics necessary. And also necessitating new patents and much higher profits for the pharmaceutical industry.
The members of the Florida Break The Link PAC think that the corporate practice of making large contributions to politicians has a more accurate name than “campaign contribution.” We think it is more accurate to call this practice bribery — bribery to prevent legislation that interferes with corporate profits, bribery to create legal monopolies that allow the “donating” corporation to charge unfair prices, bribery to purchase exclusive tax breaks, and bribery to extract direct largess from the public treasury.
Our large corporate political contributors most definitely influence our politicians with their money; our politicians cannot possibly be elected without this massive largess under our current system. (The rest of this pamphlet can be found at
http://breakthelink.org/FlFlyer.pdf)
Quite a few would not be able to understand it, but quite a few would . . . and of those a few might be able to put it together and figure out that they have been seriously had by the “powers that be.”
Now, anyone who is pressing for legislation against bribery occupies the moral high ground. Period. There is no way that a politician can come out in favor of bribery, and there is no way that the issue can be distorted to such a point that even a dumb Kansas Fundie can’t see the problem. In other words, it is an issue with legs when presented simply as an effort against bribery.
Currently EVERY STATE HAS LEGALIZED BRIBERY by one means or another. For example, in Florida we have absolutely Draconian laws against bribery, but they are inherently limited to the sort of bribery where you show up at your representatives office with a big sack of cash and ask for favorable legislation. And even this sort of bribery would have to be prosecuted based upon “common law” definitions, because the statutes in Florida concerning this issue, statutes 838.015
Bribery and 838.016
Unlawful compensation or reward for official behavior. specifically contain NO definition for bribery at all, even though the entire Chapter 838 is entitled "BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE." This rather obvious omission leaves anything that can in any way be construed as "something else" as an open loophole through which entire legislative bodies may collectively leap while holding hands and sanctimoniously pointing to "their draconian laws against bribery." Here is a link to the Florida statutes so you can check it out yourself.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0838/SEC014.HTM&Title=-%3E2004-%3ECh0838-%3ESection%20014#0838.014 If you aren't from Florida don't get too smug before you take a look and see how YOUR State has done something similar - - - because you can be sure that they have!
And this is where the civil disobedience comes in. In Florida we have cobbled up an amendment to the Florida constitution against bribery (
http://breakthelink.org/FlSigs.pdf) that has real teeth. It contains a definition that can be applied to corporate campaign contributions, for example, and would thus eliminate them if enforced. There is no way that our government can allow such an amendment to get on the ballot unless they are sure it won’t pass . . . because if it gets on the ballot, who is going to vote against it? How can any politician argue that HE has the moral high ground and at the same time argue AGAINST this amendment?
He who commands the moral high ground, wins, and the Repugs exploit this fact all the time. So they will place other obstacles in the path, which must be overcome in any way they can.
Twenty six states do not have formal initiative procedures, but there is no reason at all that the citizens of those states could not circulate the same amendment we are using in Florida, with the state name and a few other details changed. This might be civil disobedience, or might not. It would probably be construed as “illegal” in Kansas and those other states just to try and stop it. But it will again be very difficult to break heads and arrest people who are pushing this kind of thing without calling attention to it, and that is the last thing they will want to do. It’s that moral high ground thing, again. And after a half-million people sign the petition in Kansas (which I think is quite conceivable) and present these documents to the Kansas Legislature - - - then that legislature is between that proverbial rock and hard spot. If they bitch that it is illegal, they look like they are in favor of bribery (which, of course, they very much are) and those morally inclined Kansans will jump down their throats.
All of which fantasy depends on a bunch of people getting out and working the problem . . . which I have seen no evidence of happening. I have tried everything I can think of, and nothing seems to get any action. All of which frustrates the hell out of me, because I think this crazy idea could work.
Damn! This got long, didn’t it. Sorry about that.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(115 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
