To Topple US 'Oligarchy,' Sanders Calls for Publicly Financed Elections

a reply to: chuck258

The fact that he's old is one of his best traits. He's old and anti-establishment. Since he's so old, they're unlikely to win him over with bribery, something he's completely spit in the face of.

He likely isn't intimidated by the potential of assassination. If he goes the way of JFK, then he simply becomes an eye opening martyr for the general populace, and since he's what he is, I'm sure he's completely at peace with that. Especially at his age.

Since he's been for this for years, and is so old, and so clean, I'm pretty sure he's not going to cow-tow to bullying and threats. There's really nothing the establishment can get him with without causing the establishment problems.

The thing for the establishment to do when it comes to Bernie, at least their best bet, is try to subtly steer things, and hinder the more damaging things for them, while letting the stuff they can work around through. Any drastic actions has too much potential for major blow back should it occur.

UNLESS they can successful assassinate him in a way that makes it look simply like old age.

originally posted by: BlackboxInquiry
Careful. What Sanders is talking about, many societies have tried, and failed miserably.

Don't trust your politicians? Then why give them the power you wanted so badly to remove from your parents (and more).

Your parents had some vested interest of some kind. Politicians, want more power and control than your parents ever had.

Socialism, Marxism and utopian societies cannot exist at the hands of nature. Doubly so for if left in the hands of humans.

May public thinking take the place of public drinking - and public drinking be in celebration of public thinking and overcoming things people once thought impossible. (and not in some Marxist, socialist wet dream sort of way).

What's the old adage? Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely corrupts?

*think*

Care to give specific examples???? In Republics or Parlimentary Democracies? Where has public funding failed?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

Can you expand on this a bit? The founders and corporate money being unlawful and banned in elections? And please with references please.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

..........is that a joke? Because they are paragons of not breaking the law or circumventing?

How can you actually say that with a straight face

My apologies. I made that remark assuming you knew about the original corporate charter system put in place after the founding of this nation.

Corporations were only allowed to operate under specific regulations, had to serve a purpose deemed good for the public and were not allowed to affect or manipulate politics.

Here is an interesting read from Harvard Business review blog:

Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, knows a whole lot about corporations in the early days of the American republic. When the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations in January, the ruling (pdf!) struck him as dramatically at odds with how the Founding Fathers saw the role of the corporation.

That’s right. Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions or, more often, used to organize municipal governments. Just after the Revolution, new state legislators had to decide what to do about these charters. They could abolish them entirely, or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence and the structure of the federal republic. They chose the latter. So the first American corporations end up being cities and schools, along with some charitable organizations.

I could continue, but I please ask you read-up on the topic.

I see you did - could you provide references to start with - I'm only minimally famaliar with original corporate law and the expiration of the same and would like to read more. I agree it is a very important subject.

originally posted by: Watcher012
a reply to: FyreByrd

You people just don't get it

The elite running this place and the shadow government is so well entrenched, they will not be removed without shedding of blood

Sorry guys

That's the reality

"You people" - real classy and juvenile.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Gladly. I will provide you with a link and some quotes, but please dig in to other sources on the topic.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

Source

This was true of the early corporations generally. Their charters asserted that they existed first and foremost to serve the public. That was their reason for being.

In fact, the first corporations in the Anglo-American tradition had nothing to do with profits. Much as it might cause free market fundamentalists to squirm, the original corporations were actually regulatory agencies, such as guilds, or local governments such as townships. (In New England, when you drive from one town into another you pass a sign that announces the year in which the town you are entering was "incorporated.")

Later, the British Crown adapted the corporate form to what we would call today a "public-private partnership." The Queen wanted to lay claim to the New World, but such ventures required huge amounts of capital, and were risky in the extreme. To amass the capital, there was a need to insulate investors from responsibility for the undertaking, beyond the amount of their investment. Thus the "joint stock company" was born.

Individual responsibility is one of the bedrock principles of common law. To dilute this principle was an extraordinary step, one that was conceivable only for a mission that presumably served the public good. In other words, there was a direct link between the exemption from individual responsibility for corporate investors (and later officers), and the public good that the corporation was chartered to carry out.

This legal tradition carried over to the American colonies. It gave rise to the corporate charters that the state legislatures bestowed one by one, and only for specific undertakings. (Think of Amtrak as a rough modern-day equivalent, including the subsidy.) This was the form of corporation the framers of the Constitution had experienced. It was totally a state matter, and nothing for the new federal Congress to worry about.

Source

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
So I ask you again, this time I hope with less snark and attitude from you, whats to stop them from continuing to fund and finance their "chosen" if Bernie gets his way?

Exactly

These politicians at the top don't care about the law, they feel they earned the right to be above the law

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Whats to keep them from funneling funds through the private sector?

Laws.

If we revert back to the ideas set forth by the founding fathers, corporate money in elections would be unlawful and banned.

..........is that a joke? Because they are paragons of not breaking the law or circumventing?

How can you actually say that with a straight face

My apologies. I made that remark assuming you knew about the original corporate charter system put in place after the founding of this nation.

Corporations were only allowed to operate under specific regulations, had to serve a purpose deemed good for the public and were not allowed to affect or manipulate politics.

Here is an interesting read from Harvard Business review blog:

Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College in New York, knows a whole lot about corporations in the early days of the American republic. When the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on political spending by corporations in January, the ruling (pdf!) struck him as dramatically at odds with how the Founding Fathers saw the role of the corporation.

That’s right. Americans inherited the legal form of the corporation from Britain, where it was bestowed as a royal privilege on certain institutions or, more often, used to organize municipal governments. Just after the Revolution, new state legislators had to decide what to do about these charters. They could abolish them entirely, or find a way to democratize them and make them compatible with the spirit of independence and the structure of the federal republic. They chose the latter. So the first American corporations end up being cities and schools, along with some charitable organizations.

I could continue, but I please ask you read-up on the topic.

Your snarky comment still didnt answer my question........whats to stop them, were this passed, from just funneling the funds?

Your reply was "the law"

But our politicians are notorious for circumventing the law.......

So I ask you again, this time I hope with less snark and attitude from you, whats to stop them from continuing to fund and finance their "chosen" if Bernie gets his way?

You know, it's a start and it's not perfect. But you have to start somewhere. It's not productive to just dismiss something because you see a flaw - I don't know a single law or thing or person that isn't flawed in some manner.

I think it's lazy just dismissing ideas out of hand.

I would like to see all financial records, corporate, government, personal, organizational, whatever posted in full for public review. I'd like to know, or at least be able to find out (without millions in research dollars) who is funding these think tanks, covert ops, politicans, my neighbor down the street.

Do you know that in Norway, I think it's Norway, tax returns are in the public domain. And Norway is one of the most equalitarian nations on Earth. Sure the 'big' capitalists fight it - but they benefit from it more then the average citizen. Sure there is still greed and deceit - but it acts as a deterant to outrageous behavior.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: FyreByrd

Seriously, I'm really worried that Bernie is going to turn out like the Democrat Ron Paul. He keeps saying these things that the rich don't like, and he will be kicked to the curb REAL quick. That being said, I'm pulling for the man. D, R, or otherwise, if he runs and looks like he has some integrity, I'll vote for him.

Hope for the best and prepare for the worse. I choose to live in a hopeful world even, no especially when the good guys can't win. Have to or die. Simple.

originally posted by: DeepImpactX

originally posted by: Primordial

Rather than them donate money, donate time and ad space. Running for office shouldn't cost a fortune.

And if Congress and the House don't want to pass that bill into law..........that's what executive orders are for. And this should go for any elected position, not just the POTUS.

It's the best idea I've heard so far.

Unfortunately, Executive Orders can be reversed easily by another Executive Order. Jimmy Carter set us up to go full bore into renewal energy even had solar panels on the White House - Ronnie Raygun's first action was to reverse it.

Barak Obama has just put in place regulations that will scale back 'coal fired energy' plants (40% of carbon emmissions) - he can't get a law passed and agreed with the Chinese to do something - but a republican (maybe even a democrate) can just counter it.

We have to get back to a functional moderate legislature that can create laws that will stand the winds of partaniship and the only conceivable way of getting their is to get big money out of polictics and have those politians (public servants) beholden only - I repeat beholden only to the well-being of the citizenry.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: FyreByrd

I have to say, there's a lot of interesting stuff about Bernie. He plays populist politics like no other.

Having said that, I'd have to say he's dead wrong on this one. The all time best and surest way to topple the US Oligarchy is to let the States go their own way. That would fix far more problems than any election could ever do.

And destroy the United States once and for all. It was tried 150 years ago.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: FyreByrd

Gladly. I will provide you with a link and some quotes, but please dig in to other sources on the topic.

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country’s founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end. The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these*:

Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight controll of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company’s accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.

Source

This was true of the early corporations generally. Their charters asserted that they existed first and foremost to serve the public. That was their reason for being.

In fact, the first corporations in the Anglo-American tradition had nothing to do with profits. Much as it might cause free market fundamentalists to squirm, the original corporations were actually regulatory agencies, such as guilds, or local governments such as townships. (In New England, when you drive from one town into another you pass a sign that announces the year in which the town you are entering was "incorporated.")

Later, the British Crown adapted the corporate form to what we would call today a "public-private partnership." The Queen wanted to lay claim to the New World, but such ventures required huge amounts of capital, and were risky in the extreme. To amass the capital, there was a need to insulate investors from responsibility for the undertaking, beyond the amount of their investment. Thus the "joint stock company" was born.

Individual responsibility is one of the bedrock principles of common law. To dilute this principle was an extraordinary step, one that was conceivable only for a mission that presumably served the public good. In other words, there was a direct link between the exemption from individual responsibility for corporate investors (and later officers), and the public good that the corporation was chartered to carry out.

This legal tradition carried over to the American colonies. It gave rise to the corporate charters that the state legislatures bestowed one by one, and only for specific undertakings. (Think of Amtrak as a rough modern-day equivalent, including the subsidy.) This was the form of corporation the framers of the Constitution had experienced. It was totally a state matter, and nothing for the new federal Congress to worry about.

Source

Ohhhhh - goody. Looks like a good place to start.

Well if enough people believed in the corruption of the government, you can create an alternate publicly funded government with their own elected leaders, and agendas.

This guy is to smart to ever be allowed to have power.

Obama considered bringing in publically-funded campaigns prior to getting in. He decided against it.

Great, raise our taxes so these wealthy politicians get free money to spend on electing themselves.

NO @#$#@ THANKS

Really don't see the point t in election campaigns anyway.

If people want to vote they just need to turn a computer or smart phone on a log on to Google to see who is who.

Hell it would be better because at least then instead of relying on sound bites, flashy billboards and clueless media to tell them what to think the dumb dumb masses would be forced to do there own research

Citizen's United is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this country and until we get rid of it, the average citizen is screwed.

will never happen, the wealthy would lose control...and they will do ANYTHING to retain it.

This is about the only thing to come out of ol' Bernie's mouth that I actually agree with ..