2008 Convention Watch: Highlights & History

The Big Story: Why It Mattered

It was just five years ago, and most of the media attention was on convention stagecraft and the horserace dynamics of the presidential race – change vs. experience, Clinton dramas and VP rollouts, who was a celebrity and who was out of touch. But actually at stake was the choice being offered on issues that mattered. Here are the Top Five, and what seemed to differentiate the Democratic and Republican candidates at the time:

The Economy: Barack Obama pledges to help-middle class families struggling with rising costs and stagnant pay, reform healthcare and education, and renegotiate free trade agreements. John McCain argues for keeping the Bush tax cuts but decreasing government spending, reforming social security, and cutting taxes on middle class families by abolishing the Alternative Minimum tax.

Iraq & Iran: Obama argues that there’s "no military solution" in Iraq, calling for withdrawal of most troops and a UN convention on national reconciliation. He says he would meet Iranian leaders without preconditions, pursue “aggressive personal diplomacy,” and change Iran’s behavior through incentives. McCain says that US forces should remain until Iraq is able to defend itself, backed troop escalation, and thinks withdrawal “timelines” could trigger genocide in the region. He wants to get other democracies to escalate economic sanctions against Iran, and backs a military solution if necessary to prevent its alleged nuclear weapons plans.

Climate Change: Obama wants to cut US greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, says it should lead the global effort, and favors investing $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. McCain would consider joining with other nations to reduce emissions if China and India agree to participate.

Abortion: Obama says women should make their own choices "in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy.” McCain argues that the landmark Roe v Wade decision should be overturned, would appoint judges who support that position, and backs aid for state efforts to boost adoption.

Healthcare: Obama calls for universal coverage but not compulsory insurance – except for children, subsidies to make coverage more affordable, and making insurer cover pre-existing conditions. McCain wants tax incentives to encourage people to get personal health insurance.

9/5: The Strange Race of John McHyde

9/4: Minnesota Newspeak

9/3: The Palin Factor

9/2: RNC Attendance Gap

9/1: Amy Goodman Arrested

8/31: Shifting Electoral Winds

8/29: The American Promise (Obama's speech, Palin Pick)

8/28: The Anti-War Message

8/28: Realizing the Dream (Nomination Video)

8/27: Hillary Hits the Mark

8/26: Heart & Family Values

8/25: Cindy Sheehan Bugged?

8/24: Florida and Michigan Votes Restored

8/23: Obama Taps Biden

(Full stories in News Section)

The Conventions and Beyond: A Guide

*Political Conventions: A Video History

*2008: Daily Highlights and TV Coverage

*Other Events: Alternative Media, Protests, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul

*News: Obama Taps Biden, Presidential Debate Schedule

*History: The Rise and Fall of the Original Third Party

Political Conventions: A Video History

2008: Daily Highlights and TV Coverage
The Democrats in Denver, August 25-28. Monday: Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Edward Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Jesse Jackson Jr.; Theme – One Nation. Tuesday: Hillary Clinton, Mark Warner (keynote), Patrick Leahy, and Kathleen Sebelius; Theme – Renewing America’s Promise. Wednesday: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, and Tom Daschle; Theme – Securing America’s Future. Thursday: Obama accepts at Invesco Field; Theme – Change You Can Believe In. Clinton gets a roll call vote. Obama picks Biden for VP.
The Republican in St Paul, September 1-4. Monday: Laura Bush, Cindy McCain; Theme – Service. Tuesday: George W. Bush, Joe Lieberman, and Fred Thompson; Theme –Reform. Wednesday:Rudy Giuliani (keynote), Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Carly Fiorina, and Sarah Palin; Theme – Prosperity. Thursday: Tim Pawlenty, Tom Ridge, McCain acceptance speech; Theme – Peace. McCain picks Palin for VP. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney cancel appearances.
Catching the Conventions on TV
On cable MSNBC plans 20 hours of coverage daily, while CNN offers a “multi-platform” approach, including intermittent live coverage. ABC, NBC and CBS air one-hour reports at 10 p.m. (EDT) each day, Aug. 25-28 and Sept. 1-4. PBS airs three hours of coverage nightly, beginning at 8 p.m. The Daily Show on Comedy Central broadcasts from the convention cities. BBC’s World News America airs coverage at 7 and 10 p.m. weeknights during both conventions, with Ted Koppel as a contributing analyst. C-SPAN offers "gavel-to-gavel coverage" beginning at 6 p.m. August 25 for the Democrats and 3:30 p.m. Sept. 1 for the Republicans.
Other Events
The Big Tent: A 9,000-square-foot, two-story structure with work space for bloggers and new media journalists. It was a collaboration between the Denver groups Progress Now and Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, teaming up with Daily Kos, Google, and YouTube.
The Starz Green Room: An alternative media hub for elected officials, Democratic staffers, foreign dignitaries, business executives, media and the entertainment industry. The most visible, reflecting the progressive pecking order, were expected to be Van Jones, Arianna Huffington, John Podesta (head of the Center for American Progress), Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, and writer David Sirota. Various celebrities also stopped by.
Ralph Nader: The independent candidate for president (currently on the ballot in 31 states) planned rallies during both conventions to protest the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and press for inclusion in the presidential debates. Nader's rally in Denver was set for Aug. 27, the day Joe Biden gave his VP acceptance speech. The Minneapolis rally was scheduled for Sept. 4, the day McCain accepted the GOP nomination across the river in St. Paul.
Ron Paul: The former GOP candidate held a counter-convention before and during the Republican gathering, August 31-Sept. 2. According to Paul, the speakers would include Jesse Ventura and Barry Goldwater Jr. He also planned a counter-rally in Minneapolis on Sept 2.
Protests: Re-Create 68 and other groups organized rallies, marches and concerts during the Democratic Convention, beginning with an End the Occupation march and rally on Sunday, Aug. 24. Yuppies.org warned of “massive” anti-war protests, but attendance was disappointing. Denver police set up holding pens in case the protests get “too unruly.” The city passed a law barring people from carrying certain protest "tools" (chains or quick-setting cement) and noxious substances (urine or "feces bombs") that could be used to ward off authorities.
When 2,000 people participated in a peaceful anti-poverty march at the Republican Convention on September 2, police opened fire with gas and projectiles. On the previous day, 283 people were arrested after police fired projectiles, pepper spray and tear gas to disperse a crowd of 5,000 demonstrating near the convention site. Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman was among those arrested.
A dozen groups planning protests sued the U.S. Secret Service and City of Denver over plans to confine them to a parade route and fenced-in zone, saying that their Constitutional rights to free speech were being violated. U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger agreed that the protesters would suffer some infringement on their freedom of expression but said those interests must be balanced with security concerns.
The ACLU obtained a copy of a Denver Police Department bulletin advising officers that violent protesters at the Democratic Convention might be identified from their use of hand held radio, bikes, maps, and "camping information. The Bulletin provided a "watch list" of items that police are to associate with violent protesters.

Both Denver and St. Paul became virtual fortresses during the conventions, protected by airplanes, helicopters, barriers, fences and thousands of police officers, National Guard troops and Secret Service agents. In Denver, police spent at least $18 million on equipment alone, bolstered by National Guard troops and hundreds of officers from surrounding suburbs. In St. Paul, police called on 80 law enforcement agencies to provide 3,000 officers to supplement the city's 500-person force. Congress earmarked $100 million for security at the two meetings.

News

Florida and Michigan Votes restored

8/24: The Democratic National Committee vote unanimously Sunday to restore full convention voting rights to Florida and Michigan delegates. The two states had been penalized for holding their primaries in January, violating party rules.

Obama Taps Biden

8/23: Barack Obama selects six-term US Senator Joe Biden to be his vice presidential running mate. Biden, who has represented Delaware in the US Senate since 1972, ran briefly ran for president in 1988 and again this year. A resident of northern, upscale New Castle County, he is also well known in Pennsylvania, a swing state in the 2008 race.
Biden currently chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His Senate career highlights include presiding over contentious Supreme Court nomination hearings for Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, and development of the 1994 Crime Bill. He was instrumental in pushing the Clinton administration toward air strikes on Yugoslavia and initially supported the Iraq War, although he has since become a critic of how it has been waged. In 2004, he suggested that John Kerry pick John McCain as his running mate.

The speculation turns to McCain’s choice. Leading contenders include former opponent Mitt Romney, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, former Ohio Congressman Rob Portman, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, and US Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2000. The Republican Party base wants someone with a conservative record on social issues such as abortion, but McCain could decide to go with Ridge to counter Obama’s selection of Biden.

Presidential Debate Schedule Set

8/23: The first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain will be held on Sept. 26 at the University of Mississippi. The topic will be foreign policy, moderated by Jim Lehrer, host of PBS’ NewsHour. The second debate will be Oct. 7 at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, moderated by Tom Brokaw. The format will be a town hall-style discussion. The final debate will be Oct. 15 at Hofstra University in New York, moderated by Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation. All debates will be 90 minutes, 9-10:30 pm. The Vice Presidential candidates will debate Oct. 2 at Washington University in St. Louis, moderated by Gwen Ifill, host/moderator of PBS’s Washington Week.

History
The Rise and Fall of the Original Third Party
It began with a charge of murder. In 1826 William Morgan, a 52-year-old Freemason and printer from Batavia, New York, had become dissatisfied with his lodge and announced plans to publish the details of Masonic rituals. When it became known, however, he was harassed, and, that September, seized by unknown parties and taken to Fort Niagara. Morgan was never seen again.
Although his fate was never determined, it was widely believed that he’d been kidnapped and killed by fellow Masons, a suspicion that increased hostility toward the order and lead to the formation of the first national third party in the United States. Spreading rapidly from upstate New York to all of New England and eventually west, the Anti-Mason movement soon became a political party, and subsequently introduced important innovations, including nominating conventions and the adoption of party platforms. Yet a decade later the party was over.
Morgan’s disappearance led many people to believe that Freemasons weren’t loyal citizens. Since judges, businessmen, bankers, and politicians were often members, ordinary people began to consider it an elitist group and possibly a powerful secret society. Others suspected links to the occult and ceremonial magic.
One persuasive argument was that the lodges' secret oaths could bind members to favor each other over “outsiders.” Because the trial of the alleged Morgan conspirators was mishandled and the Masons resisted further inquiries, many concluded that they controlled key offices, abused their power to promote the interests of the fraternity, and were violating basic principles of democracy. Enraged, they decided to challenge what they considered a conspiracy.
In western New York, citizens attending mass meetings in 1827 resolved not to support Masons for public office. The National Republicans were weak in New York at the time, and shrewd political leaders used anti-Masonic feeling to create a new party to oppose rising “Jacksonian Democracy,” which favored a more powerful president, expansion of the right to vote, the patronage system, and geographical expansion. The fact that Andrew Jackson was a high-ranking Mason and frequently praised the Order didn’t help. One of the most prominent Anti-Masons was former President John Quincy Adams, who wrote a series of stern letters condemning the institution after Morgan’s disappearance.
Numerous Anti-Masonic papers were published, four of them –The Anti-Freemason, AntiMasonic Christian Herald, Free Press and Anti-Masonic Baptist Herald – issued from the same printing office in Boston. Anti-Masonic spelling books, school readers and almanacs were distributed, and Anti-Masonic book stores and taverns opened. In some churches it became a religious crusade.
Upstate New York was the flashpoint but the excitement soon spread through New England and reached as far west as Northeastern Ohio. In some parts of that state, lodge halls were reportedly destroyed by mobs, property and records were carried away, Masons were ostracized and businesses closed.
A national organization was planned as early as 1827, when New York leaders attempted, unsuccessfully, to persuade Henry Clay, a former Mason, to renounce the Order and head the movement. His slippery reply to an inquiry on his opinions about the group was that he’d become a Freemason as a young man but hadn’t given the order attention for a long time. In fact, Clay was a former Grand Master, but the growth of the movement led him to practically disown it.
In the 1828 elections the new party proved unexpectedly strong, eclipsing the National Republicans in New York. Within a year it broadened its base, becoming a champion of internal improvements and protective tariffs. The party published 35 weekly newspapers in New York, including the Albany Journal, edited by Thurlow Weed, who went on to become a powerful political boss. Openly partisan, one Journal comment on Martin Van Buren included the words "dangerous," "demagogue," "corrupt," "degrade," "pervert," "prostitute," "debauch" and "cursed" in a single paragraph.
When the Anti-Masonic convention met in Philadelphia in 1830 it adopted the following platform: “The object of Anti-Masonry, in nominating and electing candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, is to deprive Masonry of the support which it derives from the power and patronage of the executive branch of the United States Government. To effect this object, will require that candidates besides possessing the talents and virtues requisite for such exalted stations, be known as men decidedly opposed to secret societies.”
The Party invented the political convention, electing local delegates to chose state candidates and pledge their loyalty. Soon the Democrats and Whigs recognized the value of the idea for building a party and began holding their own. By 1832 the movement’s focus on Masonry faded, but it had spread to more states, becoming especially strong in Vermont and Pennsylvania.
Vermont’s Anti-Masonic Interlude
In 1831, William A. Palmer was elected governor of Vermont on an Anti-Masonic ticket, and remained in office until 1835. In 1832, when the national Party ran a candidate for president, it was the only state to cast its electoral votes for the nominee, William Wirt, a former Mason.

Palmer was a former judge and US Senator with an established reputation. Formerly a Jeffersonian Democrat, he led in the popular vote for governor in 1831, but it took nine ballots in the state legislature before he was chosen. He won again the following year, but still didn’t get a clear majority of the popular vote. This time it took 43 legislative ballots before he was re-elected. In 1834, he won on the first ballot, but only because the other parties, anticipating the collapse of the Anti-Masons, hoped to win over its constituents.

Palmer also led in the popular vote in 1835. But this time he couldn’t win in the Legislature, and after sixty-three ballots Silas Jennison, winner of the Lieutenant-Governor’s race, was selected. The rest of the Anti-Masonic ticket was indorsed by the Whigs. The opposition to Palmer was due primarily to his Democratic leanings and the belief that he intended to support Democrat Martin Van Buren for the presidency the next year.

Governor Palmer believed that secret societies were evil. But he didn’t take radical stands in his speeches. In his first inaugural address, he declared the intention to appoint only men who were "unshackled by any earthly allegiance except to the constitution and laws," and suggested legislation to prohibit the administration of oaths except "when necessary to secure the faithful discharge of public trusts and to elicit truth in the administration of justice." He wanted to "diminish the frequency" of oaths because of the "influence which they exercise over the human mind."

Anti-Masons ultimately succeeded in forcing Vermont’s lodges to close – for a while. But that left the state party with less reason to exist, and in 1836 Vermont’s Anti-Masonic leaders joined the new, anti-Jacksonian Whig Party. The Whigs didn’t last long, and Vermont later changed its allegiance to the emergent Republican Party, which opposed the expansion of slavery.

John Charles Frémont, the Republican candidate for president in 1856, won about 80 percent of Vermont’s popular vote. In 1860, it backed Abraham Lincoln, giving him the largest margin of victory of any state. For the next 100 years, Vermont remained solidly Republican.

Scourge of the Masons

Thaddeus Stevens was born in Vermont, but made his name in Pennsylvania. He openly became an Anti-Mason in 1829 when he supported Joseph Ritner, the party’s candidate for governor, who was defeated that year but won a surprisingly large vote. A few months later Stevens became a delegate to the second State Anti-Masonic Convention, and then attended the first national convention in Philadelphia in September, 1830. He attracted attention by delivering speeches strongly attacking Masonry. In one of them, "On The Masonic Influence Upon The Press," he deplored the lack of publicity given to the convention and attributed it to Masonic influence.

"Look around,” Stevens declared. “Though but one hundred thousand of the people of the United States are Free Masons, yet almost all the offices of high profit and honor are filled with gentlemen of that institution. Out of the number of law judges in the State of Pennsylvania, eighteen-twentieths are Masons; and twenty-two out of twenty-four states of the Union are now governed by Masonic chief magistrates. Although not a twentieth part of the voters of this commonwealth, and of the United States are Masons, yet they have contrived, by concert, to put themselves into eighteen out of twenty of the offices of profit and power."

In 1833 Stevens was elected to the Pennsylvania legislature on the Anti-Masonic ticket. His legislative talents showed themselves from the start. An excellent debater with a devastating wit that cut his opposition to shreds, he also knew how to maneuver behind the scenes and bide his time.

His big chance came in 1835, when Anti-Masons took control of the legislature in coalition with the Whigs. Wasting no time, Stevens proposed a law designed to suppress secret societies and became chairman of a committee to investigate the "evils of Free Masonry." The proceedings that followed have been likened by Masonic writers to the Inquisition and led to Stevens being labeled the "Grand Inquisitor." Thirty-four witnesses were summoned, including some who had renounced Masonry.
The most dramatic incident occurred on January 18, 1836. Prominent Masons who had previously refused to appear before Stevens’ committee were being compelled to testify. Among these were ex-Governor George Wolf; George M. Dallas, Masonic Grand Master of Pennsylvania at the time, and ten year later US Vice President under James Polk; and Joseph R. Chandler, editor of the United States Gazette, published in Philadelphia. When ordered to answer questions, however, all three refused. In all, 25 witnesses were placed in the custody of the House Sergeant-at-Arms. After several days, when some of the Whigs broke with the Anti-Masons, the prisoners were released and Stevens' campaign ended.
Stevens stood almost alone in trying to maintain the Anti-Masonic party on a national basis. When the 1835 State Anti-Masonic Convention endorsed William Henry Harrison for President, he initially refused to accept it because Harrison wouldn’t pledge to use the government to go after the Masons. Due to his continued efforts to keep the Anti-Mason Party alive, Stevens couldn’t secure enough support to be elected to Congress until 1848. From then on, however, he began to attract attention with anti-slavery speeches, and subsequently helped to launch the Republican Party.
In 1858 Stevens returned to Congress as a Republican and soon assumed leadership of the House, where his strong abolitionist sentiments, plus his legislative skills, gave him tremendous power during the Civil War.
End of the Road
The Anti-Mason Party conducted the first U.S. presidential nominating convention in Baltimore in 1832. Its candidate, William Wirt, won 7.78 percent of the popular vote and Vermont’s seven electoral votes. The highest elected office ever held by a member of the Party was governor: besides Palmer in Vermont, Joseph Ritner served as governor of Pennsylvania from 1835 to 1838. By 1833, however, the organization was already in decline in New York, its members gradually uniting with the National Republican Party and opponents of Jacksonian Democracy in the Whig Party.
Following the election of Governor Ritner, a state convention was held in Harrisburg to choose Presidential Electors for the 1836 election. The Pennsylvanians picked William Henry Harrison for President and Vermont’s convention followed suit. But when national Anti-Masonic leaders couldn’t obtain assurance from Harrison that he wasn’t a Mason, they called a national convention. Held in Philadelphia in May, 1836, it was a divisive gathering. A majority of the delegates agreed that the purpose of the party remained anti-masonry but decided not to back a national ticket that year.
The third and final Anti-Masonic National convention was held in Philadelphia’s Temperance Hall in November, 1838. By this time, the party had been almost entirely engulfed by the Whigs. The convention unanimously nominated Harrison for President and Daniel Webster for Vice President. But when the Whig National Convention chose Harrison and John Tyler, the Anti-Masons did nothing and soon vanished.
Under the Anti-Mason banner savvy politicians were able to briefly unite many people who were discontented and suspicious of political elites. In the end, however, the fact that William Wirt – the Anti-Mason choice for president in 1832 – wasn’t just a former Mason but defended the Order during the convention that nominated him, suggests that, despite the party’s name, that single issue wasn’t so central after all, and clearly not enough to sustain a national movement for long.
Last updated September 4, 2008

Will Maverick Go to Netroots? You decide

Democracy for America and America's Voice are teaming up to provide financial scholarships to 40 bloggers and activists so they can attend this year's Netroots Nation conference, to be held June 7-10 in Providence, RI.  Netroots Nation provides bloggers, progressive activists and candidates a forum to strengthen the online community and grow progressive movements.

     If you think I should be there, please add your support to my scholarship application.

The scholarship winners will be decided over the course of three rounds. The first round runs through 11:59 PM PST on March 21. The three applicants with the most support from DFA Members and Netroots will automatically win a scholarship in each round. Others will be chosen by a selection committee.

     The competition is tough and I need your help. Please support my application in the Netroots Nation Scholarship Competition. Also, spread the word over the next two weeks through your social networks.  Here’s the link: Greg Guma’s NetrootsScholarship Page.

     Early votes are extra important, since they can help to build momentum. So, if you think I ought to be there, let them know. Sound like a plan? Thanks in advance. – GG aka Maverick Media

In case you wondered….

To apply, I answered a series of interesting questions. I don’t know if this qualifies as transparency, but here are most of my responses:

A little about me: Questioning illegitimate authority and assisting new social movements has been my privilege for decades. Since returning home to Burlington in 2010, I've been challenging the corporate media consensus through my blog (Maverick Media), reporting and investigations for VtDigger.org, and articles on sites like Alternet, Truthout, Common Dreams, ZNet, and many more. 

      Starting out as a reporter in the late 60s, I launched several alternative publications in the 1970s, including as editor of The Vermont Vanguard Press, which set the stage for the election of Bernie Sanders and the launch of Vermont's modern progressive movement. In the 80s and 90s I was a syndicated columnist, launched community bookstores in Vermont and Santa Monica, coordinated Burlington's Peace and Justice Center and New Mexico's leading immigrant legal services organization. 

     Returning to Vermont, I edited Toward Freedom, a respected international affairs magazine, and supervised its digital transition. I also organized one of the first Indy Media conferences in 2000 and participated in the Quebec Mobilization against corporate globalization. In 2004 I co-founded Vermont Guardian, a print and online weekly. In 2006 I became Executive Director of Pacifica Radio, attempting to promote its national programming and internal reconciliation. 

      I'm the author of The People's Republic: Vermont and the Sanders Revolution; Uneasy Empire: Repression, Globalization, and What We Can Do; Big Lies: How our corporate overlords, politicians and media establishment warp reality and undermine democracy; and the radio play, Inquisitions (and Other Un-American Activities). I currently work for VTDigger.org, a Vermont news website, as its Burlington correspondent.

Why I deserve a scholarship: To begin, I am a 65-year old activist of long-standing living on a fixed income. Over the years, fighting centralized and entrenched power has required some sacrifices. In 1974, for example, I was blacklisted from public service for becoming a whistle blower on misuse of federal funds. Several years later, while teaching at a Vermont college, I was improperly fired for standing up for student rights and fair pay.

     But more relevant, I have decades of on-the ground organizing experience -- and have also kept pace with major technological innovations. From alternative publications, photography and community radio to documentary films, books, a CD on nonviolence, a radio drama on civil liberties that has been aired in more than 20 states -- I use many techniques and platforms to investigate, educate and create a counter-narrative of resistance and liberation.

     I continue to participate in the evolution of Vermont's progressive and independence movements, and write several widely-read stories weeklies on everything ranging from financial scandals, elections and education to Vermont's Yankee and significant historical events.
     Without a scholarship, my limited income and current commitments make hard for me to deal with transportation and housing. But I'd be excited to attend and exchange ideas.

What first inspired me to get involved: In a way it began in high school, defying arbitrary authority in a repressive parochial school. But being a reporter in the turbulent 60s revealed deep social injustices, and later work in government exposed the bankruptcy of the current social order. By the mid-70s I'd become a full-time organizer and media activist. By the end of the 80s the head of the local Republican Party called me a "serious professional revolutionary anarchist." I turned it into a campaign button.

How I’ve gotten others involved: I've been mentoring young writers and activists for more than 30 years, initially as editor of Vermont's leading alternative newspaper. Then, and later with Toward Freedom, I worked with hundreds of young reporters, in the US and later around the world, some of whom went on to do significant work. While in print TF stressed connections with writers in Africa, Asia and Latin America. I have also organized campaigns on civil liberties issues, local democracy, energy, militarization, corporate globalization, and the environment. Beyond that, I use my research and writing to challenge conventional thinking and motivate constructive action.

A Twitter manifesto? Bringing us together globally, new media challenge the management of mass perceptions and the knowledge monopoly of elites, fueling hope and direct action to make another world possible.

Bumper Sticker:  

THE EMPIRE ENDS HERE!

Vermont Pols Push to End Corporate Personhood

As support builds to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, organizer David Cobb returned to Vermont last week to discuss pending state legislation and Town Meeting votes aimed at amending the US constitution. From VTDigger.org

Over the last decade more than a hundred cities and towns across the country have passed ordinances putting citizens' rights ahead of corporate interests. They have banned businesses from dumping toxic sludge, building factory farms, mining, and extracting water for bottling.

Some have also refused to recognize corporations as people.

On Jan. 21, 2010, however, the US Supreme Court firmly rejected that idea in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, ruling that corporations are “persons” with First Amendment rights and cannot be prevented from spending unlimited funds on political campaigns.

Vermont State Legislature

David Cobb is determined to change that, and returned to Vermont this week to promote the next steps in a campaign to amend the US constitution. Last January, Cobb, a former Green Party candidate for president who leads the Move to Amend campaign, spoke about the issue in Burlington, Waitsfield and Montpelier during a tour of the state organized by the Women's International league for Peace and Freedom. He also met with 11 state senators who agreed to support a Vermont resolution calling on Congress to initiate the process.

In a joint interview with Cobb on Vermont Public Radio, Ben Cohen explained this week that he originally felt amending the constitution “was an incredibly high bar. But when the Occupy Wall Street movement came around, I thought this makes it possible.”

On Tuesday evening Cobb took part in a Montpelier panel discussion with Jennifer Taub, a Vermont Law School associate professor, as well as Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co-founders of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade.  Since the Occupy protests, public attention has turned to economic inequality, corporate power and restricting the use of money in political campaigns.

In Vermont several organizations have picked up the call, including the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and Clean Yield Asset Management, which co-sponsored the Montpelier event to “kick-start a statewide conversation.” Sen. Bernie Sanders is leading the charge nationally, VPIRG’s Paul Burns calls the issue “one more opportunity for our small state to take the lead,” and activist groups, in Vermont and elsewhere, have held house parties to plan for a “day of action” on Jan. 21, the second anniversary of the Supreme Court decision.

The day before that, a Friday, Move to Amend will help to organize rallies at more than a third of the country’s federal courts, including the Supreme Court, in many cases while they are in session.  Some participants will commit civil disobedience by blocking courthouse steps, Cobb predicts. 

UPCOMING: Investigative journalist Greg Palast, author of Vultures' Picnic, will speak in Burlington on Dec. 12 at 7 p.m., Main Street Landing. In this 2009 report he looks for the roots of the current economic crisis -- international "rules" that eliminated barriers for toxic assets. Here is a new report from Free Speech Radio News on how the vultures' repo ops increased cholera in the Congo.

In an interview, Cobb agreed with Cohen that the energy and tactics of the Occupy movement can help generate a public groundswell. “One of their main demands is to abolish corporate personhood and get the money out of politics,” he said. Cobb, who has worked on the issue for a decade, has visited several Occupy encampments and participated in teach-ins.

Both Move to Amend and the Vermont Progressive Party want to put corporate personhood-related questions on the ballot for Town Meeting day in March. Meanwhile, Progressive Rep. Chris Pearson may introduce legislation to create new disclosure requirements for big donors who pay for political ads.

In 2009, Democrat Jason Lorber introduced H. 299, which proposed modifications to Vermont's public financing system and a provision to regulate reporting and disclosure of independent expenditures. Last year, the Senate Government Operations Committee introduced S.294, requiring that sponsor identification information be included on electioneering communications. 

Cobb says that legislative efforts in areas like disclosure and financing can improve the process. “But we need to understand that this can’t be the end game," he insists. "If you reform the system but don’t deal with corporate personhood people can still raise and spend unlimited amounts.”

The amendment resolution introduced in Vermont last year by Sen. Virginia Lyons, the first of its kind in the country, proposes “an amendment to the United States Constitution that provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States.”  

Corporate profits and institutional survival “are often in direct conflict with the essential needs and rights of human beings,” it states. Corporations have used “so-called rights to successfully seek the judicial reversal of democratically enacted laws,” and governments have become “ineffective in protecting their citizens against corporate harm to the environment, health, workers, independent business, and local and regional economies.”

The resolution also points out that large corporations own most of the country’s mass media and use them to “convince Americans that the primary role of human beings is that of consumer rather than sovereign citizens with democratic rights and responsibilities.” With all that in mind, it concludes that the way forward is amendment of the Constitution “to define persons as human beings.”

Cobb calls the resolution a historic document and praised Lyons for showing leadership during the last session. “This is the first state to introduce at the legislative level a statement of principles that corporations are not persons and do not have constitutional rights,” he explained back in January. “It’s the beginning of a revolutionary action completely and totally within the legal framework.”

Vermont Law School Professor Cheryl Hanna, moderator of the Montpelier discussion, is a bit skeptical about constitutional amendment as a strategy, calling it “the least politically viable" approach. Two-thirds of Congress must approve, and then three quarters of the states, she notes.

The argument against focusing on amendment is that, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling on the rights of corporations to spend money during campaigns, changes like disclosure requirements, disclaimers, and increased transparency are probably the best short-term hope for mitigating the damage. “We have to look for ways to try to make it work within our limited power," argues Pearson, who may focus on requiring disclosure of top political contributors.

Another approach is to expand shareholder democracy and rights, requiring management to keep them informed and win their approval before making campaign donations. A model version, introduced last year in Maryland, would prohibit a corporation from publishing or distributing campaign material in the state unless it is true, the board of directors has decided the expenditure is in the best interests of the corporation, and the content of the campaign material and the money have been approved by a stockholder vote.

Cobb says it is essential to combine such legislation with a constitutional amendment strategy. “Abolitionists and trade unionists were also told that their strategy wasn’t viable,” he notes. “Our job is to expand the definition of political viability. When people are offered a choice an overwhelming number choose to do both.”

On the other hand, he acknowledges that it could take a decade or more to reach the final goal. “In the meantime, we need to create political space, have protests and political campaigns, and also go into state legislatures,” he says.

How a resolution calling for amendment of the constitution is worded will also make a significant difference. “It’s not like legislation, which can be passed and then altered,” he explains. “We have to get this right. If it’s just about money in elections we will have missed the boat. Disclosure is not going to solve the problem.”

Move to Amend offers some basic language, much of which is incorporated in Lyons’ version. Rejecting Citizens United, it calls for a Constitutional amendment to “firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.” Linking that issue to participation and the right “to have our vote and participation count,” it also demands protection of communities, the economy and democracy “against illegitimate ‘preemption’ actions by global, national, and state governments.”

Somewhat different wording is advocated by Free Speech for People, a Massachusetts-based group founded by John Bonifaz, who has worked with Cobb in the past. This group’s approach, which has the support of Sen. Sanders, calls on “the United States Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.”

Occupy Burlington on Church St.

At the conclusion of a 90-page dissenting opinion on Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens 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, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

While eager to work with almost anyone on the issue, Cobb advocates an approach that combines careful legal strategy with political engagement and direct action, along with a straight-forward challenge on both corporate personhood and campaign finance. 

“We should learn from the past,” he advises. “When the demands aren’t sufficiently concrete and systemic, they end up compromised.”

“Look, I’m a trade unionist,” he continues, “so I know we can’t compete with the Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street on raising money. Our strength is organizing people. A movement to amend will embolden and empower labor itself, and not simply organized labor.”

Cobb acknowledges, however, that neither unions nor non-profit groups have inherent, inalienable constitutional rights. Like corporations, they are also creations of the state. But their members have those rights.” This focus on individual rather than institutional rights is part of why a movement to amend the constitution can win support “across the ideological spectrum,” he believes.

The problem can be traced back to the mid-1970s. Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act in 1974 in an attempt to regulate campaign contributions and spending. Two years later, in the case of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court said that spending money to influence elections is constitutionally protected speech and struck down parts of the law. It also ruled that candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

In 2008, the dispute that led to the Citizens United decision was over the right of a non-profit corporation to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, and whether the group, Citizens United, could promote the film with ads featuring Clinton's image, an apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as McCain–Feingold.

The US District Court for DC denied a motion by Citizens United for a preliminary injunction to stop the Federal Election Commission from enforcing provisions of McCain–Feingold that prevented the film, Hillary: The Movie, from being shown on TV within 30 days of Democratic primaries.

The Supreme Court struck down a provision of McCain–Feingold that prohibited all corporations, both for- and not-for-profit, as well as unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications,” defined as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary.

On the other hand, the Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case didn’t involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

Justice Stevens wrote at the time that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." His dissent also said that the majority had "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."

Until Citizens United, a century of US election laws prohibited corporate managers from spending general treasury funds in federal elections. Instead, they had to make expenditures via separate segregated funds, commonly known as corporate political action committees. Shareholders, officers and managers who wanted a corporation to advance a political agenda could contribute funds for that purpose.

But the Supreme Court's ruling says that corporations have the same First Amendment rights to make independent expenditures as natural people, and restrictions prohibiting both corporations and unions from spending their general treasury funds on independent expenditures violate the First Amendment.

According to Robert Reich, a public policy expert and former Secretary of Labor, the 2012 presidential race will probably be the priciest ever as a result, going as high as $6 billion. “Yet all this money is drowning out the voices of average Americans,” he noted in a Nov. 27 column for the San Francisco Chronicle. “Most of us don't have the dough to break through. Giving First Amendment rights to money and corporations has hobbled the First Amendment rights of the rest of us.”

Despite those odds, Cobb remains optimistic – at least that the current wave of Occupy activism, as well as legislative and Town Meeting activity in Vermont, can light a spark. “My commitment is to make democratic representation a reality again,” he says. “To do that we need to abolish corporate personhood and destroy the fiction that money is speech.”

Presidential Death Match: Fatal Distractions

Managing Perceptions

on the Campaign Trail

An irreverent journey into the warped world of presidential campaign politics past and present, and how the media shape public opinion

“Presidential elections have been media spectacles for almost 50 years, roughly since television became the national drug… Every four years since then, corporate chiefs, media gatekeepers, and political fixers have manufactured new scripts and a new superstar… Anything is possible. And it’s a guaranteed blockbuster every time, a fatal distraction for which you don't need a ticket…”

Green Lighting Our Fatal Distractions: Primaries as TV Pilots

Selling Campaign Stories: Howard Dean and 2004 Race

Caucus Survivor 2004: Out-Spin, Out-Pander

Make No Assumptions: How Dean Went Down

Momentum: A Presidential Blockbuster

Momentum: Acting Like the President

Election Night 2004: Another Media Drag Race

Election Suspicions: The 2004 Cover Up

Democracy in Lockdown: After the Voting

Citizen Nader: From Prophet to Punchline

Barack Obama: The New Jimmy Carter

The Strange Race of John McHyde

Sarah Palin: Filtering Out the Facts

John McCain: Putting Himself First
Convention Watch 2008: News, Highlights and History

The Strange Race of John McHyde

The 2008 Presidential race has gradually evolved from an historic high drama into a “high concept” mystery that would give the most adventurous Hollywood producer pause. The nomination of a biracial Senator was unlikely enough, but the twist of a split-personality warrior joining forces with an evangelical Hockey Mom on the competing ticket surely stretches credulity. Yet here we are, watching the latest Presidential Death Match blockbuster.

While elections certainly ought to be decided on the issues, the truth is that “undecided” voters – that crucial 10 to 15 percent who don’t pick a side until late in the race – often make their choices based on the personal qualities of the candidates. Sensitive to that, on the last night of the GOP convention John McCain portrayed himself as humble, respectful – even of his opponent, and open to “any willing patriot.” Speaking to an uncontrollable crowd that insisted on chanting USA no matter what he was saying, McCain promised that “change is coming.” Then he promised to get back to basics – lower taxes (for businesses), a strong defense, and a culture of life. At times, it sounded like he was reading a speech written for Reagan or some Bush.

There were a few specifics: school choice, cutting foreign aid, nuclear power, and oil drilling now. And some predictable villains: bureaucrats, unions, trial lawyers, partisan “rancor,” Iran and Russia. But the bottom line was that McCain has the scars to prove he’s a leader and Barack Obama doesn’t. “My country saved me and I will fight for her as long as I draw breath,” he said. “Fight with me.”

To understand the McCain-Palin phenomenon, it helps to look at some literary and cinematic precursors. On the surface, McCain looks like a maverick war hero, experienced and unassuming. But there’s another persona lurking beneath the surface, a creature unleashed by his ambition – the bitter, obsessed war lover who will say and do anything. The classic example of this tale is Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 novella, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

In Stevenson’s original text, a London lawyer investigates strange occurrences involving his friend Dr. Henry Jekyll and the destructive Edward Hyde. It’s an early portrayal of split personality, a person who shows a dramatically different character from one situation to another. Today we call it "multiple personality" or "Dissociative Identity Disorder."

The premise, adapted in more than 100 films and a Broadway musical, is that the unassuming Jekyll invents a potion that turns him into Hyde, a sociopathic monster. He enjoys the creature’s moral freedom at first, but ultimately begins turning into Hyde involuntarily. Eventually, he runs out of potion and loses the ability to turn back into his original self. TV viewers, comic readers, and filmgoers are familiar with more modern versions of the character, including The Hulk, The Nutty Professor, and Harvey Two-Face from Batman. It’s the story of a flawed hero torn between a good and evil self.

In this new, real-life version, McCain began as a likable figure – a Vietnam-era Eisenhower. But he’s been turned by the potion – in this case, an unquenchable ambition to be president – into a post-9/11 Nixon. As a result of this metamorphosis, the war hero has become a war lover, the maverick has transformed into an opportunist, and the pragmatic public servant has become a rash demagogue. Not only has McCain adopted domestic policies he long opposed, he has pandered to the GOP’s conservative base, reversing himself even on the question of torture. It’s been remarkable (and terrible) to behold.

Unfortunately, Obama has assumed the role of Stevenson’s lawyer, trying to unravel the mystery and explain it to us. But in most adaptations, that character is dropped or sidelined so the drama can focus on Jekyll’s struggle with himself. Likewise, the current campaign, which was once mainly about Obama’s journey (“It’s his to lose,” the pundits said), is now more about McCain, his running mate, and his Party’s attempt to rise from its own ashes, somehow also transformed into agent of reform.

This adaptation also incorporates a love interest, a “partner and soul mate” – McCain’s description of Sarah Palin – with the apparent power to make the creature look like his former self. Think Beauty and the Beast. It was love at first sight, apparently. In TV terms, Team McCain has reformatted an old show with stagnant ratings by introducing a captivating unknown who has star quality and a resonant story. The potential for free media promotion is unlimited.

The backstory involves a beauty queen who was initially attracted to the wild side of politics, Pat Buchanan’s “culture war” and a secessionist movement in Alaska. But she drank some potion of her own and became a Republican mayor and governor. Like McCain, she can be winning, but also can change into a vindictive avenger if things don’t go her way.

In Palin’s case, a relevant film is The Stepford Wives, both the 1970s science fiction fable and the recent remake. The initial image that comes to mind is compliant robot-women (replacements for pushy high achievers) who serve their men. But you don’t want to cross them, since they’ve been programmed to vigorously defend their way of life. As the original film ends Katherine Ross has become one more Stepford wife; in the remake, Nicole Kidman escapes and the conspiracy is exposed.

Viewers weren’t impressed with the revisionist ending. As most people know, once body and soul have been surrendered you rarely get them back.

Calling Palin a Stepford Governor risks the charge of sexism. Republican operatives have been quick to charge Democrats and media analysts with precisely that for asking about her qualifications, researching her past, or questioning why she was put on the ticket. Yet, how do you describe someone who seeks to be a “heartbeat away” from the presidency and yet admitted a month ago that she didn’t know what the vice president does, a politician who presents herself as both a “hockey mom” and a “pit bull,” and thinks creationism is a nifty addition to the public school curriculum? What explains the combination of her extreme opposition to abortion and deluded assertion that she represents a completion of Hillary Clinton’s quest? Or what about her praise for Obama’s energy plan in early August and then deleting the press release from her website?

Somewhere between Wasilla and the GOP Convention Palin has morphed from a Buchanan culture warrior into the mom in The Brady Bunch.

Despite the general storyline, alternate endings still can be imagined. In Stevenson’s original, the conclusion was ambiguous. Jekyll might kill himself to escape from Hyde, but the outcome isn’t provided. Modern viewers are impatient with such cop outs. They’d prefer to see the creature prevail than leave the theater with such a large unanswered question.

It’s possible to envision a climax in which Obama finally confronts McCain. But to do that, he’ll have to go beyond eloquent explaining. In Act Three, we’ll need to see an all-out attack, one that begins with the assertion that Jekyll is gone and only Hyde survives. As the Republicans do so well, Obama must go directly after his opponent’s strengths and turn them into weaknesses. The challenge is to convince the undecided that he isn’t running against a maverick war hero and unselfish public servant; his opponent, he must show, is a bitter warrior, a rash and ambitious opportunist who poses a clear and present danger. The maverick, in short, has become a menace.

The best opportunity will come during the presidential debates. Continuing to pander with references to McCain’s Vietnam “courage” will effectively reinforce the prevailing storyline. Instead, Obama must goad McCain, refuse to give ground, and force the creature out. Since they can’t win on the issues, the Republicans want the race to be a personality contest. To win, therefore, Obama will have to expose who McCain really is. People need a glimpse of that famous temper, the guy who sometimes goes ballistic, holds long-term grudges and once publicly insulted his wife for teasing him about his thinning hair. This time, it’s the temperament, stupid!

For example, Obama might say, “I have the energy, judgment and a plan that can put American back on the right track. John McCain has a biography.” In other words, something designed to make him mad – because, to borrow a catch phrase, America won’t like him when he’s angry.

Otherwise, The Strange Race of John McHyde could end like one of those sci-fi films in which humanity survives (barely), but the hero dies and creatures continue to dominate the landscape. We’ve already had an early “October Surprise,” a provoked confrontation with Russia and new US missiles in Poland. The danger ahead is that Cold War/Terror logic will again be effectively force-fed to the fearful, who accept the idea that only McHyde can protect them.

The choice is between rejecting hope and hunkering down, or facing fear and standing up – to global challenges and the danger lurking within.

In case you’re wondering whether McCain’s temper is a real question, check out the video clips below. Three are MSNBC and CNN coverage of the issue, the fourth shows an incident during a Senate hearing last Spring.

McTemper: MSNBC

Cursing at a Senate Hearing: C-SPAN

McCain’s Temper: MSNBC

McCain Moments: CNN