Democratic Revolution vs. Corporate Rule: It’s Up To Us!

Presentation in Iowa City, Iowa, December 2, 2018

Advertisements

Move to Amend interviews

Conducted in Des Moines, Iowa on December 6.

7 minutes

 

18 minutes

Round 2 of tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations

More Monahan March pictures

Round 2 of tax cuts for the super wealthy and corporations passed the House. Call your Senators. People power must counter the power of corporations and super wealthy via their political campaign “donations” — which are more like political investments — and damn profitable ones. This will continue and we’ll be on the defensive — responding, reacting and resisting — forever and ever so long as corporations possess inalienable constitutional rights of persons AND as long as money spent in elections is protected as First Amendment free speech. Did I say forever and ever? Yup. Forever and ever. That is until we end it via the We the People Amendment abolishing corporate constitutional rights and money as free speech. So what are we waiting for?

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/03/under-cover-kavanaugh-republicans-passed-huge-tax-cuts-wealthy

#WethePeopleAmendment

#MovetoAmend

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/03/under-cover-kavanaugh-republicans-passed-huge-tax-cuts-wealthy

Free speech math

Money-is-Free-Speech-SHUT-UP

Several conservative websites are abuzz over the charge that there were protesters at the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination hearings this week. Several individuals claim they saw individuals who had been arrested for speaking out inside the hearings being handed cash outside the hearing on the street.

One of the eyewitnesses claimed that he spoke to one of the protest organizers who confirmed giving money to those arrested to pay court fines. It could also have been to compensate the individuals for taking off work. Either way, the conclusion was that the Kavanaugh protests weren’t legitimate.

Opposition to Kavanaugh, of course, is quite legitimate by many people for any reasons. A recent ABC/Washington Post poll shows Kavanaugh having the third-lowest support of any nominee to the Supreme Court in the poll’s history.

There are also legitimate questions about how legitimately objective if confirmed Kavanaugh would be if Donald Trump is indicted on any number of possible charges under the Mueller investigation. Kavanaugh was, after all, Trump’s choice. Though not atop the list of candidates recommended by the Federalist Society, he just so happened to be the only candidate with a solid record of opposing Presidents being prosecuted while in office. Just a coincidence no doubt.

It’s not a stretch to conclude that those who support Kavanaugh are the most upset about the “paid protesters” at the hearings.

But there’s a huge double standard here.

Kavanaugh’s record is clear in questioning the constitutionality of political candidate contribution limits, limitations affirmed in the Buckley v Valeo 1976 Supreme Court decision. Kavanaugh also is a big fan of the 2010 Citizens United v FEC Supreme Court case. Both cases legitimize political campaign spending as being equivalent to political free speech (i.e. money equals speech).

Kavanaugh has also expressed openness to foreign “dark money” political spending. In a 2011 case, Blumen vs FEC, he wrote an opinion upholding a ban on foreign political spending to candidates and campaigns. His opinion, however, excludes foreign spending on “issue ads” (i.e. political ads designed to influence an election without explicitly supporting or opposing any candidate), which can originate from corporations, wealthy individuals and even foreign governments. The sanctioning of foreign-funding of such ads is extremely troubling at a time when U.S. intelligence agencies and others claim Russians were involved in influencing the 2016 elections.

What’s the point of all of this, especially as it relates to paid political protesters?

Simple. As in simple math. Call it “free speech math.”

If “money equals speech” (A = B), then “speech equals money” (B = A).

Translation: protesters who speak out should be paid.

If corporations and the super wealthy can bankroll political attack ads (many of which are done without knowing the sources of the funding, thus the moniker “dark money”), then why the heck can’t protesters be paid for, well, exercising their free speech? During the Kavanaugh hearing. During city council meetings. When protesting on the street. The list is endless. Makes just as much sense as money being defined not as property but as political free speech!

The same people who are outraged about paying people to protest at the Kavanaugh hearing (who all show their faces and will reveal their identities when paying fines) should be much more outraged about the flood of money in our political system which has has been constitutionally shielded by previous Supreme Courts as protected “free speech.” These huge amounts of political cash amount to legalized bribery and results in the drowning out of the voices of the vast majority of people who aren’t investing in political campaigns. The magnitude of the two different forms of “paid speech” isn’t remotely close.

Those who proclaim that paying protesters isn’t legitimately democratic should not only more loudly assert but take action against the ever-growing tsunami of political money from corporate entities and the super duper wealthy flooding our political system as a massive threat to whatever is left of our democratic republic.

Which it is.

Which is why the solution in the short run is to oppose Brett Kavanaugh.

Move to Amend (MTA) supports a constitutional amendment to end political money defined as free speech and corporations in all their forms being anointed with constitutional rights (what many call “corporate personhood.”)

MTA has sent an Open Letter to every member of the Senate stating its objections to his confirmation. MTA has also prepared a questionnaire for US Senators to ask focused on his beliefs about corporate constitutional rights. Forward it to your Senators and request they ask Kavanaugh for his responses.

Please do all you can to oppose the Brett Kavanaugh nomination…whether you’re paid to do it or not.

If You Could Amend the Constitution

Screen Shot 2018-07-13 at 12.43.01 PM

The New York Times asked readers to submit suggestions for amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Those printed were on July 7 at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/07/opinion/constitution-amendments.html

My submission below was not among them….

To the Editor,

Corporations and the wealthy have hijacked the Revolution’s goal of replacing King George with We the People as the sovereign power.

Move to Amend’s “We the People Amendment,” H.J.R 48 with 58 Congressional cosponsors, declares our independence from corporate rule and the wealthy by establishing that only human beings possess inalienable constitutional rights and money isn’t free speech and can be regulated in elections.

Corporations were originally subordinate to people through state charters. Activist courts came to the rescue by anointing them with never-intended constitutional 1st, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights, as well as protections under the Commerce and Contracts clauses. Money in elections has also been largely shielded from democratic regulation. The impact has been the buying of elections and the overturning of democratically enacted laws protecting communities, workers, consumers, family farms and the environment.

A legitimate democratic republic is impossible when corporations and money possess constitutional rights.

Greg Coleridge
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
Outreach Director, Move to Amend

Remarks at Uniting Families Rally

ICE Facility / Brooklyn Heights, OH
June 28, 2018
Greg Coleridge, Move to Amend Outreach Director

36027134_2138856756349549_7190800913169121280_n

We are here to affirm Dignity, respect and humanity of all people. Immigrants are human beings — not aliens, criminals, animals. Dehumanizing people legitimizes violence and injustice toward those same people.

Immigration is a challenge, not a crisis

Between 1983 and 2006, according to the Border Patrol, the United States apprehended roughly one million—and sometimes as many as 1.5 million—undocumented immigrants per year along America’s southwest border. In fiscal year 2016, it was 408,000—less than half the number in 2009. In fiscal year 2017 (the first year under Trump), the figure plunged even lower: to 304,000.

Migrants who come are coming:
– To escape violence-plagued nations like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador — some of that caused by US policies that supported authoritarian leaders. Gangs, too, that threatened young people. Parents shipped them to US to survive.
– To escape harsh economic conditions, some of which caused by NAFTA which favored US farmers over Mexican farmers — who lost their farms and decided to come to US to work as migrant farmers

So if invasion of immigrants is not happened, what are the Trump administration’s motives for harsh treatment of immigrants at border and across country?

4 motives:

1. Play to Trump base, fan hysteria and fear – populism requires movement. Fear of immigrants, people of color, Muslims — nonwhites are convenient targets (“the other”).

2. Distract attention from policies, programs and investigations that hurt most people or shed light on what’s going on. Invasion of immigrants on border, black NFL players disrespecting the flag and dangerous Muslims entering the country engender fear and distract attention away from lies, broken promises, unjust policies, etc (i.e. border wall paid by Mexico, negotiating NAFTA, Russian investigation, tax reform that benefited wealthy, cutting heath care, bloated military budget, gutting the social/economic safety net, elimination of environmental protections, Stormy Daniels, etc.)

3. Militarization of society – police, secret service, military budget, borders (ICE). ICE has a long history of being abusive and unaccountable – from deliberately separating families to engaging in racial profiling and warrantless searches. It has also been the subject of more than 1,200 complaints of sexual and physical abuse since its inception in 2003.

4. Expand corporate profits – spend our tax money on corporate run prisons/detention facilities.
Zero tolerance, separation of families, indefinite detentions policies: not only play to Trump racist base, but are big business — not multimillion but billion dollar

– The Southwest Key Programs has won at least $955 million in federal contracts since 2015 to run shelters and provide other services to immigrant children in federal custody. Its shelter for migrant boys at a former Walmart Supercenter in South Texas has been the focus of nationwide scrutiny, but Southwest Key is but one player in the lucrative, secretive world of the migrant-shelter business. About a dozen contractors operate more than 30 facilities in Texas alone, with numerous others contracted for about 100 shelters in 16 other states. History of abuse [Source: http://inthesetimes.com/article/21234/private-prison-trump-family-separation-immigration-ice%5D

– Geo Group PAC and executives are major political contributors (tens of thousands of dollars) to Texas Congresspersons who support constructing more private detention facilities.

-Privatization transportation – General Dynamics and MVM, a longtime contractor for ICE and the U.S. Marshals. MVM has earned close to $200 million since 2014 for transportation services. CSI Aviation also charters a number of flights for deportation, under the banner “ICE Air.”

-Somebody has to finance all this activity, and that predictably falls to the big banks. A 2016 In The Public Interest report identified Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, BNP Paribas, U.S. Bancorp, Wells Fargo and SunTrust Bank as the primary lenders to private prison companies Geo Group and CoreCivic, providing $900 million in lines of credit for real estate financing and other business operations.

[Source: http://inthesetimes.com/article/21234/private-prison-trump-family-separation-immigration-ice%5D

What do we do?

1. Call Congress – Abolish ICE
Rep : 202-224-3121 / Portman, (216) 522-7095 / Brown, (216) 522-7272

Message: Every member of our community deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.
That’s why, as someone who cares about human rights, I urge you to take immediate steps to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
ICE has a long history of being abusive and unaccountable – from deliberately separating families to engaging in racial profiling and warrantless searches. It has also been the subject of more than 1,200 complaints of sexual and physical abuse since its inception in 2003. Funding this agency makes you – and all taxpayers – complicit in its human rights violations.
Diversity is a strength of our communities, and our immigration policies should reflect that. I call on you to abolish ICE and end its cruelty.

2. Tell Congress: restore Community Supervision program. Asylum seekers showed up for their proceedings at rates of between 97 and 99 percent

3. Address issue of violence in Central America

4. End unfair trade practices in Mexico – NAFTA

5. End corporate personhood / money as speech.

 

 

 

The Pushback Against Ending Corporate Rule

end-800x445

By   

https://www.opednews.com/articles/2/The-Pushback-Against-Endin-by-Greg-Coleridge-Change_Corporate-Constitutional-Rights_Corporate-Courts_Corporate-Personhood-180604-680.html