Time to end the romance?

The reason you’re looking at this right now on a high speed network that doesn’t cost so much that only rich people could afford it can be traced to the breakup by the federal government of AT&T way back in the Stone Age of the 1980s.

I think it’s time for some more break ups, and this is why Elizabeth Warren has my attention.

Elizabeth Warren
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Scott Olso/Getty Images)

 

I was “there” in the 1980s when AT&T was broken apart. Thanks to that action, I spent a large part of my early career working for new competitors who never could have come into being without the forced breakup of AT&T’s monopoly.

In Warren, I see someone with the courage to go after rich and powerful corporations. I applaud her for that, and for making this a visible plank in her campaign.

There is a fundamental truism about monopolies that everyone should understand and that everyone should talk about when it comes to conversations about the balance between capitalism and so-called free markets, and the role of oversight and regulation government is supposed to play. That truism is this.

Monopolies are terrible for everyone except for the people who own them and run them.

Monopolies have zero incentive to innovate. Why would they invest any profits into innovation when the market has no alternative but to use their goods and services?

Monopolies have zero incentive to offer their goods and services at competitive prices. Same rhetorical question as before tells you why this is true.

Monopolies have zero incentive to be good corporate citizens. Do I need to say it again?

And, no, you don’t have choices. Choice is an illusion. Just ask George Carlin or the Merovingian.

By definition, monopolies mean you have no choice but to use whatever they offer at whatever price they choose, and in whatever manner in which they choose to operate.

Ok. Fine. You can choose not to participate at all in the market they rule, but understand this reality, too. A monopoly cannot arise unless they offer something people want or need; otherwise, no one would be in that market.

And, yes, I suppose you can choose to chuck it all and move to Alaska or Belize or some off-the-grid locale. May not be a bad idea. Hell, maybe you can even sell the rights to your own “reality” show to those empty-headed nitwits at The Discovery Channel. Watch out, Swamp Loggers.

Seriously, I hope people will think about what’s been happening when it comes to corporate power and influence, especially during conversations with people who complain about, scoff at, or mock Elizabeth Warren and people like her who are now calling for this era’s tech giants – and big banks – to be broken up.

That’s advice for my fellow tech business people, too. Put greed and every last nickle of profit as the goal aside, and think long-term and for the greater good on this.

As for politicians, Democratic Party apparatchiks, and industry groups, we can expect to hear from the likes of Rob Atkinson, the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, and Ed Black, president of Computer and Communications Industry Association, whine and wail and gnash their teeth over Warren’s plan. They’re shills for big money; it just happens to be Big Tech Money, and not Big Oil Money or Big  Bank Money. It’s still Big Money

There are no shortage of articles on Warren and this topic. Here’s one from the Washington Post in which the aforementioned group leaders are quoted.

“Does Elizabeth Warren’s breakup plan for the tech giants mark the end of a political romance?”

Certain liberals and progressives nowadays have no shortage of litmus tests they seem to relish in applying to every candidate.

It will be interesting to see how they test for the idea of breaking up with Silicon Valley and their money.

 

Parties, primaries, processes, and paying for democracy

This article from April by Ezra Klein in Vox, “This presidential campaign is developing a legitimacy problem,” is worth reading even though it’s now July.

Bernie future

The videos with it were helpful, too. I especially liked the explanation about why we don’t have a single day for primaries – something I’ve always wondered about.

Seems to me that issue rests at the feet of this anachronistic idea called state’s rights. To the point about a lack of national standards made by a friend of mine, when political parties in 52 jurisdictions get to make up their own rules, why would we expect anything but chaos, corruption, and questionable outcomes? I think we need national standards like single-day primaries and the ‘retirement’ of caucuses – another anachronistic idea that serves to exclude more Americans than it includes.

Tax Status of Parties and the Cost of Elections

I found this article, “Tax-Exempt Political Parties Have Money and Resources to Keep Elections Rigged,” from IVN while researching the question of the tax status of political parties. It’s from 2014. Political parties are, according to IVN, non-profit 527s, not for-profit corporations. Perhaps there was a time when they were for-profit? I’m asking because I don’t know.

Another point made in this IVN piece that I hadn’t really considered before is just the straight-up “operational” costs to have polling places.

Candice Nelson, a professor with American University’s government department, balks when asked whether states should do anything to restrict funding, tax-exempt or not.

“[I]t costs money to put on elections — to have a voting booth and have a place to go and vote,” Nelson said. “I don’t think it’s unreasonable for states to pay for the funding of those elections.”

The quote got me thinking about the costs that go into making it possible for us to cast our vote, and that includes campaigning and primaries.

It does cost money, and I do see elections as a function of the public sector that benefits the public good. I think the process should be funded by taxpayers, even those who choose not to participate. That’s their choice. (I’ll get to open vs closed primaries next.)

What I am totally against is privatizing anything that has to do with our electoral process, and that includes how political parties are funded, how campaigns are funded, and how the electoral process itself is funded. Privatizing any (more!) of that would, it seems to me, only strengthen the grip of power those with all the money have already over us and our politicians.

IVN t-shirtPublic service announcement:
I’d like to encourage everyone to kick a few bucks to IVN as I just did and have done in the past. I have the t-shirt to prove it.  😉

Primaries

As for open vs closed primaries, I admit to being more for closed primaries under the current process because I tend to think that a party’s members should be the people who choose who represents their party. This is where I’m admittedly not aligned 100% with IVN.

I don’t see primaries as the election. I see primaries as the means by which parties choose whom they wish to represent them. While IVN’s arguments do hold up that, for all intents-and-purposes under the present system, primaries serve in a big way as proxies for the actual election, they are not, in my mind, actually that. Here’s why.

Some people I know will tell you that they plan to cast their vote outside the two parties in November because they don’t like either candidate. If that’s the course they choose to follow because their candidate didn’t get enough support within a respective party, then they still have that as their prerogative.

I also think under the current system that closed primaries are the best way to keep people from rigging the outcomes even more perversely than is claimed that they are today. Democrats don’t want Republicans showing up to cast a ballot in the Democratic primary, and vice versa, just as Greens and Libertarians probably don’t want Democrats and Republicans despoiling their selection processes.

For a really interesting review of primaries in the U.S., see this Wikipedia page, Primary elections in the United States. Per this page, there are only 11 states that have closed primaries.

Now, as I see it, if we had single-day open primaries, then I think these problems are mostly solved. Bear in mind that nothing is perfect; however, under this scenario, everyone can vote, they all do so on the same day so crossing-over is reduced, and unaffiliated voters can participate but, as in any election, only a single vote gets cast. I’d also turn this whole electoral process, primary and general, into instant-runoff voting so that a second, third, and even fourth choice actually has a chance to win.

What I am absolutely all for is more parties. Figuring out how to fund parties seems like the thorniest problem to resolve. I don’t claim to have any answers. I sometimes think publicly funded elections are the best way to go, but then the question becomes how to distribute public funds to the parties? Is it relative and based on size of membership, or is it a flat amount? Then it feels like we’re right back to the question of party membership and open vs closed primaries.

Why have parties at all?

I think it’s human nature. We are not individuals. We are social animals who instinctively, emotionally, and for all kinds of practical reasons need each other to survive. As such, we’re going to coalesce into groups, and groups tend to take positions for or against all sorts of things based on what the group’s individuals collectively want, need, and believe. I think this “for or against” human tendency explains a lot about why there are only two major parties with lots of less popular and less populated parties who haven’t gotten traction. Most people don’t want to be in a group with little to no power and influence.

There’s no question that our political system is clearly broken and rigged to favor the present duopoly. I firmly believe that we need a different way of running our campaign, electoral, and political processes. As those who know me know, I’ve been advocating for years for ideas like the American Anti-Corruption Act and for the work that the people like Represent.Us and MayDay.us are doing on this issue. I support them along with the Independent Voter Network, and hope that everyone reading this will, too.

Future generations will ask what the f*ck were you thinking

Sanders in VT

Its analysis of the top 100 donors, Politico explains, includes “contributions to super PACs through the end of 2015 that were disclosed to the Federal Election Commission, combined with analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and an estimate of average small donation size ― $75 ― calculated by the Campaign Finance Institute. The analysis doesn’t include money donated to nonprofit groups that don’t disclose their donors ― including groups set up to support Rubio, Bush and Clinton ― nor does it include donations to super PACs funneled through shell companies or other nonprofits in a way that avoids FEC disclosure.” (1)

Let that last part really sink in.

“….nor does it include donations to super PACs funneled through shell companies or other nonprofits in a way that avoids FEC disclosure.”

Avoids FEC disclosure. How the hell can anyone be ok with that? How?

If you’re not infuriated and outraged by this, I’d like to know why.

How can any of us be supportive of a system in which the wealthiest among us can both openly AND SECRETLY spend millions to buy our democracy the way you and I buy groceries?

How can any of us support any candidate who takes that money and who will, regardless of their claims to the contrary, kowtow to the desires of those writing those checks?

There’s only one candidate – one – who is truly fighting for us and against the status quo of Big and Dark Money.

No, it’s not Trump.

trump bankruptcyHe’s a showman, a carnival barker, a (non)reality TV show host, a four-time loser as a business leader, and the greatest narcissist the world has ever seen. What he is most is an embarrassment to America. I don’t know how they’ll do it, but I don’t envy his supporters trying to answer the question they’ll have to answer for future generations.

“What the fuck were you thinking?”

Thanks solely to the Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices, the political Miracle Grow of Big and Dark Money unleashed by the Citizens United and McCutcheon rulings have corrupted our democracy and put our entire political system from top to bottom up for sale to the richest among us.

Partisan SCOTUS Justices on CU and McCutcheon

If you don’t see the truth in that, it’s because you refuse to look at the facts openly and honestly.

This is not about opinions. This is not about “different perspectives.” This about facts.

Sanders is the only real candidate who is not taking Big and Dark Money and who actually gives a shit about actual people.

It’s now up to each of us to decide where we stand this primary season and in the general.

With Trump? With Cruz? With Rubio? With Hillary?

They’ve all been bought. The best way to fight back is to vote against them.

Vote for yourself. Vote for Bernie. He’s the only one on our side; the side of all 99-percenters.

(I started this post today before the news that Antonin Scalia was found dead. The carnival that is the Republican Congress must be licking their chops over how obstructionist they will be over whomever Obama decides to nominate.)

———

(1) “While Mega-Donors Average $1,950,000… Average Sanders Donation Still Just $27”, Jon Queally, Common Dreams

Only #Sanders has any credibility on controlling Wall Street and reforming campaign financing

There is only one candidate for president with any credibility when it comes to reining in Wall Street and doing something to end the corrupting influence that Big and Dark Money have over our elected officials.

Compare Bernie

As terrible as right-wing and ultra-conservative ideology is for everyone (including the ‘true believers’ who live with the rest of us 99-percenters), the problem of corruption that comes from unlimited and unregulated money that floods our democracy is one that can actually be solved now if we elect the right people.

http://anticorruptionact.org/

Model legislation exists. See the American Anti-Corruption Act.

 

What can we do?

  • First, get registered if you aren’t and vote in the primaries for Sanders.
  • Second, vote for him in the General.
  • Third and perhaps most importantly, vote Republicans out of every other office on the ballot.

Every. Single. One.

No, Democrats aren’t pure and innocent on the issue of money. Hillary is the largest recipient in pretty much every way, but understand this.

This isn’t about her, and money is absolutely corrupting Republicans in ways that result in far worse outcomes for everyone, economically and socially.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Republican presidential candidates get….

  • 62.6% of all Commercial Bank contributions
  • 70.4% of all Hedge Fund & Private Equity contributions
  • 74.7% of Insurance
  • 88.1% of Oil & Gas
  • 58.6% of Pharma
  • 65.2% of Securities & Investment

….and the list goes on.

Who is the most responsible for our economic woes? See above.

The real icing on the cake is how we got to this sorry state. The single biggest reason is given to us courtesy of the Supreme Court.

The only Supreme Court Justices who ruled for Big Money in the Citizens United and McCutcheon cases were those appointed by a Republican president.

Sanders is the only one talking about overturning these decisions as a condition for any appointments he’d make.

How much more convincing will it take to reach our fellow 99-percenters who prefer Hillary or who think that they’re Republicans?

95 percent