Activists hope 1.9 million petitions calling for overturn of Citizens United will be too big to ignore

Growing grassroots movement to take back government from special interest elites

No 584 Posted by fw October 1, 2012

This post is a tribute to a coalition of dozens of US organizations that have united to overturn Citizens United by amending the constitution. Below is a small sample of those involved in building and delivering a strategic, multifaceted campaign which, unlike so many campaigns these days, is not relying solely on petitions.

Activists Deliver 1.9 Million Petitions Calling for Constitutional Amendment to Protect Democracy, published by People for the American Way (PFAW), July 24, 2012

WASHINGTON – July 24 – Today, concerned citizens and organizations delivered 1,959,063 signatures calling for overturning Citizens United and related cases by amending the Constitution. The petitions were delivered in connection with hearings held by the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee to examine the impact of Citizens United, Speech Now and related cases and the need for constitutional remedies to restore the democratic promise of America. The millions of Americans whose names appear on these petitions reflect the deep-seated public concern about the state of our democracy and the growing grassroots movement to restore government, of, by, and for the people.

Natalie Foster, Co-Founder and CEO of Rebuild the Dream:

“Throughout U.S. history, whenever something in our democracy hasn’t been working, we’ve amended the Constitution. We’ve amended the Constitution to protect and extend the right to vote. Even basic rights we take for granted, like freedom of speech, are from amendments. Now, we must get big money out of our politics. This is another moment to make history and form a more perfect union together. “

The vast majority of Americans oppose Citizens United and related cases, and a grassroots movement calling on public officials to take action is growing stronger. This year, 51 organizations submitted a letter to congressional leaders calling for these very hearings, and more than 1,800 public officials from 41 states are already on record in support of constitutional remedies. More information on the effort to amend the Constitution can be found at www.united4thepeople.org.

Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People for the American Way:

“The interests of the American people should be front and center in our elections, and today, 1.9 million Americans made that point loud and clear. But despite the message we sent Congress today, all over the country, our voices are being drowned out by the powerful corporations and the super wealthy. Short of changing who sits on the Supreme Court, amending the Constitution is the only way to undo the damage done to our democracy by Citizens United. The American people overwhelmingly support that idea, and by holding these hearings, our elected representatives are honoring the millions of Americans who are calling for a Constitution that ensures that “We the People” means all the people, not just the privileged few.”

Leslie Watson Malachi, Director of African American Ministers in Action, a program of People for the American Way:

“This petition drive proves that our collective voice can be the spark of change. Because millions of people have signed their names to proclaim that our democracy is not for sale, this grassroots movement has the power to take back our elections and ensure government by people through fair and transparent elections. We’ve made it clear to our elected representatives that a constitutional amendment is necessary to uphold that ideal. These hearings show how far this movement has come.”

Robert Weissman, President of Public Citizen:

“The choice is simple: We can have a working democracy, in which the people rule, or we can have a Citizens United-facilitated plutocracy, in which giant corporations and the super-rich dominate elections. Rescuing our democracy requires that we overturn Citizens United and other decisions that constitutionalize the “right” of corporations and the super-rich to buy elections. With no prospect of the Court revisiting the damaging decisions it has inflicted, we need a constitutional amendment to reestablish the simple principle that Democracy is for People.”

Justin Ruben, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Political Action:

“We’ve seen this summer how a handful of billionaires are trying to buy the election. That’s one of the reasons nearly 700,000 MoveOn members have spoken out in favor of overturning Citizens United, getting big money out of our elections, and preventing our democracy from being sold to the highest bidder.”

Becky Bond, Political Director of CREDO Action:

“How can the American people have an equal voice in our democracy when corporations are flooding the political system with millions in secret campaign donations? We must pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, end corporate personhood and help get shadowy money out of politics for good.”

Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause:

“Super PACs have transformed our elections into the sport of kings. Billionaires and corporations are pooling unlimited sums of money into joint accounts, pledging astronomical sums in support of or opposition to candidates, and recklessly drowning out the voices of the American people. These corporations and mega donors are motivated by an expectation of influence and access, often at the expense of the public interest. We cannot afford to auction off our vibrant democracy to the highest bidder.”

Lisa Graves, the Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy/ ALECexposed.org:

“While billionaires are openly writing million-dollar checks to Super PACs, millions more is being secretly funneled to front groups whose ads may affect who wins and wields power over people and policy. Deceptively named nonprofit groups are becoming the Swiss bank accounts of elections, receiving secret multi-million dollar gifts that buy ads to influence how Americans vote. We may never know the true identity of those attempting to buy our elections through such shadowy groups — whether they are corporations or people, domestic or foreign — but we do know American democracy is increasingly for sale and that’s why We the People are demanding that the Constitution be amended to fight this corruption.”

Peter Schurman, Campaign Director at Free Speech For People:

“For a campaign we all knew would be difficult, the Senate hearing today is a major milestone: it shows that the growing movement for a constitutional amendment is starting to make a dent in Washington. It’s time for Congress and the states to overrule the Supreme Court and make it clear that we the people, not we the corporations, are in charge of American democracy.”

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, National Field Organizing Director, Move to Amend

“In community after community citizens are making clear through ballot initiatives and resolutions that they want their elected representatives to pass an amendment to overrule the Court by abolishing corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as free speech. These hearings are one step toward achieving that amendment, and we won’t stop our efforts until the majority of the members of Congress are behind us and show that they understand that their job is to serve the people, not corporations or the privileged few.”

David Levine, American Small Business Council CEO and Co-Founder:

“Business leaders would rather invest their money to create jobs than have to compete with big business bank accounts to be heard, and they are fighting back. More than 2,000 business leaders have joined the American Sustainable Business Council’s (ASBC) Business for Democracy campaign to fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns the Citizens United decision.”

Eric Byler, President of the Coffee Party Board of Directors:

“Public awareness about money in politics is growing rapidly and crossing all cultural and political divides. Just like the founders of this nation, we are responding to an abuse of power by elite profiteers who feel entitled to govern over people. The task before us is to finish what our founders started — not to start a revolution but to complete one — by amending the Constitution and reestablishing the right to self-governance for people; not profiteers.”

Blair Bowie of U.S. PIRG:

“For nearly forty years, the Supreme Court has been driving us down a road that will inevitably dead end in the demise of American democracy. In equating money with speech the Court rejected the notion that in a democracy the size of your wallet should not determine the volume of your voice. Instead it enshrined the rights of artificial entities and ultra-wealthy individuals to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens in a flood of often secret cash. Ultimately, we can only get out of this judicial rut by amending the U.S. Constitution to clarify to the Supreme Court that the first amendment was never meant to be used as a tool for special interests to co-opt our democratic process. Today’s hearing and the massive citizen mobilization across the country since Citizens United show that the American people are ready to turn this car around.”

Stephanie Taylor, Co-Founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee:

“An unprecedented amount of secret money is already surging through our political system because of the Citizens United ruling. As we’re demonstrating today, there is huge public support for passing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Americans want to take our democracy back from big corporations and billionaires. Passing this amendment is a critical first step.”

Bob Fertik, President of Democrats.com:

“The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United was catastrophic for American democracy. The American people now see the results in the form of endless TV attack ads, most of which are aimed at destroying President Obama. The Super PAC Billionaires who bought these ads remain largely anonymous, like hidden puppeteers pulling on strings. One million members of Democrats.com are united in our determination to pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn Citizens United and replace Super PACs and other corrupt election money with clean public funds. Money out, voters in!”

Christopher Campbell, Wolf PAC:

“Our democracy is in serious trouble. It’s time to change that. It’s time we end the corporate takeover of our government. The only way to do that is to bypass the corporate-owned Congress and Supreme Court – and pass a constitutional amendment. We must pass a 28th Amendment saying that corporations are not people and they do not have the right to buy our elections.”

Larry Cohen, President of Communications Workers of America:

“Our electoral process should be about the rights of individuals to participate in our nation’s politics. That’s what democracy looks like. The Communications Workers of America commends elected officials at every level of government who are fighting to restore fairness to our political process. The role of money in politics must be completely overhauled. Today it dwarfs everything else and is distorting our democracy. Working with other progressive organizations, CWA is committed to stopping the flow of secret cash to political campaigns and making it clear to all dollars are not speech. This effort will require constitutional changes and other measures to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which opened the floodgates for secret spending and today enables billionaires to buy our nation’s elections. We also will work for the public financing of elections, because without these very real changes, the one percent will continue to control our politics.”

People For the American Way is dedicated to making the promise of America real for every American: Equality. Freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. The right to seek justice in a court of law. The right to cast a vote that counts. The American Way. Our vision is a vibrantly diverse democratic society in which everyone is treated equally under the law, given the freedom and opportunity to pursue their dreams, and encouraged to participate in our nation’s civic and political life. Our America respects diversity, nurtures creativity and combats hatred and bigotry.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Canadian parliament debates climate change policies: Absolute insanity on two fronts

“The ultimate irony” — MP Elizabeth May on the climate debate in the House. But it’s actually worse than ironical — it’s insane.

No 575 Posted by fw September 23, 2012

“It has been a long time since I have heard so much debate in the House about carbon taxes and climate plans. Unfortunately, none of it is focused on the climate crisis. It is the ultimate irony – I hear the words, but the issue is ignored… We have to stop the spin and focus on what matters. Science is divided on whether we still have time. For my children’s sake I refuse to accept that it is too late. I will keep telling the truth about who did what and when, but history is just that. We better start talking about what we plan to do. NOW!” —Elizabeth May

Ms May details the source of her frustration and exasperation with a recent House debate in a piece posted on her blog, which is reposted below.

But first, the theatre of the absurd that passes for ‘debate’ in our House of Commons is much worse than ironical — it’s “absolute insanity on two fronts”. The phrase “absolute insanity on two fronts” actually appeared in a different context in a June 23, 2012 post on this blog — Rio+20: The epitome of insanity on two fronts. It began with this quote –

“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” —Albert Einstein

The House debate about climate policies rightly deserves the epithet “insanity”. To explain, I turn to American environmental advocate and civil rights activist, Van Jones. In his book Rebuild the Dream. (p. 114-115). he laments over progressives who keep repeating the same ineffective tactics in the hopes of achieving change.

His lamentation begins with this quote from linguist George Lakoff:

“…liberals have the idea that if you just tell people the facts, people will be rational and reach the right conclusion. The facts will set you free. They won’t.”

Jones continues:

Progressives find themselves constantly frustrated and exasperated when the real world refuses to conform to this mental construct. We accuse our conservative rivals of being stupid or crazy because they won’t behave as this model suggests they should…

But what if it turns out that progressives are the ignorant ones? Ignorant – unknowing of – not stupid. Maybe we are ignorant of some things – meaning we lack some important insights into the way change actually works.”

Might we have some learning, rethinking, and growing to do? After all, we are the ones who consistently do the same things in politics, often getting results we don’t like, yet we continue behaving exactly the same way, all the while expecting radically different outcomes.

The ignorant behavior Jones attributes to progressives fits Einstein’s definition of insanity.

And so does this –

Canadian environmental NGOs, independent citizen activists, and opposing parties in the House, keep expecting a combination of endless rhetoric, countless petitions, Private Members Bills, amendments to Bills, write-in campaigns, letters to the editor, protest speeches on the Hill, pundit panel discussions and variations on the same theme, will motivate Harper to depart from his right-wing, ideologically-driven policies. So far these tactics don’t appear to have had the desired impact.

Recognizing that words in one form or another aren’t enough, Van Jones developed an informed, multifaceted blueprint to Rebuild the Dream. Moreover, since speaking truth to power works best (when power isn’t listening) if you have counterpower, Van Jones has a following of more than 300,000 people who have pledged their support of the Dream’s Contract. Van Jones writes this about the counterpower of people –

We tell our stories and raise our voices in national media to spread the movement. To do so, we partner with artists, musicians, filmmakers, and other creative innovators to inspire millions to join.

When the power of persuasion fails, it’s time for the persuasion of the counterpower of the people.

Turning to the second of the two fronts of the absolute insanity that took place in the House debate about climate policies, Elizabeth May characterized the “spin” debate as the “ultimate irony” because it failed to even mention the science and what we plan to do about the ominous threat that puts at risk the very survival of human civilization.

As promised, here is Ms May’s post as it originally appeared on her blog –

Climate change in the spin cycle, Elizabeth May, September 21st, 2012 in Blogs

It has been a long time since I have heard so much debate in the House about carbon taxes and climate plans. Unfortunately, none of it is focused on the climate crisis. It is the ultimate irony – I hear the words, but the issue is ignored.

We should be talking about the science. We should, as Parliamentarians, regardless of party, be acting responsibly as the evidence piles up. Every day it seems there is new evidence, always more worrying. Climate change is no longer creeping slowly. It is galloping, spurred on by dangerous feed-back loops. The Arctic ice is shrinking in ways that spell danger for all of us, permafrost is melting threatening the release of vast deposits of methane (a very powerful greenhouse gas), oceans are acidifying, food production is threatened, and around the world lives are lost in extreme events from floods to fires to mudslides to tropical storms and tornadoes. We should be talking about how we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible in hopes of avoiding ever-more-likely runaway global warming. I don’t like thinking about- or worse, talking about, the worst case scenarios of global warming. But former French President Sarkozy was right: the survival of human civilization is at risk.

Those are not the words of the leaders of the mainstream parties. In the House, we get a Punch and Judy show of feigned outrage. Instead of talking about what we should be doing, the main parties are stuck in a Mobius loop of distortion. Yesterday, I couldn’t finish asking a question due to the heckling of the NDP caucus. What was the trigger for otherwise civil folks, many of them people I love, to act out so rudely? I had the effrontery to mention that there had once been a plan to meet Kyoto targets.

I did not do so to laud the Liberal record. The Liberal record is one of broken promises starting when Jean Chretien dumped the promise in the 1993 Red Book to reduce GHG by 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. I am cursed with a good memory. I remember the day we found out Chretien would not allow the federal, provincial, multi-stakeholder taskforce even to analyze carbon taxes as a possible mechanism to meet the Liberal target. I remember his trip with [cabinet minister] Anne McLellan to the oil sands to drop a few billion and promise rapid development. I remember feeling like I’d just been sucker-punched. But it is absurd for the NDP to want to re-write history to say there was never a plan. I was about to say in the House, that the plan came very late – in spring 2005. But, again, I remember the struggle to get the plan approved. The day to day battle with Natural Resources Canada leaks, undermining Stéphane Dion and Environment Canada with daily front page stories in the Globe and Mail attacking a plan that was not even public yet. It was not a perfect plan. I would not have designed it the way it was designed. But, according to reliable experts, such as Pembina Institute, if the plan had been implemented, Canada would have come very close to our Kyoto targets. Of course, less than a year later, Stephen Harper killed it and the billions of dollars in programmes that had been in the 2005 budget.

The NDP is right to call out the Conservatives for lies claiming the NDP supports a carbon tax. As Jeffrey Simpson points out very clearly in today’s Globe, the cap and trade carbon pricing advocated by the NDP is no different from what Stephen Harper once said he would do.

On the other hand, while the Conservatives keep accusing the NDP of favouring a carbon tax, and the NDP deny it, what gets lost is that we actually need carbon pricing urgently – as in a decade ago. And even with a carbon price, whether through the free market mechanism of cap and trade or through the more efficient means of a revenue neutral carbon tax, we will need far more in programs, regulations, job-creating initiatives in energy efficiency and renewables, to have any hope of playing a responsible role in the world. Greens favour a carbon tax as the best way to reduce GHG and put money in the pockets of Canadians. On the other hand, if a cap and trade plan was properly designed, I wouldn’t oppose it. This is not Lilliput with a war over which end of the egg gets cracked. It should not be a phony fight over mechanisms. We should actually be talking about doing something.

And that is what is not being discussed. The Conservatives are telling lies about the NDP wanting a carbon tax and the NDP are telling a lie that there was never a Liberal carbon plan, and the Liberal attacks on Mulcair over his comments on Dutch disease (a reasonable issue for him to raise) are also spin over substance. It’s all spin.

It would be easy to say “a plague on all their houses.” But global warming is a plague on all our houses. We have to stop the spin and focus on what matters. Science is divided on whether we still have time. For my children’s sake I refuse to accept that it is too late. I will keep telling the truth about who did what and when, but history is just that. We better start talking about what we plan to do. NOW!

SEE ALSO

• How Much Degrowth Is Enough – Video By Jack Alpert, published by Countercurrents, September 21, 2012. In a worst case scenario, Jack Alpert, Director, Stanford Knowledge Integration Laboratory (SKIL), calculates that without the creation of new energy sources, energy deliveries on the North American continent could plummet to 3% of their current levels. And three percent of our energy, claims Alpert, will only support 3% of the current North American population (US, Canada and Central America) of 480 million, or a decline to about 14.4 million people – presuming everyone on the continent desires to live the average American lifestyle. With an aggressive economic degrowth policy, it would be possible to support as many as 80 million. How much time do we have? It would have to be done within the lifetime of a child living today. And if we don’t do it? The collapse of civilization as we know it.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

U.S. citizens and politicians unite to overturn “Citizens United” ruling

Van Jones explains how they’re doing it

No 521 Posted by fw, July 10, 2012

This post is excerpted from Chapter 7 of Van Jones’ new book, Rebuild the Dream, in which Jones advances a multifaceted strategy for fixing America’s damaged democracy and restoring the American Dream of the good life – steady meaningful work, financial security, housing in a safe community, stable family life, and retiring with dignity.

In Chapter 7, Occupy the Inside Game, Jones writes: “As corrupt as the [political] system has become, we simply cannot refuse to play the Inside Game, even as we work to change it.” (p. 158).

He makes the case for three tactics to change the system:

1. Change the Game: Fix our democracy by getting big money and corporations out of the political system
2. Play the Game: Put proposals and candidates on the ballot who will defend the 99% and help rebuild the American Dream
3. Win the Game: Force both parties to be better champions for the 99% in the same was that the Tea Party movement ultimately forced both parties to be better champions for the worst of the 1%.

Regarding the first tactic, Jones says that a crucial step in his plan to “get big money and corporations out of the political system” is to overturn the “Citizens United” ruling. (For background information on this ruling, read Wikipedia’s entry, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).

Which brings us to the subject of this post –

Playing the Inside Game: U.S. Citizens and Politicians Unite to Overturn “Citizens United” Ruling by Van Jones in Rebuild the Dream, Chapter 7: Occupy the Inside Game, (pp160-165)

Overturning Citizens United will take an amendment of the US Constitution

Congress cannot simply overturn the ruling, though, since the Supreme Court invoked the constitutional protections of the First Amendment. Therefore, we need a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. The need to overturn the decision grew in popularity the Occupy protests. A famous sign in Zuccotti Park read: “I’ll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.” In a December 16, 2011 letter to the Austin Chronicle, entitled “Occupy the Future,” Michael Ventura wrote:

Until the Civil War, the Supreme Court justified slavery. The 13th and 14th amendments (1865 and 1868) changed that. Until 1920, American women were denied the vote. The 19th amendment changed that. Until 1964, Southern states enforced segregation by tactics such as poll taxes. The 24th amendment made those tactics illegal. Through an amendment to the constitution, we can change the legal status of corporations. We can do it now.

The amendment would need to establish that for-profit corporations do not have First Amendment speech rights. The amendment would not limit freedom of the press for corporations, or it could be drafted to exclude media corporations carrying out broadcasting or publishing. Amending the constitutions is not (and should not be) easy. But it can be done, as history makes clear. The 23rd and 26th amendments (establishing voting rights for District of Columbia residents, and setting the minimum voting age at eighteen) were passed by Congress and ratified in less than a year. (That said, it took 203 years between the original proposal and the ultimate ratification of our most recent amendments, the 27th which impacts Congressional salaries).

Mechanism and strategy for amending the U.S. Constitution

The mechanism for amending the U.S. Constitution requires both the House and Senate to pass the proposal with two-thirds majority; then the proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. The key to success is a strong foundation of popular support. Right now, there is enormous anti-corporate sentiment, uniting people across party lines: 85 percent of Americans feel that corporations have too much power in our democracy. A campaign begun at the state level would make sense: it would provide leverage to push Congress and lay the groundwork for winning the thirty-eight states that are required for ratification.

Campaigns by political watchdog organizations to organize citizens and work with legislators

By early 2012, the battle had begun somewhat. Nonprofit political watchdog groups Public Citizen and Common Cause are leading campaigns to organize citizens and work with legislators. Common Cause, whose chairman is economist Robert Reich, is promoting ballot measures that give voters the opportunity to instruct members of Congress to take action to reverse Citizens United.

Members of Congress busy introducing their own Constitutional amendments

Meanwhile, members of Congress have already introduced a number of Constitutional amendments, some of which do not specifically address the ruling that corporations have free speech rights. On September 12, 2011, less than a week before the Occupiers arrived at Zuccotti Park, Representative Donna Edwards (D-Maryland) introduced H.J. Res 78, which would clarify the authority of Congress and the states to regulate the expenditure of funds for political activity by corporations. Similarly, in November 2011, Democratic senators Tom Udall of New Mexico and Michael Bennet of Colorado proposed a Constitutional amendment (S.J. Res 29) to give federal and state congresses the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

Other proposals do reverse corporate personhood. In November 2011, Florida representative Ted Deutch introduced the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) amendment. It would ban for-profit corporations from contributing to campaign spending and explicitly clarify that corporations are not people and cannot be protected by the Constitution. Vermont Independent senator Bernie Sanders introduced a companion measure to the Senate known as the Saving American Democracy Amendment.

Nonpartisan group Free Speech for People produced the People’s Rights Amendments, introduced by Congressman Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. In December 2011, Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota introduced the Get Corporate Money Out of Politics Constitutional amendment. Both declare that corporations are not people.

In December 2011, Representative John Yarmuth of Kentucky and Walter Jones of North Carolina introduced a bipartisan amendment that would establish that financial expenditures and in-kind contributions do not qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment. It also makes Election Day a legal holiday and enables Congress to establish a public financing system that would serve as the sole source of funding for federal elections.

Other steps that can be taken – Public financing for federal elections

Short of an amendment there are other steps that can be taken. One way is to address the issue of public financing for federal elections, which would at least give candidates a base of decent funding to offset whatever corporations choose to spend. Other legislative approaches also could minimize the damage, such as requiring disclosure of the sources of political spending and requiring that a majority of shareholders must approve any corporate electoral-related expenditure.

Common Cause has promoted the DISCLOSE (Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections) Act, which would force corporations and unions to publicly stand by their ads (the top five donors would be listed in the screen). The DISCLOSE Act, as passed by the House in 2010 would:

• Prohibit corporations that receive federal contracts worth more than $50,000 from spending money to influence federal elections;
• Prohibit companies that have received and not paid back funds from the federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) from spending money on elections; and
• Prevent foreign-based corporations from spending money on elections. Companies that have 20 percent foreign voting shares or a majority of foreign directors would also be forbidden from spending money on elections.

Although the DISCLOSE Act passed in the House, a Republican-led filibuster blocked it repeatedly from passing ion the Senate.

A new organization called United Re:public is building a coalition from across the political spectrum to counter special interests in politics. Its strategy is to make the grants supporting people and organizations with viable solutions. United Re:public recently merged with Rootstrikers, a group founded by Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, and with Get Money Out campaign, an effort started by MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan, both of which share the goal of ending the domination of Big Money over the political process.

(I have added the hyperlinks to the original text from Van Jones’ book).

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing