Exactly my point all along ... if you can't pay, you don't play. McCarthy is not alone in the use of what our system has become. Do most Americans realize that the "Citizens United" decision by the SupCt makes it possible for foreign powers, through their investment in/ownership of American corporations, can swing the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the advertising that determines who is elected to lead our country and especially who is not? Americans seem to think that, via democracy, they choose the leaders who set the policies that dramatically affect our lives. In fact, a small group of uber wealthy campaign contributors decides who has the huge amounts of money to run for office and especially who does not. It does not have to be that way. The American people still actually OWN the public airwaves. We could make the nauseous campaign ads illegal. There are far better ways to educate the voting public as to the credentials and ideas of candidates for office. Until this is done, NOTHING is going to change, and democracy will continue to erode.
Hi Jay, I knew you'd love that ending. Thanks for your response.
The lunch was intended to be way below the radar. It was an invite-only affair and was not on the Speaker's public daily schedule. You'll appreciate that the only reason we know about it is because of the street-level work of dedicated journalist Tim Redmond. Mr. Redmond was for decades the editor-in-chief of the highly-regarded alternative weekly San Francisco Bay Guardian. He now publishes the online journal 48 Hills. Here's a link to his original article last week:
Regarding the larger issue, you're right of course about the influence of wealth on everything political. But it's also true that on election day, millions of ordinary citizens cast their votes. They may have been lied to, paid off, misled or otherwise abused. But the votes are counted and if, for example, one candidate gets 11,780 votes more than the other in Georgia, he goes to the White House. And that is no small deal.
What we do here at Feathers of Hope, along with millions of other ordinary folks doing similar work, is maintain civic engagement. In a sense, we're part of an ongoing campaign to keep democracy alive so that there will be voters at the polls when it matters.
In the age of digital media, public ownership of the airwaves doesn't seem particulalrly significant. But the Citizens United decision most emphatically is. If you'd like to do something more than just lament about it, let me suggest getting involved with the movement to pass a Constitutional Amendment reversing that decision. There are currently 94 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives for the We The People Amendment which would establish that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
Interesting end run around SCOTUS and Citizens United. But still need House and Senate (60 votes) to get it done. Also, I’m surprised I’ve never heard this idea. Spitballing, here… First Amendment concerns?
Actually it's even harder than that, Ron. It needs two-thirds majority in House and Senate, plus ratification by three-quarters of the States. This is a very long-term project.
No problem with First Amendment as the text of the proposed amendment is very specific. It says that artificial entities such as corporations have no rights under the Constitution, only natural persons do. Then just to make sure, it says "The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment."
Rob, My question precisely. Were it up to me, considering the likelihood of a third, possibly a fourth, party presidential candidate in the General, I can’t think of a more important project than focusing on the House delegations, each of which would get one vote were no candidate to garner 270 electoral votes and the election were to be decided by the House. Because Republicans currently control more delegations than Democrats, and have for quite awhile, I believe our time would be well-spent were we to discern which delegations most likely could flip and engage accordingly. To be clear, were the election to be decided by the House, that responsibility would fall to the next Congress. Additionally, I would note, given the urgency, such a project likely would contribute to growing this community.
Thanks for your comment, Barbara Jo. As I mentioned to Rob, for the last several days I too have been questioning how our network can best contribute in the coming months, given the changing balance of power in the House.
While it's not too soon to be thinking about this, I won't be charting a new direction right away. But any and all suggestions are greatly appreciated.
In that regard, I couldn't agree more about the importance of flipping House seats in 2024, both for the reason you state and also for the purpose of re-gaining the majority. But I don't really see what we can do that isn't already beiing done by other organizations.
Lots to consider right now. Again, thanks for your support and input.
Jerry, I would note I am unaware of any strategic effort, in the event the Presidential election were to be decided by the House, to establish which of the delegations currently controlled by Republicans could flip to Democratic control. I believe we all should bear in mind the odds that no nominee will reach the requisite 270 electoral votes, at which point the decision would move to the House. Were the current House delegations to cast their vote (fortunately, that responsibility would rest with the next Congress), the Republican candidate (perhaps Trump) would become our next President. As I indicated in my original comment, this matter, which is virtually absent from the public discourse, is among the most critical as we enter the 24 election season.
Postscript: While I don’t have the latest figures, the last time I checked House Republicans controlled 26 delegations, House Democrats controlled 23, and Pennsylvania was tied. I believe this was the break-down when Democrats controlled the House. Hence, getting the election outcome moved to the House was among Trump’s priority stratagems in 2020.
Barbara Jo, the current breakdown is 26 Republican delegations, 22 Democratic and 2 tied (MN and NC). The two tied States would obviously be prime targets, and I'd expect AZ and WI to be possiblities. What I'd really like to see is a strong effort in unexpected places like the Dakotas, Mississippi, W. Virginia. where a one or two seat win would be a majority.
Cornell West recently announced his candidacy for pres. and his intention to campaign exclusively in Trump country. If the Dems could piggy-back with a strong House candidate, instead of writing those districts off as irretrievably red, it's possible we could steal a seat or two there. West has a powerful anti-corporate and pro-Christian message that could resonate with disillusioned Evangelicals, not to mention his likely appeal to conservative Blacks.
I do disagree with you though as to the odds of a third candidate getting any electoral votes. Who might be able to do that, and what State do you think might be in play?
That's a good question, Ron. One I've been asking myself all week. Of course, it'll be a while before the dust settles and we get a clear picture of conditions in the House post-debt-limit- fight.
At the moment, it appears that President Biden and Democratic leadership have succeded in breaking the MAGA - Kevin McCarthy alliance. There's talk of a partnership between the Speaker and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to ease passage of essential bills in coming weeks.
The MAGA crowd is already withholding votes on procedural matters as a symbolic protest of the debt limit agreement. If this leads to an on-going cross-party alliance that produces a governing majority, I'd call that a victory.
As I've said all along, removing McCarthy was only the means to an end. It may be that retaining him as Speaker is a better result since few if any moderates would even want the position under these circumstances.
So sorry, Rob! Not sure how I got that wrong. I actually had a classmate in high school named Robert Driscoll. Probably not you though, unless you're from Chicago. Now that would be amazing.
Exactly my point all along ... if you can't pay, you don't play. McCarthy is not alone in the use of what our system has become. Do most Americans realize that the "Citizens United" decision by the SupCt makes it possible for foreign powers, through their investment in/ownership of American corporations, can swing the hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the advertising that determines who is elected to lead our country and especially who is not? Americans seem to think that, via democracy, they choose the leaders who set the policies that dramatically affect our lives. In fact, a small group of uber wealthy campaign contributors decides who has the huge amounts of money to run for office and especially who does not. It does not have to be that way. The American people still actually OWN the public airwaves. We could make the nauseous campaign ads illegal. There are far better ways to educate the voting public as to the credentials and ideas of candidates for office. Until this is done, NOTHING is going to change, and democracy will continue to erode.
Hi Jay, I knew you'd love that ending. Thanks for your response.
The lunch was intended to be way below the radar. It was an invite-only affair and was not on the Speaker's public daily schedule. You'll appreciate that the only reason we know about it is because of the street-level work of dedicated journalist Tim Redmond. Mr. Redmond was for decades the editor-in-chief of the highly-regarded alternative weekly San Francisco Bay Guardian. He now publishes the online journal 48 Hills. Here's a link to his original article last week:
https://48hills.org/2023/06/did-house-speaker-mccarthy-just-make-a-stealthy-visit-to-pacific-heights/
Regarding the larger issue, you're right of course about the influence of wealth on everything political. But it's also true that on election day, millions of ordinary citizens cast their votes. They may have been lied to, paid off, misled or otherwise abused. But the votes are counted and if, for example, one candidate gets 11,780 votes more than the other in Georgia, he goes to the White House. And that is no small deal.
What we do here at Feathers of Hope, along with millions of other ordinary folks doing similar work, is maintain civic engagement. In a sense, we're part of an ongoing campaign to keep democracy alive so that there will be voters at the polls when it matters.
In the age of digital media, public ownership of the airwaves doesn't seem particulalrly significant. But the Citizens United decision most emphatically is. If you'd like to do something more than just lament about it, let me suggest getting involved with the movement to pass a Constitutional Amendment reversing that decision. There are currently 94 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives for the We The People Amendment which would establish that money is not speech, and that only human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
You can learn more here: www.MoveToAmend.org
.
Interesting end run around SCOTUS and Citizens United. But still need House and Senate (60 votes) to get it done. Also, I’m surprised I’ve never heard this idea. Spitballing, here… First Amendment concerns?
Actually it's even harder than that, Ron. It needs two-thirds majority in House and Senate, plus ratification by three-quarters of the States. This is a very long-term project.
No problem with First Amendment as the text of the proposed amendment is very specific. It says that artificial entities such as corporations have no rights under the Constitution, only natural persons do. Then just to make sure, it says "The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment."
.
Oh, I did not realize we were talking about a constitutional amendment. Yeah, that’s a major uphill battle (mountain).
So how does this change (or not) your stated goal of removing McCarthy as Speaker? And why?
Rob, My question precisely. Were it up to me, considering the likelihood of a third, possibly a fourth, party presidential candidate in the General, I can’t think of a more important project than focusing on the House delegations, each of which would get one vote were no candidate to garner 270 electoral votes and the election were to be decided by the House. Because Republicans currently control more delegations than Democrats, and have for quite awhile, I believe our time would be well-spent were we to discern which delegations most likely could flip and engage accordingly. To be clear, were the election to be decided by the House, that responsibility would fall to the next Congress. Additionally, I would note, given the urgency, such a project likely would contribute to growing this community.
Thanks for your comment, Barbara Jo. As I mentioned to Rob, for the last several days I too have been questioning how our network can best contribute in the coming months, given the changing balance of power in the House.
While it's not too soon to be thinking about this, I won't be charting a new direction right away. But any and all suggestions are greatly appreciated.
In that regard, I couldn't agree more about the importance of flipping House seats in 2024, both for the reason you state and also for the purpose of re-gaining the majority. But I don't really see what we can do that isn't already beiing done by other organizations.
Lots to consider right now. Again, thanks for your support and input.
.
Jerry, I would note I am unaware of any strategic effort, in the event the Presidential election were to be decided by the House, to establish which of the delegations currently controlled by Republicans could flip to Democratic control. I believe we all should bear in mind the odds that no nominee will reach the requisite 270 electoral votes, at which point the decision would move to the House. Were the current House delegations to cast their vote (fortunately, that responsibility would rest with the next Congress), the Republican candidate (perhaps Trump) would become our next President. As I indicated in my original comment, this matter, which is virtually absent from the public discourse, is among the most critical as we enter the 24 election season.
Postscript: While I don’t have the latest figures, the last time I checked House Republicans controlled 26 delegations, House Democrats controlled 23, and Pennsylvania was tied. I believe this was the break-down when Democrats controlled the House. Hence, getting the election outcome moved to the House was among Trump’s priority stratagems in 2020.
Barbara Jo, the current breakdown is 26 Republican delegations, 22 Democratic and 2 tied (MN and NC). The two tied States would obviously be prime targets, and I'd expect AZ and WI to be possiblities. What I'd really like to see is a strong effort in unexpected places like the Dakotas, Mississippi, W. Virginia. where a one or two seat win would be a majority.
Cornell West recently announced his candidacy for pres. and his intention to campaign exclusively in Trump country. If the Dems could piggy-back with a strong House candidate, instead of writing those districts off as irretrievably red, it's possible we could steal a seat or two there. West has a powerful anti-corporate and pro-Christian message that could resonate with disillusioned Evangelicals, not to mention his likely appeal to conservative Blacks.
I do disagree with you though as to the odds of a third candidate getting any electoral votes. Who might be able to do that, and what State do you think might be in play?
.
That's a good question, Ron. One I've been asking myself all week. Of course, it'll be a while before the dust settles and we get a clear picture of conditions in the House post-debt-limit- fight.
At the moment, it appears that President Biden and Democratic leadership have succeded in breaking the MAGA - Kevin McCarthy alliance. There's talk of a partnership between the Speaker and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to ease passage of essential bills in coming weeks.
The MAGA crowd is already withholding votes on procedural matters as a symbolic protest of the debt limit agreement. If this leads to an on-going cross-party alliance that produces a governing majority, I'd call that a victory.
As I've said all along, removing McCarthy was only the means to an end. It may be that retaining him as Speaker is a better result since few if any moderates would even want the position under these circumstances.
.
Agreed. BTW, it’s Rob (not Ron) NP, just a heads up for future reference. :)
So sorry, Rob! Not sure how I got that wrong. I actually had a classmate in high school named Robert Driscoll. Probably not you though, unless you're from Chicago. Now that would be amazing.
.
No problem, Jerry. Not from Chicago.