YES! Corporations shouldn't influence local politics.
35%
YES! Money is not speech no matter where it’s spent.
65%
Comments
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
From Screwed:
"Once again, Thom Hartmann hits the bull’s eye with a much needed exposé of the so-called ‘free market.’ Anyone concerned about the future of our nation needs to read Screwed now."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Beneath the success and rise of American enterprise is an untold history that is antithetical to every value Americans hold dear. This is a seminal work, a godsend really, a clear message to every citizen about the need to reform our country, laws, and companies."
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
campaign funding:
the monetary means by which America's fascist factions determine which will take its turn leading the other: retrograde Republicans, or depraved Democrats
campaign finance reform:
creatively devious liberal efforts to keep elections focused upon the fundraising abilities of candidates, rather than their ideas for solving problems
candidates (corporate party):
corporate money manufactured (R) and (D) sociopaths who are financial sector selected to represent competing corporate interests, while in completely concerted collaboration working together against the best interests of natural persons and Nature
permanent government:
Money deciding all matters, whether great or small
______________________________
The APT: American Political Terms
www.chenangogreens.org
A question where one can vote either "yes" or "yes"?
Realistically, there are two viable parties, and both have the same agenda. Sort of like the old Soviet elections.
This is a tricky question. That is...there's no reason Out Of State supporters of GMO Labeling Laws, or gay-rights laws, or Union Rights laws, or etc., be not be able to send money to another state to support those causes.
The issue has to be about PEOPLE providing the money, vs. Non-Human Corporate entities sending the money. Democracy is about the "demos", the people...not about abstract corporate entities which are, after all, in existence only as We The People allow them to exist.
But, to prevent a CEO or other actual person from passing the corporate money FOR that abstract entity, there must be limits on the contributions...and assurances that the money is JUST from an individual...not just laundering the money for his or her corporate associate.
Then, the mainstream PUBLIC airwaves must be made available to ANY Members of the public...not just those who can afford to BUY the most space. It's not about buying space...the space, still called Public Airwaves, is already paid for and owned by ALL taxpayers, and is owned by all the public, even those who are too poor to afford to pay taxes.
Ideally, the One Percent Corporatocracy ought have rightful access to One Percent of the public airwaves. Other percentages...like envionmentalists, single payer activists, organics supporters, consumer rights supporters, immigrant rights advocates, etc etc... (the 99 percent) ought simply have their fair share.
For once oligarchs should be stopped from influencing local elections to finance people like Rand Paul. Keeping the GOP out of office is worth keeping out of state money out of local elections.