Is the US No Longer a Democracy?

Severe financial inequality and "money as speech" = US oligarchy (rule by the richest few).

Among the blog posts worth taking time to read are:

Erza Klein's: http://www.vox.com/2014/4/11/5581272/doom-loop-oligarchy

Matthew Yglesias': http://www.vox.com/2014/10/2/6889147/winship-tcherneva-inequality-debate

Kevin Drum's: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/09/rich-are-getting-richer-part-millionth

The only way to maintain our democracy is for ALL eligible voters to get informed and VOTE.

When Corporations Abandon Their Corporate Citizenship

Talk about not paying a fair share of taxes for the benefits received.  Some corporations who do most of their business in the US are scheming to "locate" in other countries to avoid taxes.

Norm Ornstein explains how in this piece from The Atlantic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/07/corporations-still-not-people/373889/

If Money Is Speech, We Have a Right to Know Who is Talking

If you are as fed up with the number, frequency and content of political ads as I am, here is some welcome news.  We do not have to wait for Congress to act in order to find out whose money is speaking.  The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has the power to force the disclosure of who is paying for ads.  (For example, we deserve to know who those "Americans for Prosperity" are. An organization's name is not enough - who funds the ads.)  But the FCC will only take action if we citizens make our voices heard.

According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study:

 “The FCC is responsible for ensuring that the public knows when and by whom it is being persuaded.” Again, this requirement applies to both commercial and political advertising. In fact, the GAO states, “For content considered political or that discusses a controversial issue, broadcasters must follow all requirements for commercial content and additional requirements, such as indentifying officials associated with the entity paying for an advertisement.” 

It is Section 317 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. §47) that requires on-air identification of ad sponsors. Explaining the rules it wrote to implement the law, the FCC stipulated years ago that political ads must “fully and fairly disclose the true identity of the person or persons, or corporation, committee, association or other unincorporated group, or other entity” paying for them. “Listeners are entitled to know by whom they are being persuaded,” said the FCC. I think we all get the drift of what’s being required here: specific identification of who is really bank-rolling all this stuff?

Read more about this from the source of the above quote at http://benton.org/node/148065 

Here are some ways to take action:

• Best way: Contact the FCC chairman and each of the commissioners and urge them to issue updated rules for Section 317 that will require the true identity of those individuals and organizations who are paying for political and issues ads to be listed.  

Chairman Tom Wheeler: Tom.Wheeler@fcc.gov

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel: Jessica.Rosenworcel@fcc.gov

Commissioner Ajit Pai: Ajit.Pai@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael O’Rielly: Mike.O'Rielly@fcc.gov

• Another good way: Sign the "Tell the FCC to Enforce Disclosure" petition on the Common Cause web site.

Involved Voters acting together can help reduce the impact of the recent US Supreme Court's decisions regarding money and political speech.

Supreme Court Decisions and Income Inequality

Yesterday, economist Joseph Stiglitz testified before the Senate Budget Committee.  Today the US Supreme Court announced its 5 to 4 decision declaring limits on the total amount of money individuals can give to candidates, political parties and political action committees unconstitutional.

Stiglitz's prepared remarks on income inequality are worth reading and can be found here: http://www.nextnewdeal.net/stiglitz-why-inequality-matters-and-what-can-be-done-about-it.

Here is the section of his remarks that made the connection with the Supreme Court's decision for me (highlighting mine):

(W)e pay a high price for this inequality, in terms of our democracy and nature of our society. A divided society is different—it doesn't function as well. Our democracy is undermined, as economic inequality inevitably translates into political inequality. I describe in my book how the outcomes of America’s politics are increasingly better described as the result of a system not of one person one vote but of one dollar one vote. One of the prices we pay for the extremes to which inequality has grown and the nature of inequality in America—both inequality in outcomes and inequalities of opportunities—is that we have a weaker economy. Greater inequality leads to lower growth and more instability. These ideas now have become mainstream: even the IMF has embraced them. We used to think of there being a trade-off: we could achieve more equality, but only at the expense of giving up on overall economic performance. Now we realize that, especially given the extremes of inequality achieved in the US and the manner in which it is generated, greater equality and improved economic performance are complements.

More information about the Senate Budget Committee hearing can be found at:  http://www.budget.senate.gov/democratic/public/index.cfm/2014/3/meet-the-witnesses-joseph-stiglitiz-and-raj-chetty  There are links to more information about the two economists, Stiglitz and Chetty, at that site.