How do we get representatives that are more inclined to the interest of the people instead of the interests of corporations?
Grassroots mobilization. You don't think it is possible?
Howard Dean, whether you liked him or not, got nearly all of his fundraised money from individuals donating things such as "just" $100.
Unlike Kerry or Bush, his money came from the people.
And if it wasn't for both parties and the media turning against him as a threat, he might have beat Bush. I am not going to argue the consequences of that, but I can argue that we wouldn't be having a president (like we do now) writing signing statements of bills passed by Congress that he literally doesn't feel "obliged" to obey the laws of the land.
And so I came across, quite by accident today, an organization and movement inspired by Dean's campaign called Democracy for America.
This is how real change will happen, as I have suggested constantly before: direct action from us, the people, the so-called ordinary individuals whose votes never really count for anything.
I'll let Democracy for America explain itself here:
What is Democracy for America?
Inspired by the presidential campaign of Howard Dean, Democracy for America (DFA) is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all levels of government—from school board to the presidency. DFA fights against the influence of the far right-wing and their radical, divisive policies and the selfish special interests that for too long have dominated our politics.DFA has a long-term goal to rebuild the Democratic Party from the bottom up—it will take time, but we must start building a base now for the future.
Real change in our government and our history has nearly always come and started from the grassroots, from the very bottom in political "power".
If you believe that our government can become better by itself, you are ignoring dominating trends in the recent past. You are kidding yourself really. If you believe that your only duty is to vote for the lesser of two evils, you are reinforcing the myth that sustains our current corrupt and deaf-to-the-public major party duopoly.
The simple reality is that the candidates which are selected are selected by the interests of corporate powers. They are the financial enablers of the major candidate's media campaign. They have been deciding who we get to hear and who we don't.
Just think about that when the next elections come rolling around, that the candidate you are likely to be bombarded with is doing so because of corporate money. And that when it comes to representing you or the corporate powers, the true choosers of our political candidates, you are generally going to be put on the back burner.
Support candidates who are supported by the people. As long as you vote for corporate candidates, you are going to get elected officials who represent corporations instead of the people.
Take back the control over democracy.
Let the people, not corporations, decide who will be our presidents, senators, representatives, and all other elected positions.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Ramognino,
Excellent points overall. How candidates get their money is important and when we allow corporations to buy the candidate we allow them to buy our rights and democracy as well. Read the David Sirota book Hostile Take-overs: how Big Business Bought Our Government. It's appealing to most people regardless of party allegience. I, myself, am a proponent of public financed campaigns.
However, though I agree with the intent of your article, I need to correct some misinformation you have about John Kerry and even Howard Dean. I went to opensecrets.org and discovered who financed John Kerry's Presidential campaign. I did this because I know that was a talking point during the 04 campaign and I knew that the only place Kerry usually took lobbyist money was from the NEA but no corporations. You stated that John Kerry took corporation money and that only Dean was 100% funded by individuals. First when you look at Kerry's intake from after he won the Presidential nomination the majority of his money came from indivuduals and the pac money came after he won it.
Individual contributions $225,283,370 69%
PAC contributions $141,918 0%
Candidate self-financing $0 0%
Federal Funds $74,620,000 23%
Other $26,191,000 8%
Prior to that, the primaries were funded by 100% individuals just like Dean. Additionally, John Kerry actually had to mortgage his house during the primaries while waiting for public donations. (I realize on that issue having your own money is a gift and some might fault him for that.) However, had Dean won the nod, he too would have been forced to go to corporations or pacs since running a campaign is more expensive than it should be.
Though if you notice on the Kerry list, it says Pacs. Pacs are by the people as well. But lobbying money is not corporate money. Lobbying is not money at all. It is more complicated. Any organization can have lobbyists (Govt. Affairs staff)--nonprofit as well. NEA is not a for-profit corporation so when the NEA gives money, it is as a PAC. So maybe he got PAC money from the NEA (as he did from the League of Conservation Voters, etc) but THAT money came from contributions from members of the organizations. So money is funneled through these nonprofits that also have PACs. the NEA or League of Conservation Voters is comprised of individuals who donate to the pac. ANd the PAC leaders decide who to gove $$ to. SO technically, PAC money also comes from the "people" It is not corporarte money at all.
Good job on your article.
@@@ : - )
Ramognino, You are correct that Howard Dean raised a lot of money from small donors, but so did John Kerry, and so, sadly, did George Bush. The internet fundraising in 2004 was significant, and changed how campaigns will run in the future.
Of course, George Bush also raised millions from corporate and rightwing sources--big donors, as we call them. And so, once the nomination was decided, did John Kerry. Howard Dean would have had to do the same if he had been the nominee, as would anyone who got that far down the road. You have to compete, and it takes large massive amounts of cash to do that. After all, you would have wanted him to WIN, right?
In order for there to be real campaign finance change, the old system would have to be entirely dismantled. John Kerry has actually said this as well. These guys all know it is an unfair system--only seriously wealthy people can even consider jumping in. That is why we are all getting emails by the dozens, asking us to contribute to this PAC or that campaign chest, or a nonprofit that is doing voter education, etc. The Dems are building up the coffers to mount an effective 2006-2008 strategy.
In order for real change to happen (and DFA is a great way to begin the work, but so too are other orgs: Progressive Dems, TrueMajority, and others I can't think of this second), public financing would have to take over for the current Baroque system of bundling dollars in order to buy sway and influence.
Only when candidates can have no obligatory knowledge of the true sources of money can they legislate honestly. Only when the money for campaigns comes from ALL the people, to ALL the candidates will we remove the back pocket/back room atmosphere that permeates the entire legislative and adminstrative branches of the federal government.
John Kerry, btw, never took PAC money in any of his earlier races. Not once. He did so only in the 2004 election, and then, only from groups who were doing so legally. Believe it or not, he's a very honest guy.
Democracy is not something you believe in or a place to hang your hat, but it's something you do. You participate. If you stop doing it, democracy crumbles.
- Abbie Hoffman
Ramognino,
I saw this and thought you might like to join the conversation. Seems up your alley.
Albuquerque John still has more to share from his DFA training, so how about we get that irc thing happening again and let's all learn what's new and hip and happening? We can pass the time while we wait for justice to show up (she's LATE) by working for democracy.
Posted by: karen at May 16, 2006 09:29 AM
@@@ : - }
I think that the only way to make campaigns fair is through public financed campaigns, as mentioned above. If all donated money went into a pot that gets split evenly among the candidates -- everyone gets a fair chance.
In addition, I think the media should be tapped as a great resource. These companies (in general) make tons of money each year. Newspapers/magazines/tv stations and the like can afford to give up a small amount of advertising space to allow candidates a voice. You allot each candidate a certain amount of gratis air-time on the network channels (those received over the air) and page space in highly ciculated publications. Media outlets can "suffer" this demand easily.
I agree with you.
Also, the fairness act needs to be enforsed! Statistically, the incumbant will always have 'excuses" to try to get more air time. However during the 04 election, Bush would say he was giving a 'press conference about..." and it was a campaign speech. When he cried wolf like that more than twice, the media should have taped the press conferences from then on and not shown them until they were assured that it was legitimate press conference.
See...even with that Bush was a liar.
Well I never doubted that Bush was a liar, but it seems he was also a cheat. The 2000 election in Florida was rigged. The voter registration lists were purged to eliminate mostly democratic votes. To see how Bush and his bro Jeb did this check out the documentary - "Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election"
Here's a link to the website: http://www.unprecedented.org