Only real solution: a new, progressive party, not tied to corporate money

[bobweaver]

Whether this can be built out of the Democratic party (highly unlikely) or must be built by progressives leaving the Democratic party and joining with Greens and other left-leaning parties is still in question, but it's obvous now that the Democratic party in its current state has no future... sadly the Republicans are right on this one. The Democratic party cannot afford to lose any of its consituency, so the left wing of the party does actually hold a lot of leverage in this respect. Left to DLC: "Drop the corporate cash, or die from attrition."

[Birthmark]

1. I agree.

I've just about made my decision to join the Greens. Hell, if I'm going to lose anyway, I might as well lose with a party that stands for something.

[Maat]

2. I take it you mean large-abusive corporations ...

I've been a DUer for a year now, and the money I donate comes from my hubby and I's small corporation, who we own along with other partners, who are registered with a various political parties. Corporations are not inherently bad, it is the executives, board members and shareholders who do not speak up that bear the responsibility for CEO/corporate-officer abuses.

Or do you mean that every cotnribution to be an individual one, not one made by a group?

[mike_c]

5. this is a smoke screen....

The primary issue is not just who gives how much money to political campaigns, but the larger role of corporations in American society and the motives underlying their political contributions. Corporate "personhood" is a travesty. its ultimate motive is to elevate corporate interests-- and those of their share holders-- above the interests of working Americans who earn a living through wages rather than investment. I applaud you if your corporation does not behave like that, but too many do. Power will be abused if not kept in check.

[bobweaver]

8. I think that the issue of corporate donations is important because it is a

corrupting influence in politics and government. It creates an unspoken bond between the politician and the corporation, and a payoff is always expected later on by the corporation.

[OneBlueSky]

10. absolutely correct, mike_c . . .

matter of fact, I posted this a few minutes ago on another thread . . .

what we need is a central, compelling issue around which we can rally Democrats, Independents, moderate Republicans, and other who do not share BushCo's view of the world . . . that issue can (and should, imo) be "ending corporate personhood" . . .

most people do not know that corporations are legally considered to be persons . . . and they don't know the ramifications of that little idiosyncrasy . . .

I believe that people will rally around a movement to repeal corporate personhood . . . because the issue will provide a platform from which we can address ALL of the ramifications of corporate governance, from industry writing their own laws and regulations, to obscene corporate executive compensation, to moving offshore to avoid US taxes (and other tax dodges), to corporate rape of the environment, to loss of pensions, to outsourcing of American jobs, to interlocking directorates, etc. . . these are all issues that people care about . . . and, for the most part, are on our side of . . .

there is great potential for stirring voter outrage if we can effectively communicate -- and prove -- the truth about how corporations operate, and how they control our government . . . making the absurdity that is corporate personhood the lead issue ensures at least that people will listen, because most have no clue about this, and will be amazed when they find out the truth . . .

yes, there are other issues that could be used as rallying points (9/11, election reform, Social Security, etc.) . . . but corporate governance both supersedes and encompasses all of these . . . and because it does, it's the perfect vehicle for starting a vibrant populist movement in this country . . .

if we are ever to achieve ANY meaningful change, we MUST take on the corporations and return them to being what they were intended to be -- servents of the people, not their masters . . .

[bobweaver]

7. Corporations that represent the public interest are OK with me.

[Maat]

15. You're right, Bob, and that's what I mean.

After all, the lawyers we appreciate have Limited Liability Corporations, as do my hubby and I (computer software) - and Michael Moore has at least a couple of LLC's, I'm sure.

As a law student, I get confused when people criticize corps. and personhood. It depends on what you mean. For example, you and I have Sixth-Amendment-related rights - a right to represent ourselves. They take that away from a corporation. So, there are lots of examples of times in the law when they restrict them. I guess I need people to think of specific instances where we have to modify the law. The real problem, as a stockholder, that I have found, is that corps. tend to hire 'professional management,' and they are no more talented than the founder of the company, most times. And then, and here's the kicker, they somehow wind up making agregious compensation, that is several hundred times what the average worker makes. The stockholders let it happen - because most are institutional investors. We need to really think about how to deal with that effectively.

[welshTerrier2]

39. my take on corporations ...

i am deeply concerned about the abusive influence that "big money" has on our government ... but i think "progressives" need to be very careful about concerns they raise about corporations ...

the goal in restricting access to power and insuring good governance has very little to do with the technicalities of incorporation ... this becomes especially clear when you extend the discussion to partnerships or other joint ventures ... if a bunch of mega-rich individuals band together to lean on legislators or bribe them with campaign support, is this OK because these wealthy people chose not to incorporate ???

the standard should not be the legal relationship among the parties involved; the standard should be that we must do whatever is necessary to protect our democracy from the abuses big money enables ...

[punpirate]

3. How about a return to FDR's...

... signal speech: The FourFreedom Party?"

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

"The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.

"The third is freedom from want -- which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants -- everywhere in the world.

"The fourth is freedom from fear -- which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor-- anywhere in the world.

"That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.

"To that new order we oppose the greater conception -- the moral order. A good society is able to face schemes of world domination and foreign revolutions alike without fear.

"Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change -- in a perpetual peaceful revolution -- a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions -- without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

"This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose.

"To that high concept there can be no end save victory."

Cheers.

[mike_c]

4. we're waiting for you in the Green Party, USA....

This is a personal decision that every progressive in America needs to face-- which political party best represents their interests? Remember, much of the information in the Conyers report, and the impetus for 33 reps and one senator to challenge, came largely from the work of the GP in seeking examination of the Ohio vote.

This is not about John Kerry any longer. It's about the future of liberalism and progessive politics in America.

[bobweaver]

6. Well, I did vote Green in 2000 (I voted for Nader, wasn't he the Green

nominee in 2000? I think that the D's blamed their loss in 2000 partially on Nader and his drawing away of the left D's to the Greens, and so the D's moved left for 2004 in an attempt to recapture those voters (and they did recpature me for 1 election) But the truth is I went back to the Ds in 2004 mainly as a tactical move to unseat Bush, not just because of their supposed "rediscovered populism". I guess it will probably depend on the direction the D's go in the next 2 years. Whichever party's platform agrees with my views will get my vote.

[mike_c]

9. democrats did NOT move left during the 2004 election!

Huh? You're talking about the party that refused to discuss opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, single payer health care reform, limiting corporate control of government, putting living wages for American workers before tax cuts and other benefits for the wealthy whose income derives primarily from investment, the moral bankruptcy and strategic idiocy of the "war on terror," the USA PATRIOT Act-- good god-- the democratic party in 2004 was well to the right of Richard Nixon in the early seventies.

Anyway, I applaud your OP-- I've obviously done just what you suggest.

[no name no slogan]

28. Kerry was the first Dem I voted for President since 1992

I voted for the Greens in 1996 and 2000, because neither major party was addressing the issues most important to me: single-payer health coverage, the war economy and US imperialism, our crumbling infrastructure, and the collapse of the rural economy.

I voted for Kerry last year because I supported Dennis Kucinich in the primaries. I took his advice, and voted for Kerry-- even though I disagreed with him more often than not on the big issues-- because I wanted to have somebody in the White House who would at least LISTEN to progressive ideas, if not embody them.

If anything, the fairly liberal John Kerry was made over into a centrist, pro-war, pro-corporate goon. Gone were the days of him standing up against the Gulf War and Vietnam, in were the promises to manage the Bush disaster more effectively. Worse yet, Kerry seemed more than happy to disassociate himself from his convictions of the past, in an effort to look more "electable".

The American people, for all their faults, are not stupid (merely ignorant-- but that's another story). They know the genuine article when they see it. And the John Kerry they were presented in 2004 was NOT the same John Kerry who voted against the Gulf War and spoke out against the Vietnam War.

It's this disconnect from the past 20 years of his career that made him seem like a "flip-flopper" and untrustworthy. His further statements (like saying he'd still invade Iraq, given what we know about the non-existant WMDs) dug him further into the hole.

John Kerry is a good man, and a decent fellow. However, his hired professional consultants weren't willing to let that John Kerry come out.

[GreenInNC]

36. come check us out

I am sure your local or state party would love to have you. www.gp.org

[flaminbats]

11. Democrats..Repukes always had connections with money..

Harry Truman needed the Tom Pendergast machine to win, did that make him anti-liberal? FDR relied on southern segregationists and even money from bootleggers to win in 1932, did this mean we should have ditched the Democratic Party?

All successful parties accept some degree of corporate money until such contributions are made illegal. When will that happen?

Before becoming interested in politics, I considered myself an independent and wondered why sane people would limit themselves to a single party. My first vote in the primaries gave the answer. Voters must pick which primary to vote in, and who to support in these primaries. Over the years most who vote in the same primary, ultimately identify themselves as loyal partisans.

I considered myself a Democrat..first because I've voted in the Democratic Primaries, secondly I'm liberal on most issues, and finally I find few to no independents or Republicans on the ballot who represent my views. Last November only four Democrats were present on my ballot, even fewer third-party candidates, and the rest were unopposed Repukes! No need to leave a party which is already dead, now is the time to build a new party..why not make it a party for democracy?

[Guaranteed]

12. Yes.

Right on, Bob.

[Lexingtonian]

13. create your own sub-party, aka 'caucus'

I've been looking at the same thing, though I'm not fool enough to want to organize it around nonproductive resentment politics.

After years and years of this thing about corporations, I still don't get the point of some kind of puritanism about taking their money and a certain amount of consideration of their interests. If you are earnestly part of running this country, corporations are unambiguous parts of the society and a major part of the configuration of the economy. Like it or not, the large majority of jobs and endeavors engaged in in the society are dependent on their balance sheets showing enough dollars coming in.

Of course I know what you "really mean" by your stance and claims, but your problem is not corporations or 'corporate money'. The problem is the imbalance of rights and privileges that grossly and offensively favors predatory economic behavior and gives too much power (which converts to wealth) to the managerial and (stock) ownership class.

The truth is that the Republican Party can't afford to lose any bloc of its voters, either. I don't get the simpleminded 'handbasket' theology being preached here about the Democratic Party, and nearly 7 million more Democratic voters than in 2000 looks to me like progress. Not enough progress, but progress nonetheless. And any objective analysis says that Nader voters were essentially social conservatives or social moderates- not the stuff a serious progressive movement is made of. There simply is no other way of any seriousness to that than through the Democratic Party, whatever the pretensions otherwise.

[no name no slogan]

18. It's already happening-- visit www.pdamerica.com

The Progressive Democrats of America is an umbrella group for all the state progressive caucuses which have formed in the last year. Most of these groups grew from the Kucinich and Dean campaign organizations-- however, they also have members who supported other candidates in the primaries, too.

Check it out...

[Blue-Jay]

14. Great. You can start by running for a local office.

Let us know how that goes.

[blm]

16. Assinine approach. The GOP will STILL control media and voting machines

and YOU want the left to have LESS money to put out ads which will be the ONLY way to pass any truth on the issues.

By buying into the absurd notion that the Dems are as dirty as the Republicans you are GUARANTEEING that the media and voting machines will NOT be an issue.

[kwolf68]

17. Corporate influence bad

We should not lump every single “corporation” together.

Otherwise, Corporations exist for one reason: To make money, and lots of it. The quickest way to this excess money is by passing the cost of production onto society. That is why corporations hate things like labor laws, consumer laws, truth in advertising laws, environmental laws, etc. If a corporation can produce a widget at 5% of the normal cost by polluting our rivers, destroying our ozone, and exploiting third world children then THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL DO.

When they get together in a boardroom and put up PowerPoint presentations, execs do NOT put pictures of genetic defects their soot causes, they don’t put pictures of “labor camps” in some small Asian village to show why their decisions to externalize costs is a “bad” decision. NO, they put up HOW MUCH MONEY they can make if they do this. If it makes money, it’s a “good” decision.

This Party should never become captive to this thought process.

Corporations that are publicly traded are even worse, because they are NOT responding to a consumer market necessarily. They are responding to an investment market that will go belly up on them the minute after a NON-GROWTH quarter is realized. This inspires the corporation to sell off valuable assets, to drop LONG TERM investment, and to lay off employees.

Corporations are able to concentrate an immense amount of wealth, money and power in a very few hands. The existence of the corporation is then to perpetuate itself and its amassing of unthinkable wealth. You add this to the insidious Supreme Court decision in 1886 that gave Corporations “personhood” with the same rights (but not the same responsibilities) and you have a recipe for disaster.

With so much at stake, it stands to reason these behemoths will then infiltrate government either by simply having their advocates take up residence in the current government (such as the case today) or to simply make it impossible for politicians to reject the corporate agenda because of how much money corporations give to these people.

And after our politicians are rendered impotent, there is but one vehicle left to castrate: The media. If politicians aren’t creating legislation to protect the powerless and instruct corporations to play by the rules, the media can SHOW US what the nefarious practices result from bad government. However, if the media is OWNED by the same corporations with a financial stake in exploitation, what do YOU think will happen? And this has happened. I guarantee you within the next 4 years there will be a major environmental disaster (either mountain top coal, oil drilling, nuclear, etc) and the media may cover it, but under the guise of “just an accident” and do nothing to investigate the shoddy regulation and legislation that lead us to that point. Outside of that, they will likely roll out Michale Jackson or Lacey Peterson type stories to essentially snuff out the REAL NEWS.


Instead of appealing to the far-right wing nut voters, maybe we can figure out how to inspire the NON-VOTERS. Why does no one talk about them? They aren’t obviously inspired to go out and vote when we start thumping bibles at each other, waging pre-emptive and illegal wars, and boasting with sanctimonious morality.

Maybe a true movement of progressive values will get these people involved in the process. I don’t believe that movement of progressive values will come from the Democratic Party…Oh, there are pockets there and I think given the right circumstances you would see the Democratic Party become the idealistic, visionary party it once was, but if it begins to wage its political assault on behalf of those without voice and that without power, it will lose…because people without voice or power don’t contribute that much.

At this point, I don’t know what I plan on doing concerning which Party I will support. I almost feel like I should put my money into the Green Party, because if nothing else that sends a message to the Democratic Party. If the Democrats continue to pander to right-wing talking points, thumping bibles, waging wars, fornicating with corporations and I still give them money, then I am telling the Democratic Party I support what they are doing, and quite frankly I DO NOT support it.

Outside of that, if I give ANY money to Democratic Party people, it will be individual representatives that best reflect my values, however, the Democratic establishment won’t get another nickel of my money if they continue their march to the right.

[no name no slogan]

19. Why should I leave MY party? They're the ones who took it over

Leaving the Democratic Party just because a group of corporatists are dominating it makes as much sense as moving out of your house because a burglar broke in.

The Democratic party is OUR party as much as it is theirs. Why should we forfeit all the effort we (and our ancestors) put into it over the last century, just because we don't like the current leadership?

We have just as much right to is as they do-- and we've been here longer, too.

The Democratic Party has always valued working people over big business. It's OUR house-- the corporatists are just squatting in the garage.

[kwolf68]

20. Not bad

Not a bad take. But this movement only works if we CAN wrest control back from the corporatists.

Can we? How do we get new leaders?

Public financing of campaigns is out the door, so for the time being dirty money will fuel our politics and a party that has accomplished so much great for this country, the world, and humanity.

Still, I will not accept further movement to the right. NONE. I left that side years ago because I learned what fueled it, why it was what it was, the explanations and justifications, and the hypocrisy of that movement.

I simply believe the Conservative ideology as it is presently promoted is a decrepit, evil, disturbing ideology and any movement toward it means I check out. If we can get control of the Democratic Party and give voice to the left then I’ll hang around.

[no name no slogan]

27. We can-- and we are.

Don't forget, although money is good to have, it still does not make the political world go round.

For example, look at Paul Wellstone. He spent 1/7 the amount his opponent did in 1990, yet he still won. Why?

1) He was able to connect the party to the grassroots social justice activists. The social justice crowd has been notoriously wary of major-party politics, although they have very good grassroots-organizing instincts. Paul tapped into this group of anti-war, anti-poverty and anti-racist groups and used their efforts to get his network organized.

2) He was forthright and honest about where he stood on the issues. Even people who disagreed with him 90% of the time voted for him, because they knew they could trust him to stay true to his beliefs.

3) He had a vast grassroots network of people who were willing to put their sweat into his campaign. He had experienced grassroots activists working for him, who also helped train and educate new activists, too. He also listened to his activist base and followed their suggestions. It was truly a ground-up organization.

Simply raising and spending money is not enough. Look at Dean: he had piles of cash going into Iowa, but didn't spend it effectively. He had volunteers from all over the country in Iowa, yet these volunteers somehow didn't connect with enough locals to sway the caucus results.

Kerry had the biggest warchest of any Democrat in the last several election cycles. But even all that money STILL could not win the election for us.

Liberals and progressives can and DO win-- even when they spend less than their opponents. However, they typically don't win by playing by the standard political consultant rulebook.

[kwolf68]

29. Oh I agree with that point

No question, the right person can transcend all the booty corporate American can toss out there.

But, ONCE in power, these people seem to capitulate to their corporate masters. Of course, there are exceptions (Wellstone).

By the way, I did just join the PDA. I haven’t yet donated, because I want to check out more about them, but there is a good point to be made against joining a 3rd Party. As long as the soul of the party is not beyond repair (and I don’t think it is), then I think changing it is a good plan. If we fracture off the Democratic Party then the Republicans will likely rule for the next 20 years and that will be enough time to close the earth out.

Four years will be bad enough, but we can fix it…We are Democrats, we believe anything is possible…Bush will really screw the pooch between now and 2008, but just as happened before, when things got bad Democrats were there to pick it up and move us forward.

That day is due us again as long as we stay the course.

[Sterling]

35. because a burglar broke in

What if that burglar moved in and stole your identity, ran up bills that put you in debt you could never repay went around running people over in your car and it was all legal so the cops would not force him out?

Would you keep living in the house and let the burglar ruin your good name and credit or would you move out get the fuck out and build a new house that is better protected from burglars?

[revree]

21. Join your local PDA or DFA groups

The goal is for progressives to take back the party!

Go to
dfa.org or pda.org

[kwolf68]

22. what

PDA.Org is a pharmaceutical company and dfa.org was a search engine. What the hey

[no name no slogan]

24. Try www.pdamerica.org

That's the site for the Progressive Dems of America

[kwolf68]

26. Ok worked that time

Don't know what the hell I was doing. Whatever, Ill check it out.

I have signed up with them and am on the email list now. I'll donate after I am satisfied with their mission (Havent had a lot of time to digest them yet), but I am very heartened to see Democrats TALKING strongly about peace, abolishment of the death penalty, protecting the environment---these are the things that make me Liberal.

[no name no slogan]

33. Definately get local if you can, too

I'm pretty involved with the MN Progressive Caucus (I host/maintain the website at www.progressivecaucus.net), and I can tell you that we've earned the respect of much of the state party. We were a serious, organized force at our state convention this year in May, and we've only grown since then.

The only way we'll take back the party is from the bottom up. We can't compete with the corporatists with money-- we have to rely on old-fashioned street fighting. Infiltrate the local party infrastructure, get our people into positions of power, and then stear the party back to where it used to live.

That's how we'll do it. And we will succeed, even if it takes some time!

[GOPBasher]

23. I have a better solution: verified voting. nt

[FormerDittoHead]

25. Good idea if it helps force the DLC to get out of bed with corps...

This would be good *IF* it could be used to influence the Democratic party, ie: third party suggestions will only set us back FURTHER...

I agree, however, with the foundation of the idea:

BY THEIR NATURE, BE DEFINITION OF THEIR CHARTERS, the interests of corporations are ADVERSARIAL to the interests of consumers and labor.

[HFishbine]

30. Amen!

Truth!

[yurbud]

31. CONTACT INFO FOR DNC and DLC

DNC
http://www.democrats.org/contact/

DLC

http://www.ndol.org/cobrand/contact_us.cfm


My note to both:

The party is being strangled by corporate interests which keep our elected leaders from honestly dealing with serious problems from drugs to terrorism to health care.

If you don't select someone like Howard Dean for party chair and cut off corporate donors, the party will wither away and die.

I will not financially support the party at a national level unless unequivocal steps are taken to make the party more grassroots and less a hostage to the same interests that give the GOP their marching orders.

As it is, you are quickly becoming the Washington General to the GOP's Harlem Globetrotters.

[kypper]

32. It cannot be done...

The Canadian political scene encourages multiple parties far better than the United States, so as a testing ground for a grey (progressive) party it would be ideal. Unfortunately, the two parties with that sort of direction, the Canadian Action Party and the relatively new Patriot Party of Canada have not exactly had huge successes. It takes corporate levels of money to prove to the public that you're legitimate and not a throwaway vote. Otherwise you're just labelled as kooks, or never likely to get into power, thus not worth the effort. It sounds defeatest, but that's been the response here (I've worked with the latter and spoken with executive members of the previous).

[GreenPartyVoter]

34. Actually we are having some success in Maine in terms of publicly financed

elections. Clean elections here are voluntary at this time, but 3/4 of our state house is filled with people who ran on public monies rather than special interest ones. It is in part due to this system that we are able to have a Green in the legislature.

Instant runoff voting is on the table again, but this particular governor seems to be interested in it, so if we can get the Legislature on board we might get that passed too. With that available, odds are more Greens and other small party and indy candidates will get elected.

------------------------------------------------------------
Help save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why

[blm]

37. Guess what bill Maine adopted? The Clean election bill written by Senators

Kerry and Wellstone and rejected by most of the Senate. Maine was smart enough to adapt it for their state elections.

Kerry would have tried to push it through as president.

[GreenPartyVoter]

38. That was one of my key hopes with him in the Oval office. But, not going

to happen now, so we need to get back to work on this thing from the ground up.

------------------------------------------------------------
Help save our country one town, county, and state at a time!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/electionreform.htm#why