The recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in politics just may be the straw that breaks the plutocracy’s back.

Pro-democracy groups, business leaders, and elected representatives are proposing mechanisms to prevent or counter the millions of dollars that corporations can now draw from their treasuries to push for government action favorable to their bottom line. The outrage ignited by the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission extends to President Obama, who has promised that repairing the damage will be a priority for his administration.

But what can be done to limit or reverse the effect of the Court’s decision? Here are 10 ideas:

1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of human beings. Since the First Amendment case for corporate spending as a free speech right rests on corporations being considered “persons,” the proposed amendment would strike at the core of the ruling’s justification. The push for the 28th Amendment is coming from the grassroots, where a prairie fire is catching on from groups such as Public Citizen, Voter Action, and the Campaign to Legalize Democracy.

2. Require shareholders to approve political spending by their corporations. Public Citizen and the Brennan Center for Justice are among the groups advocating this measure, and some members of Congress appear interested. Britain has required such shareholder approval since 2000.

Read more

Hits: 117

As Democratic Congress members fumble for the mythical health reform solution that will satisfy everyone and their insurance agent, many have accused Republicans of lacking a plan of their own.

They are mistaken. Hidden in the cobwebby depths of the House Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions lies the conservative answer to health care. It's a plan that would cost about $940 billion less than the House Democrats' bill, and cut deficit spending by tens of billions over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office - all while keeping large employers and insurance moguls happy as clams on subsidized Prozac.

The downside? It would leave more than 52 million nonelderly Americans uninsured. That's an improvement of roughly zero percent.

The legislation, ambitiously dubbed "The Empowering Patients First Act," was introduced by Rep. Tom Price, chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, in July. It has lately been resurrected as the paragon of reform done right by right-wing columnists, as well as conservative bastions such as the Heritage Foundation and the Christian Coalition.

The legislation would not require that employers offer coverage, nor would it impose regulations preventing insurance companies from cherry picking healthy clients.

It would require that no federal funds be used to pay for abortions unless "the pregnancy endangers a women's life or was the result of forcible rape."

And, to help fund the minimal expense of the bill, it would instate "medical liability reforms" that would force down the cost of compensation for malpractice lawsuits and make it harder for patients to sue for injuries incurred during treatment.

Feeling empowered yet?

Several of us from PDA VA have vetted the idea of pushing a Medicare buy-in with several staffers and members of Congress on the Hill and we got a very positive reaction. This idea actually has a shot of getting enacted since it came close to gettting 60 votes in the Senate and only 50 votes are required in the Senate until budget reconciliation. We feel strongly that is important at this stage of the debate that we advocate something that has a chance of passing Congress that will advance Medicare for All. Members of Congress are now saying that they need to move on to jobs and the economy.

There is a problem passing healthcare reform now in both the House and the Senate. The Senate originally proposed the Medicare expansion and had 59 supporting votes. An expansion of Medicare is a budget issue and only requires a simple Senate majority 51 not 60 votes to pass.

A Medicare buy-in accomplishes two things: (1) it keeps the money out of the hands of the for-profit insurance companies and (2) since Medicare already exists and has been the most successful government program, we can start it right away and don’t have to wait years until a brand, new infrastructure is created. Also with younger people buying into Medicare and not using as many medical services as older Americans, Medicare gets an infusion of cash.

82% of voters in Massachusetts said they supported an expansion of Medicare or a government run program like Medicare. Why invent something new when Medicare works?

Call your Senators and House Members and tell them you support a Medicare buy-in for people 55 and older.

Senator Mark Warner
Phone: 202-224-2023

Senator Jim Webb
Phone: 202-224-4024

Join us on Capital Hill for a Lobby Day on Thursday, February 4, 2010. This could be a win for everyone. It's a first step but one we can build on through budget reconciliation.

The closure of the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is beginning to look like a protracted and uncertain project for the Obama administration as political, legal and security concerns limit the president's options.

Having blown the one-year closure deadline set last January in an executive order, the administration is planning to transfer some detainees to a state prison it hopes to acquire in Illinois. But there appears to be little mood in Congress to provide the administration with either the funding for the prison or the authority to transfer detainees who will be held indefinitely.

At the same time, opposition is building to plans to transfer a number of detainees, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to a civilian court in Lower Manhattan for federal trial.

"My hope is that the attorney general and the president decide to change their mind," New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said this week, after having welcomed the choice of venue in November.

Facing rising local concern about disruption to life in the city, and with some estimates of security costs touching $1 billion, Bloomberg said an alternative proposal to hold a trial on a military base is a "reasonably good one."

The California State Senate has just passed SB 810 on a vote of 22 to 14. All Democrats voted in favor, with the exception of Alquist who was absent due to illness, Wright who abstained and Correa who opposed. All Republicans opposed, except Huff who was off of the floor at the time but had spoke in opposition earlier in the Debate. SB 810 now advances to the Assembly.