Coffee Party Nation's blog

by SHELI DELANEY, Coffee Party Cincinnati

Cincinnati, we need your help!

In overwhelming vote of 35-1 State Senate
calls for Constitutional amendment to restore self-governance

BOSTON – The Massachusetts State Senate today passed a resolution calling on the United State Congress to enact a federal Constitutional Amendment to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and restore fair elections and constitutional rights to the people.

The State Senate passed its resolution by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 35 to 1, with all Republicans joining all but one Democrat in approving it.  Attention now turns to the House as the end of the legislative session approaches.

The 2010 Citizens United decision overturned decades-old laws restricting corporate expenditures, ruling that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The decision dramatically expanded the fabricated “corporate rights” doctrine and has unleashed a flood of corporate money into federal, state, and local elections.

“The Citizens United decision dramatically dilutes the voice of every American who does not control a large corporate treasury,” said Sen. Jamie Eldridge, the original sponsor of the bill. “The health of our democracy and the integrity of our political system are at stake, and I am proud of the Senate for passing this resolution today and sending a strong message that our democracy isn't for sale."

In the wake of the Citizens United decision, campaign spending by outside groups has skyrocketed. In the 2010 election cycle, the first since the Supreme Court decision, outside groups spent nearly $300 million.

“The fundamental question facing the nation today is whether people or corporations shall govern in America,” said John Bonifaz, the co-founder and director of Free Speech For People, a national campaign launched on the day of the Citizens United ruling to press for an Amendment to the Constitution to overturn the ruling and make clear that corporations are not people with constitutional rights. “With the strong bipartisan passage of this resolution, Massachusetts will help to lead the way in restoring American democracy to the people,” Bonifaz said.

Super PACs have emerged as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, amassing huge amounts of money used for attack ads, such as those aired this past spring during the Republican presidential candidate primaries. Super PACs are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the 2012 elections, breaking all previous records.

“Big corporations aren’t run by the 99 percent – or even by the 1 percent. Rather, they are run by a super-wealthy 0.01 percent,” said Avi Green, Executive Director of MassVOTE. “Politics should be for all of us – not just the super-wealthy and the big corporations they control. Kudos to the Senatefor recognizing this and supporting this resolution.”

“Massachusetts is a step closer to joining the several states and hundreds of communities nationwide who’ve issued similar resolutions,” said Mark Hays, campaign coordinator for Public Citizen’s Democracy Is For People Campaign. “With leadership from the states, we’re demonstrating that amending the Constitution to challenge the corrosive impacts of money in politics is no pipe dream, but is a mainstream vision for a democracy that serves the people, not giant corporations.”

Cities and towns across the nation have voted on similar measures. In Massachusetts, 68 communities have voted in favor of a Constitutional Amendment including Boston, Springfield and Worcester.  If a similar resolution is passed by the House, Massachusetts will join the state legislatures in California, Hawaii, Maryland, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont in voicing their states’ opposition to the decision and support for a Constitutional Amendment to address its ramifications.

“We are delighted that the Senate has taken bipartisan action to address this disastrous decision,” said Pam Wilmot, Executive Director of Common Cause Massachusetts. “A campaign for a Constitutional Amendment is no easy task, but the US Supreme Court left us no choice. Only with a constitutional amendment can we address the problem of money in politics that it, with other decisions, has created. Passing this resolution has put Massachusetts on the forefront of that critical effort, which, as the cradle of liberty, is where we should be.”

"We congratulate the Senate on passage of this resolution, and urge the House to do so as well.  It is past time to limit the impact of large amounts of money, often from donors whose identity is not public, on our elections," said Eva Valentine, president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.

by Mike Massey

The first three episodes of STARTO have a lot of interesting fodder for those of us who like to spend our free time thinking about startups and innovation. I keyed in on three points in particular:

1. Computer-related startups are quick, cheap, and getting cheaper (episode #2)
    
2. Existing venture capital avenues have their limitations in funding both larger and smaller startups (episode #1), but “crowdfunding” presents an interesting alternative for creators, innovators, and entrepreneurs (episode #2)
    
3. Innovation requires the vision to map trends into the future, and a culture that facilitates creativity while aligning with core values that must be communicated by the founders (episode #3)

These days, the word “startup” is usually synonymous with “tech startup” which is really just a euphemism for “computer startup,” whether it’s in the field of software, hardware, networking, mobile, etc. I’d like to spend some time examining the other kind of startups: the non-virtual startups in non-”tech” industries — the startups most people don’t think about, or hear about. In the process, I’d like to introduce some potentially unpopular ideas about the very nature of our system for “innovation” in this country.

Earth Day, Richard Nixon, and energy independence

In 1973, in the wake of the “oil embargo,” President Richard Nixon spoke about the importance of United States energy independence. Every President since has made similar speeches. Though his policies primarily focused on increasing development of US fossil fuels, President Nixon also was cognizant of the role of renewable energy for US energy independence and US national security. Watching footage of Richard Nixon speaking about funding for renewable energy nearly 40 years ago is an eerie experience; President Obama could probably use the same words, unedited, today.

This brings us face-to-face with an uncomfortable truth: in some very important sectors, we just aren’t that good at innovation. We’ve known about the importance of energy to our national security for longer than I’ve been alive, yet our energy supply has undergone very little change in that time. We’re basically doing the same thing humans were doing millennia ago when they learned to harness fire: we’re burning stuff to do work.

Energy alternatives do exist, and there is a lively and active debate on why they don’t figure more prominently in our energy supply. For comparison, it took less than 40 years to go from building ENIAC to playing solitaire on the personal computer. One popular argument is that entrenched, monied interests fight to maintain power and control. Another popular argument is that renewables are simply not economically competitive. That’s not an argument I’d like to (re-)rehash here. Instead, I’d like to look at our current system of “innovation” as it relates to fundamental aspects of our lives, and ask the question: “Can we address tomorrow’s problems with today’s system for funding ‘disruptive’ innovation?” “Disruptive innovation” was defined very nicely in some recently-posted essays on businessman/investor/venture capitalist Peter Thiel’s “startup” class at Stanford: going from “0 to 1”–creating something new, rather than going from “1 to n”–imitating something else. This viewpoint probably makes me somewhat unpopular in Silicon Valley, but I would argue that the current model for innovation is in some cases anti-disruption, and is therefore inadequate to address the challenges of our future.

A new book by green economy pioneer Van Jones hits the stores today on the 44th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Rebuild the Dream updates our national conversation and our approach to rebuilding Dr. King’s Dream and the American Dream in the 21st century.  In the excerpt shared below with permission, Jones suggests a way forward to reclaim, reinvent, and renew the American Dream. Order the book here.

CHEAP PATRIOTS VERSUS DEEP PATRIOTS

The time has come to turn things right side up again and declare that America’s honest, hard-working middle class is too big to fail. The aspirations of our low-income, struggling, and marginalized communities are too big and important to fail. The hopes of our children are too big to fail. The American Dream itself is too big to fail.

And we are not going to let these things fail.

Of course, it will not be easy to stop the dream killers. Tax policy that burdens working families and gives the biggest breaks to the super-rich has helped to keep more and more of our national wealth locked in the private safes of the top 1 percent. This alarming economic polarization, combined with the constant flow of good-paying jobs overseas, threatens to end our status as a middle class nation. Too many of our big banks and largest corporations are behaving in a manner that is both irresponsible and unpatriotic. Their conduct makes it that much worse for the many patriotic and responsible businesses—especially small businesses—that follow the rules and provide good jobs to their employees.

Additionally, many well-intentioned people have been recruited into a powerful crusade—the Tea Party movement—that promises the American people economic relief by slashing taxes and taking a wrecking ball to America’s government. The impact of the Tea Party’s reckless policies would be to financially decimate our government, further dismantle America’s middle class, and strengthen the choke hold that the top 1 percent has on the economy. Nonetheless, the Tea Partiers effectively seized the public narrative in 2009 and congressional power in 2010, quelling the wave of hope generated by the 2008 election. They have succeeded at painting their agenda “red, white, and blue.” If we are to have an economy that works for the remaining 99 percent, this kind of “cheap patriotism” must be sidelined in favor of a “deep patriotism”—one that honors the accomplishments of our parents and grandparents. After all, they used the tools of both free enterprise and democratic government to build a society that sets the global standard. [MORE]