Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: WE ARE THE 83% - Come help us get rid of Citizens United - come to 60 Wall St - Nov 12 - 6PM

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 10, 2011, 5:31 p.m. EST by bensdad (8977)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

We have a large number of great, well thought out, COMPLICATED ideas that will require a huge amount of "selling" and “explanation" and will garner GREAT OPPOSITION.
We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple – and that is popular -
that 83% of Americans already agree on -
that 76% of Republicans already agree on -
that 56% of TP already agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS.
Everybody wins!

Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
“money is not free speech”.

We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – jobs, taxes, infrastructure, Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.

THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, within just 17 months, they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Others were ratified even faster: Eight —took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)

If they could tie the left and right into a success -
If Ohio won. If Arizona won. If Maine won. If Mississippi won - WHY CAN'T WE??????????

I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
Simple is almost always better.
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.

OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.

Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.

I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.



Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

This is the best way to affect change. This protest needs to raise awareness of CU and its damaging affects on our society.

There has recently been legislation for reversing CU (not sure if it's strong enough) as a response to the protest. We need to keep pushing this issue.

Sadly, alot of Americans are unaware of this Court decision and the harmful effects it has on our democracy and our lives. I know this is shocking and appalling, but it is true.

Seems that, in all of their power and infinite wisdom, the main stream media does not choose to talk about this little Supreme Court case very much.

If this protest does not work to inform and educate the broader public of this Court decision - who will?


[-] 0 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

Except were going to be opposed by the collective might of the pols "real" bosses and they will IMO spend whatever it takes to kill any attempt to gut their political power.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

YES! That is why we need your help
The $OBs - koch murdoch etc spent a fortune,
but between the booming voice of OWS and the slimy quality of the R candidates and the sheer ignorance of the TP -
Americans ARE WAKING UP - 83%

Look at the numbers - lets say an average congressman gets 500 letters and emails a day pushing many different issues.
Lets start with 2 people in your district demanding our one issue -
do it or I won't vote for you - an anti-CU amendment,
and each of them get 2 more to send a letter the next day,
and each of them get 2 more to send a letter the next day
and each of them get 2 more to send a letter the next day......................
day 1 2 letters
day 2 4 letters
day 3 8 letters
day 4 16 letters
day 5 32 letters
day 6 64 letters
day 7 128 letters
day 8 256 letters
day 9 512 letters
day 10 1024 letters
day 11 2048 letters
day 12 4096 letters...................................................

Ohio fought the $OBs and won
Maine fought the $OBs and won
Arizona fought the $OBs and won
Mississippi fought the $OBs and won
America is waking up!
Lets give them a cup of coffee and get them moving to ACTION!
Why can't we? Why can't you?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Citizen's United was all about the right of a non-profit to use electronic means - paid for cable TV - to broadcast a video that portrayed Hilary in a negative light. I feel conservative organizations should have the legal right to do that. You're all obama dogs masquerading as real people.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

wake up - the CU case was about that BUT the CU decision allows anyone - human - or company - profit or not - to give any amount to pollute the system In stead of telling us which politicians you are afraid of - O + H -
why dont you have the courage to tell us who you WILL vote for?

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

It absolutely does NOT. You need to read and study the decision.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

from the "commies" at the NYTimes -
readm and weep

THE DECISION: The majority opinion, authored by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)'s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary.

I'm sure kochs + murdoch did not need to "study" this -
they just popped the cork on some vintage champagne and started writing checks - will you get one ?

And who are you voting for? or did you forget the question? like Ricky did?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Not only have I read this before, I've read and studied the entire 183 page decision. Corporations have a right to use electronic means to publicly broadcast within 30 days of an election. Deny this right and no political party, no news station, no non-profit, no corporation whatsoever will be permitted to broadcast an opinion about anything political. Implicit in this is the requirement for disclosure.

This was a non-profit that was simply trying to say that Hilary is a crook (using electronic means within 30 days of an election). Well, we're sorry if it upset the Dem party but it's legal to do that in America. Who am I voting for? Well, it won't be Obama. And don't blame that one on me; I was hoping the guy would save America.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

This is splitting hairs. CU, Buckley v Valeo and others, have had the effect of drowning out the speech of average citizens. Unless you are the 1% that has the luxury of buying your representation in government, what is your argument? Are you saying that our monied political process is working just fine?

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

I'm saying that all should have the right to freely associate and express an opinion within 30 days of an election, electronically. This includes political parties, news casts, non-profits... including OWS... all are corporations. I do not want the political voice stifled. It's only 183 pages, plus whatever further research is necessary. Read it.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 12 years ago

I'll have to find a way to survive on the cliff note version. I have a life.

I'm not in favor of stifling political voices. But I'm also not in favor of being bombarded with unlimited, grotesque amounts of spending to do so. With the winner of the election going to the highest campaign spending machine.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 12 years ago

Obama will be the first billionaire President in history.