It's time to make our first 3 demands. #OWS

[Blue State Bandit]

Now that the movement has captured the imagination of a plurality of Americans, and public officials have been forced to recognize it's existence, the first of our demands should be put forth for a vote and officially declared. These first demands must be bold as well as realistic. They must be readily implemented; with universal appeal within the growing ranks, as well as reasonably presented. But most importantly, must create a narrative.

My proposed 3:

1) The dismantlement on News Corp and RICO charges against it's executives and other actors involved in their criminal activities.

2) The expeditious break-up of banks involved in both investment and savings style banking and the immediate seizure of assets gained and distributed to executives (in the form of bonuses) through malicious actions (forclosures/inside trading/sub-prime/mortgage backed securities fraud/ect.).

3) The immediate adoption of a verifiable paper ballot system for all federal, state and local elections and roll-back of all voter-suppression legislation passed in all jurisdictions.

These three things are low hanging fruit in the sense that they can be implemented in short order (before 2012 elections). Number 2 may not be completed by this time, but frog marches coupled with solid steps toward this demand could be acceptable.

Most importantly, it will expose those politicians who are against us, and highlight those who are willing to work for the people in the lead up to the 2012 elections.

Maybe we can throw in the impeachment of a couple SCOTUS's and the break-up of Koch industries too.

We may not get any of these things at first, but we will get something more important to the movement at this time. More support on the ground.

[Blue State Bandit]

1. wow. rec'd and unrec'd in 5 minutes.

that was fast.

[Blue State Bandit]

19. This thread must be a THREAT to some lurkers here.

I have watched this thread loose rec's over and over. It was up to 4 yesterday at one point. And I know the one skeptic and one poo-pooer could not muster enough unrec's on there own.

Something is up here.

[Blue State Bandit]

20. Lost another one. I guess DU is now being occupied by the RW.

ulm
----

[Blue State Bandit]

23. Now at zero. This is pathetic.

[LoZoccolo]

58. Maybe people don't like the idea that

the people camping out at the protest have been there for almost a month, have worked hard to build some structure and consensus and to get people to listen, and then someone comes along on the Internet and spends five minutes trying to co-opt the whole thing with his own demands after - and this is important - they have already drawn up their own list.

[SomethingFishy]

59. Holy shit. Hell Freezes Over.

This is the first post I have seen by you that actually makes sense. Congratulations.

[greytdemocrat]

2. Congrats!!!

This is why people make fun of the Left. :eyes:

[Blue State Bandit]

7. And what would your demand be?

"Don't tase me bro!"?

[Township75]

32. That and the fact that he is responding to his own posts.

Go make those demands and see how the ground force "swells".

[gateley]

3. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. nt

[Kingofalldems]

4. K and R to counter sneaky repubs

[KansDem]

5. No "personhood" for corporations!

:woohoo:

[skepticscott]

6. Do you really believe

that corporations do not and should not enjoy 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, even though they are only guaranteed to "the people"?

[Blue State Bandit]

8. Not as a publicly traded company.

[skepticscott]

12. Not all corporations

are publicly traded companies. Some are privately owned and some are non-profit. Democratic Underground is a corporation.

So I'll ask again...do only "the people" enjoy 4th Amendment protections, or do corporations? Do only individuals enjoy 1st Amendment protections?

[Javaman]

24. Frankly, what's been needed for a very long time is a redefining of

what a corporation is. It's certainly not a person, but it certainly is a business of a type.

Let the rules and laws regulating businesses be the rule.

[NeedleCast]

26. Bingo!

[skepticscott]

50. Fine, you knock yourself out

getting them redefined. In the meantime, why don't you answer my questions:

Do only "the people" enjoy 4th Amendment protections, or do corporations as well? Do only individuals enjoy 1st Amendment protections?

[Javaman]

54. I didn't answer your questions because I wasn't the one you asked.

calm down. jesus.

[skepticscott]

56. Hey, you responded to the post

in which they were asked. Give yourself a little mental exercise.

[Javaman]

68. WTF?

I added my two cents and you get pissed at me?

here's some advice, don't skip your meds. It's not helping.

[skepticscott]

72. Here's some real advice

don't try to psychoanalyze people over the internet. You're no Bill Frist. In fact, don't assume you know anything about them at all. Stick to the issues being discussed and you'll do much better.

[KansDem]

9. You do know, of course, that corporations exist through "charters?"

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html

Their charters can be revoked by the state; citizens' rights cannot, therefore corporations are not "people." Why should they "enjoy 4th Amendment protections?"

[Blue State Bandit]

10. Nice.

[skepticscott]

13. Say you direct a non-profit corporation

that advocates for world peace and an end to US military intervention in foreign countries. One day the FBI shows up at your door and declares that they are seizing all of the corporation's records and computers. What do you do?

[Cid_B]

15. It's only for the "bad" ones...

I'm sure a list will be provided in the near future...

[socialist_n_TN]

18. Kind of like the did to the socialist orginization in MN

and Chicago not too long ago?

[Chan790]

52. Turn them over.

NPOs are not people...they don't have rights beyond those exercised explicitly and individually by the membership.

I don't think that could be any clearer.

[skepticscott]

57. Tell that

to the Supreme Court. Or to any news organization. They would not find it nearly as clear as you presume.

[Chan790]

51. I refuse to believe that corporations have the same rights as a person...

until TX executes one.

[skepticscott]

55. Wow....that's really clever

did you think of that one all by yourself? But who has EVER said that corporations enjoy every single one of the rights that individuals do? Hint: No one. They enjoy some of the same rights as individuals, but not all. Do you not think that corporations are protected by the First Amendment?

[Chan790]

67. No, I believe corporations have no rights whatsoever...

except those exercised explicitly and individually by the shareholders.

I've said this now 3x and you keep re-asking the question, let's see if I can state it any clearer:

Corporations don't have rights! No rights whatsoever!

[skepticscott]

73. So media corporations

do not enjoy the right of freedom of the press? Corporations do not enjoy the constitutional right of freedom to contract?

You'd better come down from that ledge before you hurt yourself.

[Chan790]

75. Only their individuals.

People who are members of the press have rights, as citizen journalists, those rights are nearly universal. People on behalf of chartered corporations have the right to contract.

No need to vacate this ledge...John Adams and Thomas Jefferson make good company. They agreed on nothing else in life nearly, they both were skeptical of giving rights to non-individuals and the corruption looming if the strong wall of limitations upon corporations were breached in the slightest.

Corporations are not people, non-people have no rights.

[skepticscott]

76. Nice try, but fail

When the Pentagon Papers case went before the Supreme Court, it was the New York Times that was a party, not any "citizen journalist". When you rent a car or take out a mortgage, you are not making a contract with any particular individual, you are making it with the corporation.

Regardless of how you might like things to be, corporations DO have rights in the world the rest of us live in, and should. Declarations in bold don't change that. And as far as CU is concerned, a finding of "corporate personhood" isn't even necessary. Even if the First Amendment restricted free speech rights to individuals (which it doesn't), by your logic, corporations can't "speak" at all. Only the individuals within a corporation can express political messages, so any restriction on them would still be a violation.

[Merlot]

11. Overturn Citizens United - get money out of politics

[skepticscott]

14. Hate to break it to you

but money was deep in politics long before CU was decided.

[rbnyc]

41. Is that a good reason to make it worse?

I agree, this has been a growing problem for decades, and a big part of the reason we've gotten here in the first place. CU makes it worse. Overturning it is a START.

[skepticscott]

49. Overturning it based on what?

The fact that a lot of people don't like it? What are the constitutional grounds for reinstating restrictions on free political speech?

[rbnyc]

61. Money is not speech.

Oh, and, um…corporations are not people.

http://yubanet.com/usa/Justice-Stevens-Dissenting-Opinion-in-Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.php

Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic.

... The Framers thus took it as a given that corporations could be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare.

Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind. While individuals might join together to exercise their speech rights, business corporations, at least, were plainly not seen as facilitating such associational or expressive ends.

… ("A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it")

… ("The framers of the First Amendment could scarcely have anticipated its application to the corporation form. That, of course, ought not to be dispositive. What is compelling, however, is an understanding of who was supposed to be the beneficiary of the free speech guaranty-the individual"). In light of these background practices and understandings, it seems to me implausible that the Framers believed "the freedom of speech" would extend equally to all corporate speakers, much less that it would preclude legislatures from taking limited measures to guard against corporate capture of elections.

...Today's decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority's agenda over the litigants' submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. ... Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest, along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades.

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. ... At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.;

[skepticscott]

62. Where in CU

or anywhere else has anyone ever said that money and speech were exactly the same thing? Hint: NOWHERE. And yet people like you keep repeating the same silly strawman, because you don;t understand the decision in the first place. The important principle that the decision recognizes is that the ability to raise and spend money is inseparable from the ability to disseminate political messages, and that a restriction on the former is a de facto restriction on the latter. The really funny thing is that everyone who rants about CU implicitly acknowledges this, even if they don't realize it.

Steven's dissent is just so much hand-waving, and so full of flaws that it's getting really tiresome to rebut them over and over again.

[rbnyc]

66. When you asked about reinstating restrictions...

...on speech were CU to be overturned, what were you talking about?

[skepticscott]

71. reinstating the restrictions

that the decision said were unconstitutional.

[rbnyc]

74. I'm just trying to understand you...

...you asked what would be the grounds for reinstating the restrictions on free political speech, but then you wondered how I got the idea that CU was about money as speech. I admit to being confused.

[Merlot]

60. Obviously money has been involved in politics forever.

so, not really a helpful addition to discussion.

[butterfly77]

16. This one is really important to me..

and I wonder why it seem so hard to do for a lot of people

"Most importantly, it will expose those politicians who are against us, and highlight those who are willing to work for the people in the lead up to the 2012 elections."

And why aren't they being followed around throughout the capitol and else where and exposed for what they are/have doing/done make them uncomfortable in their family life just like they are doing to us. If we aren't comfortable then they aren't either.

Some of their base don't even know who they really are and what they really do. Put out info in their home towns with info and pictures..Many have been their for decades destroying many lives..Dirty bastards!!!

[FarLeftFist]

17. All Federal politicians shall only make $75,000/year and have mediocre health benefits.

The President can take home $80,000/yr and have slightly better health benefits.

[Cid_B]

63. Never got this one...

How does making someone's life worse make your life better?

As long as we are all equally miserable?

[pipi_k]

21. What is the motivation

for people who are the targets of these demands to actually capitulate to them?

Is there an "or else" that's going to happen if they don't?

[Blue State Bandit]

22. Run our own candidates. Divest from banks. Mass civil disobedience...

what else do we have?

[pipi_k]

47. I dunno...

I don't see where any of those is going to scare "them" into capitulating.

Which suggests to me that things would have to get dire...full out rioting in the streets...protesters actually taking over Wall Street offices, etc. for anything to change. And even then, who knows if they would.

Those at the top are NOT going to be thrilled about being ousted from their ivory towers and would NOT just pick up their baseball gloves and leave the game.

:shrug:

[NeedleCast]

25. Strange Demands

How does the leadership of OWS suggest we go about them? What legal precedent is there for seizing bank assets? Who will those assets go to? Who do the assets belong to now? Is OWS suggesting that we just take money from the banks...because most of that money belongs to individuals.

Demand number 3 seems to be the most reasonable and one that is practical. Demands one and two are not well formed, don't suggest how to do those things, and sound like wishes, not demands.

I support OWS and the other occupy movements, but so far the lists of demands I've seen are pretty juvenile.

[Blue State Bandit]

29. News Corp is under investigation already.

RICO charges are already being explored and corporate charters can legally be revoked. This is a demand for follow through.

Claw back of bank executive bonuses have already been discussed. I would suggest that funds recovered should be used to aid those most acutely impacted by the actions of the banks that have no other means of survival, and foreclosed properties returned to their former occupants.

What's juvenile about demanding such actions?

As I posted, these are my ideas, and should be taken as suggestions.

Go big or go home.

[NeedleCast]

36. I understand the RICO charges, don't understand the Demand

Who is this demand being made TO? The government? What branch? What do you expect them to do? Demands 1 and 2, as written in your OP, are just random demands to do stuff to the bad guys that they wont like. They are not well articulated. I'm not trying to piss in your Wheaties here, but they sound like they were written by 14 year old's who don't really have an understanding of what they're asking for. If you're going to make a demand that bank assets be seized you'd better provide a lot more information on what you're talking about seizing...because a whole lot of Joe Sixpack citizens have money in those banks and they're going to worry about their ability to access it when you start talking about "seizing assets."

That's why it's juvenile.

You also make your OP sound like you are talking in some official capacity for OWS. It appears you are not.

Go big or go home often ends up with you going home, and gaining nothing. If OWS wants to succeed, they should be thinking "start small, and keep pushing."

[WillowTree]

65. You're kidding, right? Demand #3 doesn't even comport with the Constitution!

[SidDithers]

27. Who appointed you spokesperson for the OWS movement?...

Unrec.

Sid

[Blue State Bandit]

30. WTF? Where does it say I am?

What do you suggest? Or are you just going to sit and do nothing?

[Javaman]

69. I was afraid of this...

the vying for leadership by those who want to remain, "leaderless".

It's typical of all movements.

There will aways be those who think they know better, know what the masses think or believe and those who feel they must be the voice of a "generation".

When in fact, those are the very last people you want speaking for anyone.

[AngkorWot]

28. you're comparing foreclosures to insider trading?

What the fuck do voting systems and supreme court justices have to do with Wall Street?

[Blue State Bandit]

31. Bush, Corporate Personhood, everything.

[AngkorWot]

46. So nothing, in other words.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Only 3? I've got 5, and since I'm generous & magnanimous, I'll share em w/you.

1) Reinstate glass-steagall. End (or at least severely curtail/redefine) corporate personhood. Institute another marginal tax bracket for 7+figure earners per year.

2) Fairness Doctrine

3) Legalize, regulate, and TAX marijuana. NOW.

4) Full marriage equality for all citizens. Single Payer Health Care system to be phased in over the next 9 months.

5) Cut the military budget 50%. De-fund the DEA. Find those people real jobs, preferably peaceful scientific R&D, space exploration, or rebuilding our nation's infrastructure.

6) IMMEDIATELY begin transitioning to a renewable, post-fossil fuel economy. Implement incentives, petroleum taxes, whatever is required to solve the most pressing problem facing our species.




...oh, wait, did I say only 5? Gee, sorry.

[Blue State Bandit]

35. I like.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Full disclosure: I speak only for myself.

and sometimes, I don't even agree with that guy.

[NeedleCast]

37. Ability to Stay On Message? None

This is why we fail.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. I am just a medium, and I am on message.

I'm Marshall Mcluhanizin' the shit out of it, man.

[Blue State Bandit]

44. We are not one issue voters. And this is not a one issue movement.

This is the part you are missing.

My suggestions hit at three main points of attack.

Number 1 goes after their ability to spread propaganda and sets precedence for revocation of corporate charters for repeated felonious criminal acts. It also opens discussion on the MSM's role in our corrupted system.

Number 2 goes directly at the investment banking sector and their bottom line. It highlights the top of the corruption food chain, and attempts to make their illicit gains available to those most in financial jeopardy as quickly as possible.

Number 3 is all about going after Washington. It puts pressure on Congress and the judiciary. It will give progressives a chance to clearly signal there support, and expose those within the Democratic party who do not support us. We NEED to know this ASAP.

Again. We are not one issue voters. And there is not one single issue fueling this movement. That is the realm of conservative propaganda. Single mindedness is there only strength, and it is proven by the weakness they are now displaying in the republican primaries.

[Proles]

43. I think those demands would make more sense.

Wouldn't a Constitutional amendment repealing Citizens United also be in order as well?

Obviously, that alone would not be enough to get money out of politics, but that in conjunction with reforming the way the news media broadcasts misinformation and the way investors gamble with money would greatly improve the future of this country.

What about day trading? Should there be a limit on how quickly people can buy and sell stocks? Like a waiting period of a week after buying a stock before you can sell it?

[Warren DeMontague]

53. I actually thought Bernie Sanders put forth some good solid proposals

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/wall-street-protests_b_1000642.html


I'm not sure if the day trading thing would be covered under #6 or not, but it sounds like a step in that direction.

[AverageJoe90]

64. Here's a really good addition to 6.

6.) Encourage, whenever possible to replace fuel for automobiles, and power plants, with hemp(particularly for automobiles), and other clean fuel sources(I hate to disagree with you, but petro taxes may not quite work out as planned.)

[kctim]

34. So OWS is NOT about corruption?

[Blue State Bandit]

40. It's absolutely about corruption.

These demands that I suggested (and can be taken or leaven) encompass basic scope of our full demands.

This is Not about MERELY corporate corruption or public corruption, it is about the top-down corruption of our nation itself. All three branches of our government and all 4 estates.

[kctim]

42. Most people have differing opinions

when it comes to defining the 'top-down' corruption you mention and on solutions to fix it.

Most people could probably agree that we need better regulations to prevent future Wall Street corruption.

Why not take the more effective route that most people could agree with?

[Blue State Bandit]

45. Then what do you suggest?

Let's hear it.
Regulations are flouted.
Crime is not punished.
And the middle class will not last till the 2012 elections.

So again, what do you suggest?

[kctim]

48. First, the middle class is not going to disappear before the 2012 elections

Second: People who want change should be petitioning the ONLY entity that has the power to do anything about it: Government.
Third: Gain the support of the people and make it VERY clear that this is ALL about corruption on Wall Street AND in government.

Until that happens, the majority of people are not going to care or be willing to get involved.

[Javaman]

70. +1 nt

[blkmusclmachine]

77. Good start, and very unbipartisan.

n/t