Why are Clean Elections important for women? Aside from the obvious reason that enacting Clean Elections would strengthen democracy for both sexes, women have three other compelling reasons: reproductive freedom, the right to be paid as much as men for the same job, and an easier way to run for office. In a system where money is the legal and functional equivalent of speech, any demographic that has relatively less money to invest in politics: get sent to the back of the bus. With women making only 76 cents to the dollar of what men are making you can imagine how the tug of war to gain access and influence gets lopsided.
When you consider that women comprise more than 50% of the population yet lack the political clout needed to earn as much as men, keep Roe vs Wade intact, and have a harder time than men raising the cash needed to run for office, Clean Elections is a no brainer.
With Clean Elections, which harnesses public funds to allow candidates with out access to wealth to run on an equal footing with privately financed candidates, elected officials would no longer have to beg for dollars. They would be free to work for the public good rather than corporate donors and good old boys networks who buy the right to dictate who gets elected and which bills get passed.
With Clean Elections, candidates would win on their ideas and ability, not on how much money they raise, and voters would get a much better slate of candidates to choose from.
Despite the fact that there are more women than men in the USA and that more women go to college than men, women still comprise less than 20% of congress, meaning they are overpowered by an 80% margin. No wonder women’s right to equal pay, control over their own bodies, etc. gets short shrift.
It’s time women realized that they have the numbers and brains to change this picture. But that will not happen without the energy, cooperation, and determination needed to gain power on par with men. Daunting, yes, but women have proved up to that kind of task many times before, not least of which was their great struggle to win the right to vote less than a century ago.
Unlike the suffragettes who got women the vote with very little outside help, women now have the Clean Elections movement to help. With Clean Elections, women running for office will not have to raise obscene amounts of money to compete with their wealthier male counterparts. They will compete on a level playing field with their ideas and ability, not how much money they raise. And many more will be able to run.
If women are serious about gaining the power needed to gain control over their reproductive freedom, their fight for equal pay, and their ability to run for office on par with men, they must be serious about fighting for Clean Elections.
With Clean Elections, the fact that women earn so much less than men will not be the block to political power it is today. By publicly funding campaigns, Clean Elections will permit more women to run for office, level the political playing field that is gamed against their interests, and garner the power needed to achieve their rights. ###
Posted in Equality and Clean Elections | No Comments
Combined spending in presidential, Congressional and state election campaigns will likely total more than $11 billion this year according to CNN. While the New York Democracy Project’s message of campaign finance reform is relevant all year long, never is corporate money’s influence on our nation’s politics brought into greater focus than during elections season.
We get a sense of the scale and tremendous power money plays in the election process, and, consequently, in those elected politicians’ eventual governmental decisions. This year’s election also marks the first time a powerful new breed of campaign money—the Super PAC—has been able to influence the presidential election, and they’ve wasted no time doing so.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled that organizations referred to as Super Political Action Committees (or Super PACs) have the right to spend an unlimited amount of money supporting a political campaign, so long as they don’t have any direct collusion with the candidate. Hundreds of Super PACs in support of Republicans and Democrats alike have popped up as a result of the ruling. Corporations, unions, and individuals can all pour money into these organizations, which in turn typically support a specific candidate by blasting his opponents with negative ads.
Not only do Super PACs have an incredible amount of influence because of the money they raise, they also harness a special loophole in disclosure laws to skirt revealing all of their donors. Although Super PACs are required by law to disclose their contributors, 501(c)(4) nonprofit organizations are able to keep their donors’ identities hidden. Nonprofit 501(c)(4)s are being created for the sole purpose of funneling money to their sister Super PACs, allowing the PACs to effectively cloak the identities of donors who wish to remain anonymous.
With the Republican Primaries well under way, Super PACs have already been raising and spending huge amounts of money for the year’s elections and beyond. According to Republican National Committee member Saul Anuzis as reported in an interview with NPR, about one-third of all the money spent in this year’s election will come from Super PACs—a huge amount for a relatively new concept in campaign financing. And nearly every major candidate has one at his side.
Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, are the major donors to Winning Our Future, a Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich and run by his former staffers. Together they’ve given over $10 million to the PAC, and have virtually become Gingrich’s lifeline in the presidential run in the process. But why throw so much money behind Gingrich?
According to AlterNet, the couple may have been originally drawn to Gingrich because of his belief in (and willingness to vote for) the importance of the closely-held Israel-US relationship. Adelson’s company, the Las Vegas Sands, also reportedly has tax complications and is under investigation by the SEC and Justice Department for a potential violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Gingrich’s history of protecting his donors through his political decisions likely caught the eye of the Adelsons.
What if Gingrich doesn’t pull through with the nomination? The Adelsons have that covered, too. The New York Times recently reported that Adelson is more than willing to switch his financial backing to Mitt Romney were he to win the nomination over Gingrich.
Of course, Romney has his own Super PAC that’s doing just fine without the Adelsons’ investments. The Romney-supporting Super PAC, the Restore Our Future Fund, is the largest PAC backing an individual candidate. The group has raised more than $30 million in support of Romney. ThinkProgress reports that at least $1.2 million of those funds came from coal, oil, and gas companies. Other big donors to Restore Our Future include Bain Capital, a private equity firm founded by Romney and known to have spent $3.1 million lobbying for regulatory oversight of the financial industry and tax benefits for rich investors.
The Super PAC supporting Rick Santorum has been boosting its efforts in the past weeks as a result of the candidate’s wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri. The Red White and Blue Fund is largely supported by the funds of Foster Freiss, a mutual fund manager with a history of supporting conservative causes. Freiss was recently photographed standing directly next to Santorum during his victory speech in Missouri, showing that his money really is buying influence.
President Obama has also eschewed his formerly progressive stance toward public financing and has started encouraging supporters to donate to a Super PAC called Priorities USA. The PAC has raised $4.4 million so far, according to the New York Times. The group’s largest donors include the CEO of Dreamworks Animation, Jeffrey Katzenburg, and the Service Employees International Union.
Not all Super PACs have pledged support for a specific presidential candidate. One of the most potentially influential PACs is American Crossroads, an organization created by Karl Rove and two former Republican national chairmen. The American Crossroads CEO, Steven Law, also heads its matching nonprofit, Crossroads GPS. The two groups raised $51 million in 2011, and a mere six donors made up $13 million of that number.
Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons tops the list of Crossroads donors, giving $5 million; his holding company, Contran Corp., also donated $2 million. Alpha Natural Resources, one of the world’s largest coal companies, has also made a hefty contribution, as have Perry Homes, a home-building corporation, and Chartwell Partners, an investment firm, among others. American Crossroads has so far used its tremendous amount of cash to run attack ads against President Obama, using $20 million to criticize his so-called agenda.
By allowing Super PACs to contribute endlessly to our candidates’ political campaigns, we open our elected officials to a whole new level of political debt. Corporate money will permeate not only political elections and their results, but will spill into our government’s decisions as well, as our political officials feel pressure to “pay back” the wealthy donors who put them in office.
While clean elections legislation would not have a direct effect on the legitimacy of Super PACs, it would be an effective step toward taking corporate money out of politics. Clean elections legislation would open up the political playing field. By providing public funds for campaigns, we would be able to choose from a more diverse candidate pool who would be judged on their ideas—not on their ability to influence us with their money.
Officials who were put into office by the people’s money—not corporations’—would need to answer to our demands and be held accountable for their actions. Imagine how much richer our elections season would be if all the candidates had the same amount of money, from the same source. Join us in our support for campaign finance reform. Become a part of the Clean Elections Voting Bloc. Learn more at www.nydemocracyproject.org.
Tags: clean elections, New York Democracy Project, U.S. Government Posted in Elections and Endorsements, Uncategorized | 4 Comments
As many of you may know, Occupy Wall Street is mobile this winter with its OWS Tour Bus. The Bus has been traveling around the Northeast for the past month, connecting with other Occupy movements everywhere from Providence to Lancaster to Ithaca. They recently paid a visit to Occupy Albany, the New York Democracy Project’s own stomping grounds. New York Democracy Project Director Matt Edge had the opportunity to speak to fellow Occupy supporters about the importance of publicly funded financing options, encouraging the crowd to join the Clean Elections Voting Bloc.
Our message of clean elections has been gathering steam among many Occupy members as we share a common goal of reducing the undue influence of corporate money in politics. The New York Democracy Project has also been exploring networking opportunities with statewide Occupy groups working on a Constitutional amendment that would effectively delegitimize the unlimited spending potential of Super PACs discussed in the article above.
We’ve been happy to meet many like-minded people across our city and state, and have been inspired by their ideas and messages. We hope to continue building our relationships with other organizations working toward a more egalitarian democratic process and world.
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments
The IRS Symbol
Every month, the team here at NYDP uses this newsletter to disseminate information about how unlimited campaign contributions result in a system where politicians are accountable to interest groups who fund their campaigns instead of the voters they represent; and how this system undermines our democracy and results in bad policy. Defense contractors pushing our military into conflicts; oil and coal companies slowing the development of renewable energy sources; and insurance companies keeping Congress from seriously discussing the public health care option that was so popular among voters are all illustrations of the need to get corporate money out of politics so that the people can have more influence over government. And while these policies have cost trillions of dollars and even the loss of human life, none have had as widespread an impact on everyday voters as the topic of this month’s entry: the tax code.
Two old-fashioned tax collectors
As everyone surely knows, tax revenue allows the government to provide services and pay its debts; and the tax code is the document that our representatives in government vote on to decide where the money comes from. Less widely known, however, is the process by which moneyed interests exert their influence on our representatives in such a way that economists are ignored and the middle class is saddled with an out-sized tax burden in order to benefit the super rich.
This newsletter is not big enough to completely unpack the issues surrounding the negative influence that large donors have had on the way our government pays its bills, or to prescribe and defend a comprehensive tax policy. So we will instead concentrate on a few foundational ideas: First, when our representatives in government say that raising taxes on the top 1% of income earners is a “job killer,” they are spouting a total falsehood. Second, the representatives who exert this damaging influence on our policies and our national conversation are being paid to do so by extremely well-funded organizations that do not represent mainstream interests. And third, public financing of campaigns can help us move towards a tax system that reflects our national interests: allowing us to keep more of our income without gutting essential programs or sacrificing economic growth.
(1) Raising taxes on the rich is not a “job killer.”
The United States has always used a system of “progressive taxation,” meaning that as you make more money, you pay a larger share of your income to the government through taxes. In 1950, the tax code was very progressive: the top tax rate was 90%. Today, the top tax rate is 35%, and it has been since 2003.
It is a commonly-held belief among economic conservatives that taxes, by definition, strangle economic expansion. This line of attack has been used successfully to slash taxes on the top 1%. But now that we’ve been lowering taxes for decades and in the process seen a ballooning national debt and persistent unemployment, it makes sense to take a hard look at the connection between taxes and employment.
FDR Signing the Social Security Act
As the top tax rate has marched steadily downward over the decades, there have been three instances where politicians bucked the trend and raised taxes on the rich: From 70%-77% under LBJ to pay for things like Medicare and the Vietnam War (taxes came down right away under Nixon); from 28% to 31% in the move that effectively ended the first Bush presidency; and from 31% to 40% in the early 90’s under Bill Clinton. And even with these periodic upticks in the top tax rate, the cuts have been much larger and much more frequent; sending us from a 90% top rate under Eisenhower, to 38% today. Tax cuts for the super rich haven’t come without a cost, however. As politicians paired tax cuts with increased spending on military operations and old-age benefits, the national debt has gone through the roof. Today, we are seeing the result of anti-tax orthodoxy: the government is broke, our schools and our infrastructure are failing us, and incomes of the richest 1% have skyrocketed. Why is this happening? (2) Special interest groups donate huge amounts of money to politicians in exchange for anti-tax orthodoxy in policymaking and in the media. And it works. Especially in the Republican Party, the idea that tax hikes “kill jobs” is pervasive; from the leadership on down to the Tea Party freshmen in the House. But a comparison of unemployment rates to top tax rates over time shows no correlation between higher taxes on the rich and higher unemployment. In fact, on the rare occasions where the top tax rate has gone up, unemployment has gone down. Now, we are not saying that raising taxes will fix the unemployment crisis. Rather, we are saying that any politician who argues that tax hikes on the wealthy “kill jobs”–as if it’s an obvious and universally understood fact–has no intention whatsoever of advocating policies to curb unemployment. Politicians who utter this drivel are putting the interests of well-funded organizations above the interests of their own constituents.
The Club for Growth is a conservative political organization that spent a staggering $8.2 million in the 2010 election cycle helping Republicans who have done their bidding and assisting Republican primary challengers to unseat “RINO’s” who wavered in their anti-tax orthodoxy. In the 2010 legislative session, The Club for Growth opposed every bill that cut spending or taxes, to the point of opposing the deal to raise the debt ceiling last summer. That’s right, the Club for Growth, which says it has a goal of improving the business climate, opposed raising the debt ceiling. Mainstream economists are nearly unanimous in the opinion that a failure to raise the debt ceiling would have resulted in an unqualified catastrophe for the United States and the world. A failure to raise the debt ceiling would have meant a default on U.S. Debt, seen by the world as the safest investment available. Anyone who has watched the world’s reaction to a potential default on the comparatively tiny Greek debt must understand the magnitude of a U.S. default. Also, failure to raise the ceiling would have resulted in an inability to pay Social Security checks, military paychecks, and other government expenses. So why, then, would any sane person oppose raising the debt ceiling? According to their own website, it was a “golden opportunity to assert [Its] agenda” (because every sane person recognized the debt ceiling needed to be raised). The Club for Growth wanted to throw its weight around: prove the extent of its influence, in order to increase its influence. And it worked. As part of the final debt ceiling deal passed into law, a “super-committee” was formed in order to find $1.2 trillion worth of deficit reduction after the ceiling was raised. The super-committee was made up of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans; most of whom came into the group with considerable experience getting things done in Congress. One exception to this rule was the freshman Senator from Pennsylvania: Pat Toomey.
Pat Toomey has no legislative achievements whatsoever, and was chosen to hammer out a deal with proven leaders from both sides of the aisle. What set Toomey apart? $890,000 in donations from the Club for Growth.
(3) Public financing of campaigns can reset the system so that our representatives in government are accountable to the voters, not the special interest groups that bankroll their candidacies. And that leads to better policy.
There is no reason that folks who believe in small government and personal freedom should have to cast their lot with politicians who are bought and paid for by influence peddling action organizations that demand orthodoxy over thoughtful policy-making. If we adopt a system where politicians who demonstrate support among voters can access public funds and compete, we might overcome the influence wielded by the super-rich through organizations that value low top rate taxes over policies that can make the economy better for everyone.
Tags: New York Democracy Project, Pat Toomey, Taxes Posted in Economy and Clean Elections | No Comments
Calls for job creation and worker centric economic reform have been on the rise as jobless claims rank above 350,000 and our economy continues to flail. Boutiques specializing in American-made goods are becoming increasingly popular, and support for small, local businesses has also been on the incline. In counterpoint to this rallying “Made in America” mindset, the Obama administration pushed through objectively regressive legislation last month that controversially lessens hope for domestic industry and employment.
Panama
Congress passed three so-called free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea in mid-October. Despite protests by activists from all four countries involved, years’ worth of stagnation, and strong opposition from labor unions and progressive Democrats, the bills passed with relative ease, clearing both the House and Senate with strong Republican support.
The bills, originally proposed by the Bush administration, were controversial and languished in limbo for five years. In an attempt to bolster support for the legislation, all three countries’ governments poured money into pressuring oppositional Congress members. According to The Hill, South Korea, Panama and Colombia spent at least $15 million on lobbying, legal and public relations efforts related to the trade agreements.
South Korean Coat of Arms
The agreements are predicted to have negligible positive impact on the U.S. economy; according to the New York Times, the deals are projected to increase the GDP by approximately $14.4 billion, or about 0.1 percent.
Instead, the overwhelming reaction to the deals is the fear that significant numbers of American jobs will now be outsourced. “With the projections that hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers will lose their jobs from the pending trade pacts, it’s hard to work up too much sympathy for the relative handful of lobbyist contracts that may expire after Congress votes on the deals,” said Todd Tucker, research director for Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, as reported by The Hill.
Colombian Woman
Concerns over Colombia’s treatment of labor unions have also contributed to objections about the agreements—the country has a history of violence against union activists. Labor-cognizant politicians have criticized the passing of the bills for its likely effect on U.S. workers—that is, the outsourcing of even more U.S. work. There has been backlash against the deals by foreign politicians, too. Colombian Senator Jorge Enrique Robledo told Democracy Now the deal was the country’s “worst decision” to date because of its likelihood of undermining Colombian sovereignty and human rights.
Still, the bills were passed with an easy majority. Indeed, cross-country trade and campaign contributions have a long and destructive history in the U.S. The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), signed into law in 1994, created a trade bloc between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, making trade and investments easier across the borders without allowing for the movement of labor.
The effects of NAFTA have been widespread and almost unerringly negative. NAFTA’s impact on U.S. jobs is widely debated; according to the Huffington Post, an Economic Policy Institute report revealed this year that an estimated 682,900 U.S. jobs have been lost as a result of NAFTA, and that number is likely modest. In addition to U.S. deindustrialization, NAFTA has had an insidious impact on international wages (the “race to the bottom” effect), Mexican farmers and workers (NAFTA allowed the U.S. to flood Mexico with cheap corn and goods, disempowering Mexican farmers/laborers) and indigenous peoples (the agreement included a provision allowing Indian communal landholdings
Colombia
Multinational corporations wishing to do away with pesky governments demanding fair labor standards have giving billions in campaign contributions over the past few decades, and continue to do so, creating a free trade friendly political climate where there may have not been one otherwise. The number of corporations lobbying specifically for free trade has been steadily between 650 and 1,000 since 1998, reports Open Secrets, with 2011 measuring in at 781.
Beoing, the world’s largest manufacturer of commercial airplanes , has spent millions in campaign contributions and $12 million in lobbying alone in 2011, according to Open Secrets. The company not only supports increased defense spending, but also spent the most of any corporation supporting free trade.
It’s easy to feel disempowered when it comes to the dealings of countries across the world and corporations equipped with billions of dollars. But your voice needs to be heard. Voting for representatives in support of clean elections can help protect American jobs, preserve fair wages in foreign countries, and encourage fair multinational prosperity.
Clean elections legislation would make publicly financed campaign money available to men and women running for office. This would allow politicians to focus on the issues their constituents care about—not the concerns of huge, money-hungry corporations. Public campaign funds would also level the playing field for minorities and middle-class Americans that are interested in serving their neighbors and country. Officials would be held accountable for their voting history, and corporations wouldn’t have the same power over our country’s lawmakers.
Free trade isn’t free, and it will never be as long as powerful corporations are allowed to dominate our politicians’ decision making. To join the Clean Elections Voting Bloc and to learn more about clean elections, visit www.nydemocracyproject.org.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment
One month after the Occupy Wall Street protests began in lower Manhattan, they are still going strong, and their sentiment is being mirrored in sister demonstrations around the world As the protesters decry income inequality and corporate welfare--enunciating their anger at having their interests subordinated to those of the extremely wealthy--it is only fitting to examine how Wall Street bankers attained their level of influence in the first place.
The financial sector has spent over $5 billion in political influence over the past decade, according to the nonprofit Wall Street Watch: $1.73 billion in federal campaign contributions between 1998 and 2008, and over $3.3 billion in lobbying. Commercial banks made up a large chunk of that money, spending more than $154 million on campaign contributions and $383 million in officially registered lobbying. Securities firms spent the most overall, with $512 million in campaign contributions and nearly $600 million in lobbying. Specifically, Goldman Sachs forked over $46 million, while JP Morgan Chase donated $63 million. Citigroup and Merrill Lynch shelled out $108 million and $68 million, respectively.
All that spending bought the financial sector undue influence over our country’s political equation. The familiarity between Wall Street and Washington that these contributions bred resulted in a virtual revolving door between political and corporate offices. Several Goldman Sachs employees have gone on to hold top governmental positions, including former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Henry Paulsen. Similarly, after surveying only 20 firms, Wall Street Watch found 142 industry lobbyists that had formerly worked in the executive branch of government.
With not only friends of Wall Street in the government, but actual employees, Congress is primed to pass corporate-friendly policies that line the pockets of the wealthy while disempowering average citizens. One such policy came in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated speculative investment and the way banks grow--the repeal of Glass-Steagall is widely blamed for the financial crisis of 2007-2008. Even The New American, a right wing magazine, points out that our nation’s collective focus and frustration should not only be on Wall Street and the Federal Reserve, but also the “elected officials who continue to support government intervention in the free market and to pick and choose winners via regulations and the ‘too big to fail’ philosophy.”
With the 2012 presidential campaign getting closer every day, corporate-backed campaigns will continue to thrive, especially in the face of rampant public discontent announced by the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Mitt Romney, a former executive of a private investment firm, has received Wall Street contributions totaling--$813,300. While Obama is at $15.6 million. Think of all the “I.O.U.s” those two will be expected to return on, if elected into office. The disturbing point is that regardless of any altruistic intentions candidates may have as they aspire to public service, they almost inevitably must compromise if they are to win reelection. The system must change. Wall Street will keep writing its own rules unless we pass real campaign finance reform. Clean elections laws would provide public financing for political campaigns, and ensure that our representatives answer to regular people – not to Wall Street. Vote for politicians supporting clean elections reform if you really want to reject Wall Street’s influence.
Please visit http://www.nydemocracyproject.org to learn more about clean elections and to sign up for the Clean Elections Voting Bloc. With the campaign in full swing, it is more vital than ever that you voice your support for what we do want--getting money out of politics for good.
Tags: Occupy, Wall St. Posted in Economy and Clean Elections | No Comments
When Haiti was devastated by a massive earthquake in January 2010, the people of the United States responded with a tremendous out pouring of financial support. The actions of our government certainly don’t reflect the sentiment of its people.
Secret State Department cables leaked by WikiLeaks last month make the US’s hand in Haiti’s dire political situation clear. The documents unveiled the US government’s purposeful and planned opposition to Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Haiti’s first democratically-elected president, and our involvement in the economic suppression of workers in the country.
Aristide was ousted as president in February 2004 in a bloody coup backed by the US, and promptly escorted to his exile in South Africa by a US Navy SEAL team in a move Aristide referred to as a “modern-day kidnapping.” Only two months after Aristide’s dismissal, the UN established their Stabilization Mission for Haiti-an organization that continues to oversee the country and one that US Ambassador Janet Sanderson referred to as “an indispensable tool in realizing core USG (US government) policy interests in Haiti” in the cables.
The leaked cables find our officials repeatedly referring to Aristide’s return to Haiti as “catastrophic” and “a disaster,” largely because of his opposition to free market ideals and his political power in the region. Indeed, according to The Nation, in 2004 Aristide was the only politician in Haiti with an approval rating above 50 percent. The US’s fear of this popularity is what kept Aristide in South Africa for seven years-something encouraged by then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the behest of the head of the UN team in Haiti.
Aristide ultimately returned to Haiti in March of this year. But his political party, the largest political party in Haiti, the Fanmi Lavalas, was barred from participating in the elections.
Not only has the US forcibly kept Haiti’s former leader out of his own country, we’ve suppressed the already-destitute workers of Haiti in order to keep them reliant on US corporations. Our efforts to manipulate Haiti’s politics in order to use the country as an outpost for American corporate interests can be traced back to 1915 when US Marines took control of the government and they continue to this day.
The WikiLeaks cables also revealed that contractors for Fruit of the Loom, Levi’s and Hanes worked with officials at the US Embassy to ferociously block an increase in the assembly zone workers’ minimum wage. Factory owners refused to pay workers 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day. “And they had the vigorous backing of the US Agency for International Development and the US Embassy when they took that stand,” wrote The Nation.
The clothing corporations were likely able to win the support of American officials in their quest against a minimum wage in large part due to their more than generous campaign contributions. According to Influence Explorer, Fruit of the Loom has spent nearly $950,000 in campaign contributions in the past decade, and over $1.5 million in lobbying. Similarly, Levi Strauss & Co. has invested over $500,000 both in campaign contributions and lobbying, while Hanes spent more than $2 million in lobbying over a period of seven years, and $45,000 in contributions in the past three years alone.
Despite having these millions to dedicate to influencing government decisions, the corporations couldn’t spare any of their operating budget to accommodate the extremely poor workers they employ and whose slave-like conditions their business models depend upon.
A two-tiered minimum wage was settled upon, with textile workers making $3 per day and commercial sectors at $5. The US Embassy was upset with this compromise, however, saying that the minimum wage “did not take economic reality into account,” and was a populist measure aimed at “the unemployed and underpaid masses,” according to the cables. Haitian workers are the lowest-paid in the Western Hemisphere, with an average yearly income of approximately $450 US dollars.
Constant meddling in Haiti’s political system has only served to further destabilize an already chaotic nation, leaving the weak infrastructure and economy that was unable to withstand or recover from the destruction of the earthquake. It’s embarrassing and vile that our country is willing to use and abuse another country for its own economic reasons.
Disagree with the way our politicians strong-armed Aristide out of his own country for refusing to adopt a neo-liberal corporate agenda? Disagree with our taxpayer dollars being spent on ousting a popular democratically elected foreign president? Want representatives that value human rights over cheap labor? Want politicians that have integrity in their political choices and listen to your demands?
Clean elections legislation would allow public financing for campaigns, opening up political office to more than millionaires and politicians backed by mega-corporations. By voting for a politician that supports clean elections, you’re not just standing up for disaster stricken Haiti, you’re voting for your own interests.
For more information visit www.nydemocracyproject.org. Join the Voting Bloc and we’ll send you alerts on your representatives’ positions. Know what you’re voting for when you go to the polls.
Tags: Aristide, Foreign Policy, Haiti, WikiLeaks Posted in Foreign Policy and Clean Elections | No Comments
Posted in Media and Clean Elections | 1 Comment
The average American eats 1,996.3 pounds of food per year. That number includes 110 pounds of red meat, 237 pounds of fruit and 600 pounds of dairy products, not to mention 23 pounds of pizza, 24 pounds of ice cream and 53 gallons of soda. We spend thousands of dollars on our food habits and plan our schedules around mealtimes. Needless to say, eating plays a huge role in our daily lives and well-beings. Not only does the act of eating dictate our day-to-day, the food industry dictates our country's food policy and laws that govern what we eat. When you consider that the regulations on seed production, farming methods, packaging, and distribution are all tightly controlled by the companies that reap the monetary benefits, it's a a lot to chew on. The deep roots of the food industry's campaign contributions has left the American people with a minority say in what they eat.
The four biggest meat companies control a vast swath of production in the U.S. Tyson Foods is the world's largest chicken and red meat provider, controlling 27 percent of all meat and poultry sales in the U.S., according to Source Watch. Pork producer Smithfield Foods owns 26 percent of the U.S. pork market, while Cargill holds the spot of second largest meat processing company in the U.S., after Tyson.
All of these companies have a lot of power to maintain and they do it with campaign contributions. Tyson topped the list of food industry campaign contributors in the 2009-2010 campaign cycle, giving a total of $209,650 and spending over $2.5 million on lobbying efforts, as reported by Open Secrets. Similarly, Smithfield gave $149,740 and invested $1.28 in lobbying. The American Meat Institute, representing meat companies like Tyson and Smithfield, also topped the list, giving $188,150 and hitting lobbying totals of $263,000.
These astronomical donations go toward ensuring consumers are left unaware when they buy a chicken breast or pork loin. Genetically-modified food does not currently need to be labeled, nor does meat produced from cloned animals. The industry is paying to make sure elected officials care more about the profit margins on cloned meat and genetically-modified seeds than the health and safety of the public. "The beef industry is embedded in the Dept. of Agriculture and that's why the Dept. of Agriculture doesn't even have the authority to recall meat that's been tainted by E.coli," commented Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore's Dilemma, in response to the 2010 Supreme Court decision -to allow unlimited political spending by corporations. Pollan is referring to the fact that the USDA cannot shut down tainted meat production plants. Thorough inspections of meat plants are essentially nonexistent, leaving approximately 50 percent of cow carcasses tainted with E. coli.
Consumer Reports estimates that 70 percent of grocery store chickens are infected and the Center for Science in the Public Interest asserts that 90 percent of turkeys are as well. Barbara Kowalcyk knows too-well the dangers of E.coli in our food. Her two-year old son died within 12 days of being effected by a tainted hamburger. The meat wasn't recalled until 16 days after he died; Kowalcyk worked tirelessly to create a law requiring tainted production plants to be shut down. Though Kevin's Law was enacted in 2011, it is not enforced because the government won't fund the workforce needed to carry out the legislation.
Meat isn't the only industry whose power over farmers and consumers has spiraled out of control; monopoly of food production starts as early as the seed. Monsanto Co., the world's leading producer of genetically engineered seed, has made significant political contributions as well. The company has a history of donating heavily. These donations help to ensure that politicians will turn the other way when it comes to antitrust campaigns against the company. Indeed, the Justice Department during the Bush administration never filed a single antitrust case against any company.
According to the Washington Post, Monsanto owns 93 percent of soybean seed patents and 80 percent of corn, forcing farmers to rely on their seeds for a superior product - seeds whose prices have doubled over the past decade. Not only have they increased the cost of their seeds, Monsanto has also made a point of cracking down on small-time farmers that save and reuse their seeds; the company is notorious for suing them.
Monsanto has come under increased pressure during the Obama administration, according to the Washington Post; Monsanto-competitor DuPont brought a case against the company in 2009. Similarly, as of June 1, 83 plaintiffs, including the Center for Food Safety, were involved in bringing a suit against Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed. Unsurprisingly then, the Monsanto PAC nearly doubled its fundraising efforts between 2008 and 2010, jumping from $336,000 in 2008 to $658,000 in 2010, according to Open Secrets.
The effects of these contributions are as far-reaching as food is present in our lives. Because of the influence food corporations have over politicians, factory farming is allowed to grow bigger and bigger by the day. Cows are left to stand knee-deep in their own manure, while chickens die from overcrowding and turkeys are left to live without ever seeing the light of day. Not only are the results of factory farming on the animals used in the process absolutely repulsive, the damage to our own health is chilling. The desire to produce the most food in the least amount of time has led to horrendous working conditions for employees. Many go without breaks, water, shade or basic support from their employers, as documented in the 2008 documentary Food, Inc. As many as 70 percent of workers on large animal farms come down with acute bronchitis, according to a 2001 report by Marc Schenker and Steven Kirkhorn. Twelve cases of workers dying from asphyxiation in manure pits were documented over a period of five years.
Livestock production and shipping generates 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2006 report by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. This amount is more than all transportation (cars, ships and planes) combined. In a 2009 report by the World Watch Institute, that number was reported to be even higher -- 51 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Either way, the number is appalling.
"We've never had food companies this big and this powerful in our history," said Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation. We’ve never had effects so frightening, either.
Clean elections can help clean up the food industry. By providing public funding for campaigns, we ensure that elected officials need to listen to us and not to the demands of monster corporations.
Instead of relying on giants like Tyson and Monsanto to put them back in business, politicians will rely on our funding, forcing them to answer to our needs - the most elementary of which happen to be safe, nutritious and ethically-positive food.
Support food reform by voting for candidates that support clean elections legislation. Clean elections enables a greater diversity of candidates to run for public office - not just those that are wealthy enough to support a campaign. Once they are in office, they will be open to hearing and responding to your concerns - including the worry that you are not getting the best food for your money.
Not everyone can afford to buy organic vegetables and meats at local farmers markets. Even if you're on a budget, you can vote -- in fact, you can't afford not to.
Visit: nydemocracyproject.org to join the clean voters bloc and find out which candidates support clean elections legislation in your area your area. ◊◊◊
Tags: Food, Monsanto, Tyson Posted in Earth and Clean Elections, Health and Clean Elections | 1 Comment
The New York Democracy Project kicked off the lovely NY summer by representing clean elections at the Clearwater Festival. Clearwater's Great Hudson River Festival took place the weekend of June 18-19 and brought together thousands of activists to celebrate the river at Croton Point Park in Croton-on-the-Hudson. More than 100 musical acts played and the festival also featured storytellers, environmental education displays, boat exhibits and a Green Living Expo.
NYDP was lucky enough to have a table at the festival. We spent the weekend giving away our free cold-brewed Democracy Coffee and educated attendees about the benefits of clean elections. Nearly 200 people joined the Clean Elections Voting Bloc over the two days, saying to candidates and politicians, if you want our votes, you need to pledge your support for publicly funded campaigns. Thanks to those that talked with us there! We were also able to make many progressive connections and network with the thousands of other activists at the festival, all working together to better our state.◊◊◊
Posted in Updates | No Comments
