The Little Brown Reader

OPEN DEBATES FILED FEC COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

OPEN DEBATES FILED FEC COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COMMISSION ON PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

Today, Open Debates filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The complaint contains previously unreleased, secret documents that reveal how the major party candidates collude with the CPD to dictate the terms of the presidential debates and exclude third-party and independent challengers.

“FEC regulations require presidential debate sponsors that accept corporate contributions to be `nonpartisan' and to employ `pre-established objective' candidate selection criteria. The CPD, which accepts millions of dollars in corporate contributions, fails to stage the debates in accordance with these FEC regulations,” said Open Debates' Executive Director George Farah.
...

The court case that could reshape US democracy

The court case that could reshape US democracy
(TruthOut permacopy)

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
11 December 2003

It bears the utterly uninformative title of Veith et al vs Jubelirer (docket number 02-1580). But the case, which the US Supreme Court heard yesterday, deals with the explosive political issue of gerrymandering - and its ruling next year could literally reshape America's democracy.

Veith et al vs Jubelirer involves only Pennsylvania. The state's Democrats have challenged what they say is a rigged and unfair plan to redraw congressional districts, a move approved by Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature after the 2000 census.

Anti-BCRA brief filed before Supreme Court

Don't be thrown off by the Right To Life group cited in the court case tile below -- this is a broad coalition case against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The national political party mentioned in this poorly-written "press release" is of course the LP; the member of Congress would be Ron Raul; you've probably heard of some of the "nonprofit ideological corporations" (?), but there are a couple different cases like this, and I dont want to mis-guess what groups are in this particular case. I'm pretty sure I'm a member of at least one or two of them.

As far as I can tell, the only good thing to come from the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" is that it gave me the idea of using "Bipartisan" as a term to mock and insult the compromising core of the two corrupt parties. I am grateful for that, but it's served its purpose, and it can go away now.

Press Releases at Liberty For All - Madison Center Files BCRA Opening Brief in Supreme Court

On Tuesday, July 8, 2003, Madison Center attorneys filed their opening brief in the United States Supreme Court in National Right to Life Committee v. FEC (No. 02-1733), one of the consolidated appeals challenging the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The Madison Center represents a national political party, a member of Congress, a state attorney general, nonprofit ideological corporations, a political action committee, and a minor, who are challenging various provisions of BCRA that limit their freedom of speech and association in the name of "reform."

One key argument in the brief was that "reform" groups advocating enactment of BCRA engaged in the same sort of issue advocacy activity to pass BCRA that they condemned as corrupting when done by other ideological corporations because such activity might influence elections and politicians might feel grateful for their efforts. Common Cause and Campaign for America held town hall meetings for favored candidates, issued communications lionizing candidates promoting their brand of "reform" and sharply attacking those who didn't, issued scorecards, operated phone banks all during peak election seasons. But when examined under oath in this case, leaders of these organizations admitted that their activity might influence elections but that it would never be corrupting.

Full release

Read It Rating: 5.5
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: 2
Learning Percentage: 65%

Conflict of Interest, for Sale or Rent

This article lays the system out pretty openly.

Let's review:

The politicians are given (by the people) the power to command and control businesses and interest groups.

The politicians make all sorts of rules, and tip the scales of influence and largesse this way and that.

The businesses and interest groups decide which politicians make the rules and tip the largesse the way they like, and they give that politician money so he or she can stay in office.

AND THE PEOPLE KEEP VOTING FOR THOSE POLITICIANS, and keep giving them the power to command and control businesses and interest groups.

Any questions?

GOP Attorneys General Asked For Corporate Contributions (washingtonpost.com)

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Tania Branigan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 17, 2003; Page A01

Republican state attorneys general in at least six states telephoned corporations or trade groups subject to lawsuits or regulations by their state governments to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions, according to internal fundraising documents obtained by The Washington Post.

The documents describe direct calls the attorneys general made, for example, to representatives of Pfizer Inc., MasterCard Inc., Eli Lilly and Co., Anheuser-Busch Cos., Citigroup Inc., Amway Corp., U.S. Steel Corp., Nextel Communications Inc., General Motors Corp., Microsoft Corp. and Shell Oil Co., among other companies. They also make clear that RAGA assigned attorneys general to make calls to companies with business and legal interests in their own states.

Read the whole sad story

Read It Rating: 9.8
Left/Right Rating: 0
Freedom Rating: -7
Learning Percentage: 65%

Bush Welfare Marriage Plan Sailing Through Congress

If we're going to take social engineering to this level, why don't we just go whole hog? We could plot out the perfect life, and just reward or penalize everybody based on how close they come to being that model citizen. We're getting fairly close to that anyway, with the drug war, and various penalties and prizes for raising the right kind of family, and so on. Just think of how intricate and controlling it could be if we maxed out the system!

For instance, I'm cooking soybeans right now. Soybeans are healthy and full of protein, so I'd get points for that. But they're from China, and most likely genetically modified, so I'd probably be docked for buying foreign and messing with ecology. Then my point total gets docked overall because I'm single with no children -- which, in the Bush paradigm, means I'm pretty much a defective citizen.

All in all, it would maybe add up to a 5-cent credit for me. The Treasury could credit it right to my bank account as soon as the in-home Big Brother system detected that I was done with my meal. There could even be an audio recognition -- something like, "Way to go, citizen Lance Brown! You're making yourself strong and healthy, which is good for all of us. Keep doing things that are good for society as we see it, and you will be amply rewarded. And by the way, have you thought about getting married?"

(In case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a big fan of social engineering.)

If there's anything lamer than the social engineering aspect of this measure, it's the pathetically lazy Bipartisan manner in which it's wandering its way into law. Did you know that Bush has not vetoed one bill since he took office?

Bush Welfare Marriage Plan Sailing Through Congress

Thursday, July 17, 2003

WASHINGTON — President Bush's proposal to nudge women on welfare (search) toward the altar is headed for approval in Congress despite opposition from both the political left and right, as Democrats choose other battles to fight in the welfare debate.

Despite the concerns, Republicans are largely in favor of the plan and Democrats are largely resigned to it.

Full story...

Read It Rating: 7.5
Left/Right Rating: R2
Freedom Rating: -2.5
Learning Percentage: 65%