Restore the Fourth

This Fourth of July, I stand by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and against mass, warrantless spying on the American people by the NSA.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I join with Restore the Fourth, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and StopWatching.us in support of their open letter to Congress, calling on them to to immediately and publicly:

1. Enact reform this Congress to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, the state secrets privilege, and the FISA Amendments Act to make clear that blanket surveillance of the Internet activity and phone records of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court;
2. Create a special committee to investigate, report, and reveal to the public the extent of this domestic spying. This committee should create specific recommendations for legal and regulatory reform to end unconstitutional surveillance;
3. Hold accountable those public officials who are found to be responsible for this unconstitutional surveillance.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Returning Democracy to the (Natural) People

Today marks the second anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, which unleashed unlimited spending by corporate "persons" to influence our elections. We saw some of the effect of this in the 2010 mid-term elections, and we're seeing it already this year in the wildly expensive and nasty fight for the Republican nomination. But, while Citizens United expanded the concepts of corporations as legal persons and money as speech, it didn't start there.

It actually started about 125 years ago with the case of Southern Pacific Railroad v. Santa Clara County. In that decision, the court held that the railroad corporation was entitled to rights under the 14th Amendment. Many cases between Southern Pacific and Citizens United have further expanded the concept of corporate rights and personhood, often at the expense of human citizens.

But the humans have not given up hope, and have begun to fight back. Move to Amend is an organization trying to pass an Amendment to the Constitution that would clearly state that corporations are not people, and money is not speech. Yesterday, they held rallies across the country themed as "Occupy the Courts" aimed at overturning Citizens United and educating people on the need for a Constitutional amendment.

I attended in San Jose, where our rally took place in Saint James Park, across the street from the very courthouse where the Southern Pacific case began 125 years ago. There were a few speakers, including a city councilman and a woman who was fired from Walmart for being a whistle-blower, followed by a skit of "campaign speeches" from a robot representing different corporations. We then marched through town, past the Federal office building, and ending for second, smaller, rally in front of City Hall.

At its height, there were maybe a couple hundred of us. Not too large, but a good sized group for a rainy weekday. But where was the media? I saw only a couple of people who seemed to be taking notes or a few professional photos, but no TV crews. The Move to Amend folks are going to need to get much better at PR if this movement is to take off.

Passing a new amendment to the Constitution may be difficult, but is not impossible, and the stakes could not be higher. While there has always been an undue influence of money in our political process, Citizens United amplifies it hundreds of times over. Corporations are now able to give untraceable millions to SuperPACs that are not bound by any of the controls or limits that we've placed on candidates or individuals. They can say pretty much anything and will drown out the voice of We the People.

We have to make it clear to our leaders, and to the corporate interests that fund them, that democracy is for us human citizens only, and is no longer for sale to the highest bidder. One person, one voice, one vote.

Ending Corporate Personhood

Way back in 2002, Congress passed the bi-partisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly referred to as McCain–Feingold in reference to its primary sponsors. One of the provisions of McCain–Feingold prohibited corporations (for-profit, nonprofit, unions, etc.) from broadcasting “electioneering communications” either for or against a particular candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

Last year (January 2010), the Supreme Court struck down that provision in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission on the grounds that it violated their first amendment rights to free speech. While there have been many laws and court decisions over the years that have treated corporations like people or citizens, Citizens United was never-the-less a landmark in overtly saying that the protections of the Bill of the Rights are explicitly applied to corporations as well as people.

Justice Stevens, in his dissenting opinion, wrote:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding... It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense.

In the nearly two years since then, many have talked about the need to over-turn this decision. Part of that is the movement to amend the Constitution to be clear that corporations are not people, and are not entitled to the same rights and protections as persons, and that money is not speech!

To learn more about this movement, and add your name to the petition, see movetoamend.org

Giving up on a New Constitution?

Back in November I wrote about efforts underway to call a California State Constitutional Convention that would take our bloated, unworkable governance structure (California's Constitution is the world's third longest; eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution) and reform our state government from head to toe.

Well, as of yesterday, Backers of the campaign have suspended their efforts because of a lack of money. To date, they've only collected 100,000 of the million or so petition signatures required to get the Constitutional Convention on the ballot. Further, they've only raised about one million dollars ("only?") and some pledged donations have failed to come in.

"Campaign officials said they would need at least $3.5 million for a successful signature-gathering effort, plus millions more for the actual campaign. They blamed the tough economy and people focusing charitable efforts on Haiti for the lack of donations to their effort."

Well, first off, the nonprofit consultant part of me wants to yell at them for making excuses: Never blame the donors! They failed to get their message out and make a strong case to the average voter, plain and simple.

But, more to the point of this blog, part of my reason for supporting a Constitutional Convention and other reforms is to reduce the influence of money on our political processes. Now, we need another $3.5 million to fight against the high price of democracy. Huh?

As I wrote in that initial blog, the whole Initiative process (roughly one century old) was also an attempt to take power from the elites and corporations and return it to the people. Now we need new reforms to save us from the expensive mess that the old reforms have become. And so it goes.

The Repair California web site is still live, if you have an extra few million dollars lying around to give them to re-ignite the campaign.

Can California be Saved?

There are those who would place all the blame on Hiram Johnson. It was Johnson, as Governor, and the Progressives who brought the great reforms of the Initiative, Referendum, and Recall (along with direct election of US Senators) to California nearly 100 years ago to break the monopoly on power held by the State Legislature and the corporate interests who owned the individual members of that body.*

The legacy of a century of Initiatives and Referendums is a state Constitution with over 500 amendments (often conflicting with or negating each other) that is the world's third longest (eight times the length of the U.S. Constitution), a practice of budgeting through the ballot box that has left the Governor and Legislature very little authority in dealing with fiscal emergencies, and a state that is considered by many on both the right and the left as being virtually un-governable.

Far from being a tool for the people to self-govern when leaders fail, it has become accepted that to pass any statewide ballot measure requires the backing of the same large monied interests that the Progressives sought to silence. And yet, we still cling to the progressive reforms. While nearly all see the need for reform in how our state is governed, virtually nobody is suggesting an overhaul of the Initiative and Referendum process.

In fact, a year from now, in November 2010, we are likely to have at least half-a-dozen reform efforts using the Initiative process to cure us of the problems caused by abuse of the Initiative process. Can Alanis Morissette write a verse about that irony?

Yesterday I went to a lunch meeting of the American Leadership Forum, Silicon Valley, to hear about the history of some of these reform movements, previous efforts to save our state, and to discuss whether too many reform efforts on the same ballot will doom them all. The guest speaker was Don Benninghoven, a former Executive Director of the League of California Cities, and the vice-chair of the Constitutional Revision Commission (1996-98) appointed by Governor Pete Wilson.

That Commission actually did recommend some changes to the Initiative process, including adding a requirement that the Legislature review all submitted initiatives and have the opportunity to amend them before being submitted to the voters. This was suggested as a way of cutting down on the law suits that inevitably follow most initiatives by having them conform to certain standards of Constitutional review. They also recommended that rather than be set in stone and require another costly initiative to amend once an initiative is passed, that there be a set time frame (five years?) after which the Legislature could amend initiatives without putting it before the people. By the time their report was finalized, however, a new Republican majority had taken over the Legislature and they shelved the entire project.

But on to November of 2010... Several organizations have submitted Initiative language to the State, and will likely soon receive approval to start collecting signatures for ballot access. They include...

The League of California Cities will have their "Save our Cities... Again" Initiative. Basically, their aim is to protect local jurisdictions (the only level of government that most citizens still trust) from having their funds grabbed by the State each time the State is in trouble. The League has been successful with this type of Initiative before.

California Forward has their 2010 Reform Plan as well. This will likely be on the ballot in two (or three?) different measures, including such reforms as changing the vote needed to pass a state budget from 2/3 majority to simple majority, holding legislators personally responsible for failing to pass a budget on time, and protection of local government, similar to the League of California Cities effort.

And then there's the biggie: Repair California's call for a new State Constitutional Convention (Repair California was initiated by the Bay Area Council, but has grown to be a statewide coalition). Rather than work piecemeal around this problem or that problem and just add to the clutter of our unworkable governing document, they want to start fresh. Of course, that fresh start requires two Initiatives to set in motion: One to amend the current state Constitution to allow for citizens to call for a convention, and the second one to actually make that call.

Of course, this is the Initiative (or two) that has me the most fascinated and interested. It could be the greatest thing to happen to this state politically since 1911, or it could be total chaos. Or both. Either way, it could be a lot of fun and something I want to take a part in, either as an official delegate or just as an observer.

And, of course, even if all goes well, and they come up with the greatest state constitution of all time, it will still need to be approved by the people. After all that work, if it contains too many changes to current law, or anything even remotely controversial, it could fail miserably, leaving us right where we are now. It is for this reason that many of the participants in yesterday's meeting did not want to support Repair California's plan. But for me, even with all the potential pitfalls, I'm drawn to it and feel we have to give a try.

Soon the signature gathering will begin, and assuming all of the above qualify for the ballot, it will be up to the good people of this state (and many of the bad ones) to decide which way to go. Personally, I see no conflict between them. We can amend the budget process (CA Forward) and protect local government (League of CA Cities) today, and work on a new Constitution for tomorrow.

* While Johnson was a forward thinking and progressive leader on domestic issues for the first half of the 20th century, first as Governor then as US Senator, he was also an isolationist and xenophobe who supported the California Alien Land Act, prohibiting Asians from purchasing property, and was the only US Senator to vote against both the League of Nations and the United Nations.

Stand up for Privacy!

The judge in the Viacom versus YouTube/Google copyright case has ruled that YouTube/Google have to turn over our private user data of every video viewed on the site, since it launched in 2005 (New York Times article).

To me, this goes far beyond what would be reasonable for Viacom to ask for in relation to their copyright claims. It effects not just those users who posted infringing video clips, but all those who even watched non-infringing clips.

It's a complete violation of our Fourth Amendment rights to be free from "unreasonable searches and seizures" and part of the broader, continued attack on freedom and democracy in general.

Please consider signing our online petition to Judge Stanton asking him to reconsider this ruling (click here).

Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - Edition 2.18

Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, Edition 2.18 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.

This week I received far more entries than I usually do (nearly double), so the task of selecting posts was especially difficult. Sometimes really important, well-written, and thought provoking posts don't get selected because they don't relate to the topic of declining democracy. Hopefully, what's left here will inspire you to not just be depressed about the attacks on our liberties, but to do something about it.

The first two postings this week each have to do with the passage of the Real ID act, perhaps one of the most frightening restrictions on our liberties yet:

Ian Welsh presents Is The US an Operating Democracy Any More? posted at The Agonist.
... and ...
Blue Dog presents Will China Show the Department of Homeland Security the Way? posted at Blue Dog Thoughts.

Also concerned about the demise of the Bill of Rights, Barry Leiba presents Searching the constitution posted at Staring At Empty Pages.

Jim Booth looks at the outsourcing of our war effort (and what it means for control and accountability) in There's no business like war business posted at Scholars and Rogues.

Phil examines how our apathy feeds in economics in The Predicted Economy of the United States of America posted at Phil for Humanity.

Madeleine Begun Kane offers a poll this week in Why Is General Petraeus Letting The White House Write His Iraq Progress Report? posted at Mad Kane's Political Madness.

Riversider updates us on an ongoing local battle across the poind in Council Votes To Ignore Flood Risk to Preston Residents posted at Save The Ribble.

This final posting is not about the decline of democracy, but is a fitting tribute to the fact that today's carnival falls on Labor Day: Maria Marien presents Labor Day Means More than a Day of Rest posted at A Passerby's Trail.

I'll be back in two weeks (September 17) with the next edition of the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy - Submit Your Posts Here. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.

Who is reading your emails?

Here's the text of an email I received from True Majority Action:

If you sent an email in 2003, there's a good chance your government grabbed a copy of it. That's because in 2003, the National Security Agency set up a secret, 24-by-48 foot room in a downtown San Francisco telecommunications building to tap into one of the nation's largest Internet data hubs and illegally retrieve millions of emails and other communications. This is not a conspiracy theory; according to the sworn affidavit of an AT&T technician, this actually happened.

Tomorrow a federal court will hear two lawsuits against the NSA's unconstitutional "special project." The arguments will be long and drawn out, but in a sense our own Congress has already made it moot -- just before leaving on vacation they voted to make the administration's spying programs legal.

Congress will re-consider that legal protection in just six months, so we need to show them NOW that this is not the behavior we will accept. No more secret rooms siphoning off our e-mails and telephone calls.

Pissed off yet? If you've been reading this blog, and following the posts in the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, you know that this is not a lone, accidental violation of our civil rights, but is simply the way this administration has operated since day one.

It's not enough to simply wait for the next election and hope that things will be better. We've got to fight this today, now. That's why I reprinted True Majority's email and am asking you to click here and join me in signing their petition:

'We are Americans, and in our America we do not torture, we do not imprison people without charge or legal recourse, allow our phones and emails to be tapped without a court order, and above all we do not give any President unchecked power. I pledge to fight to protect and defend the Constitution from assault by any President. I insist that my elected representatives in Congress do the same.'

Thank you.

USA; the home of free speech! Or is it...

Many Americans take their first amendment rights to free speech for granted, and assume it applies in all situations. This is simply not so.

Sure, everybody knows you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, or otherwise use your "free speech" in such a way as to cause a panic, or to libel or slander somebody. But the reality is, in most private situations, you have no rights to free speech at all.

I've had this discussion with people on various online forums, particularly lately on YouTube, where somebody's posting (or even account) is deleted by the site moderators, and everybody gets up in arms about "Free Speech." The fact is, when you post to somebody else's web site, you are posting to their private property, and they set the rules of engagement.

The First Amendment only applies where and when the government is part of the equation. The point of the First Amendment is to say from the start that our government cannot tell you that you cannot say certain things. The point is to maintain a press and a public debate that is free from intervention and censorship from official sources. That's all. When you're in my house, I can tell you to shut up as much as I like, and you have no recourse but to leave.

And, when you're at work, you are at somebody else's "house." Can you be fired for what you say at work? Contrary to popular belief, you certainly can.

Speechless at work, posted on The American Prospect, is an excellent discussion of our lack of free speech (and other) rights in the workplace. The article is an interview with Bruce Barry, professor of management and sociology at Vanderbilt University, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, and author of Speechless: The Erosion of Free Expression In the American Workplace.

Why does Barry think that our lack of free speech rights in the workplace is such a serious problem?

"The problem is that the climate for free speech at work leaves employees with their rights as citizens and their job security in tension with one another. The pragmatist advice basically says hold onto your job and shut down the citizenship if it's going to get you in trouble. That kind of tension between citizenship and job security is not just bad because it might be nice to work in a freer workplace, it's bad because it has a harmful effect on the health of a democratic society. There may not be that many people getting fired for their bumper stickers or their blogs on a given day, but when it does happen, it has a chilling effect. We talk about the decline of civic engagement in this country, and I think this is a reason why."

According to the article, "A 2001 AFL-CIO study revealed that 80 percent of employees believe it would be illegal for an employer to fire them for expressing political views that s/he disagrees with." If you are vocal about political issues on or off the job, you better hope that your boss is one of the misinformed who thinks you can't be fired.

Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, edition 2.2

Welcome to the Carnival of the Decline of Democracy, Edition 2.2 - Blogging 'till the secret police take us away.

As always, narrowing all the blog posts I receive down to the target number of seven entries per carnival is always tough, but I think you'll find it worth the effort. The first few entries this week each have to do the President's recent announcement of a troop escalation in Iraq:

Rey Thomas, of The Thomas Political Report, presents What The President Said, What The President Meant.

vjack, of Atheist Revolution, presents The Escalation in Iraq.

Madeleine Begun Kane (Mad Kane) presents Bellicose Bush (poem, satire).

We round out the week with a broad look at American's fears, outlaw politicians, the lapdog press, and an explanation of why we allow it all to happen:

GrrlScientist, of Living the Scientific Life, presents Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush.

murad, of The New Business World, presents A Nation Without Leaders: A Poll On American Fears.

Michael Boldin, of the Populist Party of America, presents Outing the Constitutional Criminals.

Finally, one of my favorite posts in a long time, John Wesley, of Pick the Brain, presents Resist the Temptation to Submit to Authority.

The next edition of the Carnival will be posted on Monday, February 5th, 2007 with entries requested by Saturday, February 3rd, at midnight. Submit your blog post for the next edition of the carnival of the decline of democracy using our carnival submission form. More information on future carnivals can be found on our carnival home page.