Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| 8-13-2005: If this doesn't get your b... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1286
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 3 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 6:07 am: | 
|
You may be wondering why election reform -- or any reform inspired by We, the People -- tends to get mired in glue in the U.S. Congress. In fact, the article linked further down in this story will take you behind the scenes in the House of Horrors that has become our lobbyist-and-payola-influenced congress. This information underlines why LOCAL targets are so important for achieving real election reform.
Mechanisms for corporate control of congress: A key technique for vendor blockage of reform is distilled here, with shorter sound bites and broad strokes for solutions at the bottom of this article (see red text), and a longer, very detailed story linked for further study at the end.
------------------------
Executive summary, contributed by BBV member Catherine Ansbro:
"If you control the Rules Committee you control the House, and only one person on the Rules Committee really matters--its Chairperson, who is basically a stand-in for the Speaker of the House.
"So--the Speaker of the House has supreme authority over Congress.
"And in case something 'slips through' (perhaps because it might be politically expedient to "look like" one was for or against a certain bill or amendment) the Conference Committee can rewrite ALL the legislation overnight, and force congress to vote on it with no idea what is or isn't there."
------------------------
In a slightly larger nutshell:
- There are still a handful of courageous leaders in Congress, and they need grass roots behind them to increase their effectiveness
- However, even for amendments with broad bipartisan support, politicians of both parties tend to kill bills after corporate lobbying. At the end of the day, when it counts, members of congress grab favors and lobbyists rush in to reverse key votes.
- The last-minute mutate-or-kill points occur in "RULES" and, if RULES can be survived, favors are called in and lobbyists get a second chance to change or kill bills in "CONFERENCE COMMITTEE"
- The basic tools of democracy are floor votes on clearly posed questions, with the aid of painstakingly built coalitions from both sides of the aisle.
- However, the victories achieved through the above "basic tools of democracy" nowadays get rolled back in Rules and if it survives Rules, death or deformity occurs in Conference Committee
- Members of Congress sometimes author major bills, but more commonly make amendments -- minor adjustments to the bigger bills. The bill that ultimately becomes law is an aggregate of the original legislation and all the amendments offered and passed by all the different congresspersons along the way.
- The House Rules Committee decides which bills and amendments will be voted on by Congress and schedules the parameters of debate. If Rules votes against your amendment, your amendment dies.
- If you control the Rules Committee, you control Congress.
- The committee has nine majority members and four minority members. But in fact, only one of those thirteen people matters. The Rules chairman is directly appointed by the Speaker of the House, and carries out precisely the directives of the Speaker.
- There is no proven method of influencing the Rules Committee. If the action is not desired by the Speaker of the House, the only pressure point left is "Shame"
- The Rules Committee convenes when a bill is ready to be sent to the floor for a vote. The Rules Committee can completely rewrite bills at the last minute, then take it to the floor an hour later. Nobody knows what's in those bills.
- The Rules Committee is supposed to wait out a three-day period before sending the bill to the House to give the members a chance to read the bill, waived only in case of emergency. However, they routinely waive the three-day period, forcing members of Congress to cast blind yes-or-no votes to bills whose contents are a mystery
- And if an offending bill somehow makes it through the House and the Senate, there's always the next and last step: the conference committee.
- Like the Rules Committee, the conference committees negotiate the final form of the bill and have absolute power to make wholesale changes, safely out of the public's view.
- Citizens write letters, organize, and push for bills at the early stages. However, lobbyists really start to circle, wheedle, peddle and bribe during the final stages, so even if citizens get support for a bill, it will likely be mutated or killed at the last minute.
- Sometimes congressmen pass bills knowing full well they'll be killed in Rules or Conference Committees, just so they can go back home and say they fought for this or that. In reality, they've been assured by the leadership that the measure will never make it through Rules (or committee).
- Therefore, even after passing amendments by wide margins, popular will is often not be converted into law.
- Just about everybody in Congress is a stand-in for some kind of lobbyist.
- Every time Congress is ordered to clean up its lobbyist culture, compliance is weak or nonexistent: For example, the required lobbyist database: Instead of a searchable database the senate created a giant computerized pile of downloadable scanned images. The House response was even worse: They simply ignored the requirement.
- If, by chance, a breach of ethics is actually discovered and acted upon, an "investigation" is opened. During the investigation even members of congress cannot obtain documents to expose it using the Freedom of Information Act. Often it will be "investigated" (safely away from the eyes of the public) for a long, long time.
---------------------------------------
ROOT CAUSES for our increasingly nontransparent, cheat-friendly election process can be traced back to mechanisms like investigative reporter Matt Taibbi has shown us here: "The Courageous Fight Inside the U.S. House of Horrors", which were distilled into the bullet points above.
One area of friction, inside the activism movement, has been the concept that we all need to get into lockstep and write letters/lobby for the latest bill.
Black Box Voting is generally supportive of the marshalling of forces to create election reform bills, but we've also been stubbornly insisting that this approach won't win this war (and most proposed federal legislation doesn't even address the real problems). We need to keep digging for truth and root causes, distilling them into chewable pieces so that The People can regain power.
Legislative efforts can block really bad bills from gaining traction. Legislation may win a few small skirmishes.
But until we deal with root causes, we cannot take back our republic. The most fundamental root cause of the loss of our citizen's voice has been corporate money controlling politics.
Not influence.
Control.
The second most destructive force is the ability to obscure and complicate the truth such that members of the media, and the public, simply can't digest it in a single sitting.
The information BBV member Bruce Sims brought here from Rolling Stone is of great value, because it exposes one of the key mechanisms by which for-profit businesses have replaced the will of The People. All they have to do is get at one guy -- the Speaker of the House -- to have their way with our legislation in the Rules Committee. Or, failing that, they can circle like vultures until the bill hits conference committee, and do their dirty work there.
Before any action can be taken to dismantle the mechanisms, we first have to be able to describe them in bite-sized pieces. Only then can we get this stuff known, and acted upon, by The People.
In a really little nutshell:
Two mechanisms can be used to destroy congressional reforms desired by We, the People. The kill-or-maim points are RULES and CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, where vested interests perform last-minute end runs around the will of the people.
Quick sketch of the broad strokes for a solution:
Short-term fix: Get some teeth into lobbyist reforms, starting with significant penalties for noncompliance with disclosure regulations, and improving prompt, publicly posted disclosure databases.
A tougher fix: Reform the mechanism -- eliminate its ability to kill or mutate bills that have already achieved broad bipartisan support. Remove puppet strings from speaker of the house by changing selection method for Rules Committee chairman. Eliminate last-minute power plays through changes to bills previously agreed to.
Long-term fix: Remove the incentive for the mechanism by eliminating "corporate personhood" --the assertion that corporations are entitled to the same protections under the Constitution as human beings, a right usurped under the guise of the 14th Amendment, hijacking a noble purpose, leading directly to controlling influence of corporate money via corporate "equal protection" claims under the First Amendment.
ROLLING STONE EXPOSE: The Courageous Fight Inside the U.S. House of Horrors
THANKS TO BBV MEMBER BRUCE SIMS FOR HIS NONSTOP WORK ON ELECTION REFORM, AND FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO BLACK BOX VOTING. |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 508
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 6:29 am: |
|
For the record, the Rolling Stone Expose is by Matt Taibbi. I don't know anything about him but he deserves a major award for this piece.
Credit to David Sirota is for mentionting Taibbi's article on the Huffington Post blog at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/david-sirota/rolling-stone-on-the- cour_5465.html
Absolutely right, thanks for the correction, Catherine, edited it into original article -- Bev. |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 187
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, August 13, 2005 - 4:43 pm: |
|
David actually has his own blog at:
http://www.davidsirota.com/
In addition to the above referenced article,David referenced this one on his blog:
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman
which, when combined with the article Bev referenced, one REALLY gets a sense of the 'mountain' we are trying to roll the stone up.
 |
catherine_a
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: catherine_a
Post Number: 510
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:24 am: |
|
That Berman article is great--really spells out the power structure within the Democratic Party and who makes the foreign policy.
You'd have to wonder who/what is the providing the impetus for this point of view among the "Strategic Class" as Berman puts it.
One possibility--those who control the national and international monetary supply (the ones who create money out of thin air, and lend it to the banks who lend it to us) make out like bandits in war, because all sides go into massive debt. The "Strategic Class" of the Democratic Party (and also the leadership of the Republic Party) are thus supporting the increasing concentration of wealth into very few hands.
It seems that they'd rather be in cahoots with the powers-behind-the-throne than try to get more electoral support from the voting public. |
pacific_alien
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: pacific_alien
Post Number: 56
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 5:00 am: |
|
The Courageous Fight Inside the U.S. House of Horrors
That link is stunning reading. Literally stunning.
Thanks.
PA |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1290
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 8:23 am: |
|
Thanks PA, and thanks again, Bruce, for the additional article. Here are some of the snippets that ring equally true in the election reform movement:
"...why does so much of the Democratic strategic class march in lockstep? There's no simple answer. The insularity of Washington, pressures of careerism, fear of appearing soft and the absence of institutional alternatives all contribute to a limiting of the debate...
"Everybody's on the make ... They're all worried about their next government job. People pull their punches or try to craft years in advance what sort of positions they're gonna be up for. The culture of Washington is very risk-averse."
...Outside of academia, if you take positions on the other side, there's just nowhere near the level of institutional support."
And actually, even inside academia we are being told that it is hard to take strong positions, because doing so jeopardizes grant money.
But in the end, I have no sympathy for the politicians who cave, as they provide the necessary acquiescence for the destruction of our republic. They could slow, and maybe even reverse the swing of the pendulum -- albeit, possibly, at the expense of their "career" -- if they simply stand up with courage to defend principles they know to be right.
What good is a career if you sacrifice your soul to achieve it?
In some ways, the most destructive enablers are those who claim to be fighting for The People, but quietly cave when it counts, just to hold on to power, grant money, or "career."
This is why YOU, the ordinary citizens who visit this Web site, are of such critical importance to reverse the pendulum. Do not depend on those who are afraid to lose status.
-- Bev |
ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: ubetchaiam
Post Number: 191
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 3:22 pm: |
|
"And actually, even inside academia we are being told that it is hard to take strong positions, because doing so jeopardizes grant money."
It actually does more as evidenced by the legal actions taken against those in academia who support the Palestinian cause and speak against the Governmental policies of Israel. |
admin
Board Administrator
Username: admin
Post Number: 1294
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Sunday, August 14, 2005 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Catherine_A and Kathleen,
The current lead story (about shuffling, new NSF-funded voting group) answers the questions in the posts I deleted.
The point I was making is that NO ONE should be sacrificing our republic for their "career."
As to your other point, yes, the GEMS hack and the memory card hacks are obvious. However, even if they were subtle, once they are demonstrated for experts in person (which was done in Aug. 2004), or appear in the New York Times (Sept. 2004), or show up in the experts' e-mail inbox (May 2005), if one is calling oneself an e-voting expert of any kind, one has a professional obligation to (1) check it out oneself or (2) pick up the phone and call, or e-mail a couple questions. It should then be addressed, and the silence from those who call themselves e-voting experts speaks volumes.
That being said, we still have a period of time for the experts to come in out of the cold. Part of that process will require acknowledgement of ALL of the work done by Black Box Voting with an explicit agreement to end the turf wars, which are basically about grants, funding, and trying to be king of the mountain.
Any time ANY group does good work that adds to the ammunition for election reform, we should stand shoulder to shoulder in recognizing it. Instead, the movement is being fractured, with lists of "acceptable" and "untouchable" groups developing, not based on quality of work, but based on turf wars, snobbery about academic credentials, and personality issues.
As far as we are concerned, the more groups in the movement, the more attention it will get, the more grants, funding, and kings and queens there will be. The whole idea of trying to be the bestest or the only one or the "correct coalition" is fundamentally flawed.
We at Black Box Voting are on record as far back as Oct. 2003 advocating the "swarm" method of activism. This is a decentralized strategy that welcomes anyone and everyone into the movement, including people with varying points of view, shifting alliances, different groups, and even people who don't get along.
The opposing point of view is the top-down, everyone fall into marching order approach to activism. It labels any activist or group who does not fall into lockstep as a "troublemaker" or "misbehaver."
As Kathleen's mug says: Well behaved women never make history.
And as for misbehavior, those who advocate only the "politically correct" approach, exclusively by those with the proper initials after their names, sticking to "polite politics" only -- well, that just shows a complete lack of street smarts. You get farther, faster, with a good cop-bad cop strategy. How the heck does a movement expect to prevail if it has only polite "good cops" wearing a badge and perfectly pressed uniforms?
It is stupid strategy, and also unecessary, to appoint oneself hall monitor to "tidy up" the movement as it grows.
You can't believe the bullshit that goes on that ruins activism movements. Check out the book "Toxic Sludge" for a description of how damage to activism movements is produced by specialty PR firms, who manufacture disapproval, spread Internet rumors, and basically do anything they can to split and fracture the various participants in a movement.
This does not work when the swarm reaches a certain size. Therefore, Black Box Voting will continue to advocate the building of even more community groups, even more national groups, and we will continue to avoid the concept of having one giant coalition. Several coalitions is appealing, though. Even the best PR operative cannot decapitate a swarm.
As for "experts" who choose the safe route, politically and for their job and grant money: We will continue to advocate, with some urgency, that activists take the bull by the horns, without waiting for any experts to handle the issue. |
Ubetchaiam
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ubetchaiam
Post Number: 193
Registered: 06-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Monday, August 15, 2005 - 11:24 am: |
|
My 2 cents regarding 'swarm','politeness','politically correct',etc.:
This is from http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH16Aa01.html
(But Tom Englehardt's writings get a fairly wide distribution):
"But they had their own ideas about who exactly Cindy Sheehan should be to win over America. They would paint a strikingly consistent, quite moving, but not completely accurate picture of her. They would attempt to tame her by shearing away her language, not just the profanity for which she was known, but the very fierceness of her words. She had no hesitation about calling the president "an evil maniac", "a lying bastard" or the administration "those lying bastards", "chickenhawks", "warmongers", "shameful cowards" and "war criminals". She called for the president's "impeachment", for the jailing of the whole top layer of the administration (no pardons). She called for American troops to be pulled out of Iraq now. And most of this largely disappeared from a much-softened media portrait of a grieving antiwar mother.
And yet Sheehan herself seems unfazed by the media circus and image-shaping going on around her. In a world where horrors are referred to euphemistically, or politely, or artfully ignored, she does something quite rare - she calls things by their names as she sees them. She is as blunt and impolite in her mission as the media is circumspect and polite in its job, as most of the opposition to Bush is in its "opposition". And it was her very bluntness, her ability to shock by calling things by their actual names, by acting as she saw fit, that let her break through, and that may help turn a set of unhappy public opinion polls into a full-scale antiwar movement."
One thing one notices about swarms of bees that 'election reform' org's and people often forget: there is both discipline and focus in the bee swarms. Unfortunately, such doesn't always get exhibited when the animals are humans.
BUT such is absolutely necessary for goal achievement. |
|
|
