Home | About | Donate

'In a Functional Democracy, This Would Be a No-Brainer': Warren Unveils Bold Anti-Corruption Legislation


#1

'In a Functional Democracy, This Would Be a No-Brainer': Warren Unveils Bold Anti-Corruption Legislation

Jake Johnson, staff writer

Confronting the "rot" of corruption that has poisoned every corner of the American political system and rigged government to work solely in the interests of the rich and well-connected, Sen.


#2

If Congress didn’t work for Special Interest Groups, I’m not sure they would know how to function.


#3

I’ll pay attention IF it is enacted AND enforced.


#4

I got as far as page 34 of the pdf (out of 289 pages!—please recall that H.R. 676, the Expanded and Improved Medicare for All bill, was just 27 pages front to back). I noticed what appeared to be 4 or 5 waivers or exclusions based on “compelling national interest,” but that phrase was curiously NOT defined.

I’ll read it through closely when time permits, but already my BS detector is beeping.


#5

If either Manafort or Cohen are acquitted, Trump will have proven that Crime Pays.

We the People may have to commit crimes, to return our government to the masses.


#6

It’s easy for Warren to propose reforms that attack the wealthy when she knows that they have no chance of being enacted. Democrats like Warren enjoy their minority status, since they can appear to be for average Americans when in reality they are sucking up to the same corporate class as the Republicans. Warren showed her true colors when she refused to support Sanders in the primary, and now anything she proposes is simply barking at the moon.


#7

I’ll vote for that!

Would only add:


#8

What’s the alternative?


#9

“Completely ban foreign lobbying”

Whoa! Did she run this by Bibi first?

(Edit: Based on what GuildF312S posted above, I see that she did.)


#10

Good stuff by Warren – but why not ban ALL lobbying?


#11

Hi solly,

I understand your anger and I sympathize with your cynicism/skepticism about Warren (and about Sanders too?). In 2016 and most of 2017, I felt the same way as you do. Both Warren and Sanders did things that betrayed many of their supporters. Both Warren and Sanders did things that disillusioned and disgusted me.

So did the DNC and the Democratic Party. I felt furious. I left the DP and joined the Green Party. I might eventually join a Socialist Party because I’m certain that the common people need much more aggressive, egalitarian and eco-socialist representatives and policies in government.

Having said that, I’ve concluded that Sanders and Warren are the most vocal leaders of Leftist values and goals that we have at the present time. So I’ve decided to support them, verbally and financially, and I will vote for them if they run for President – even though they are far from my ideal candidates – until more truly, fully Leftist candidates arise (who can win).

I voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and 2016, and only about 1% of voters did so. So, it will likely be a long time before true, full Leftists gain real power in the U.S. government. But candidates like Sanders and Warren have a better chance (than Jill Stein or Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader) of at least moving our government and nation in a better, Leftist direction – so that eventually the common people will have even better, more truly Leftist candidates who can win elections and exercise political power for the common people and for all life on Earth!


#12

@Greenwich: It’s a First Amendment issue. I don’t think it’s possible to ban all lobbying.


#13

Ross – @Greenwich: It’s a First Amendment issue. I don’t think it’s possible to ban all lobbying.

Well, once again you come up against the issue of distortion of amendments where corporations
are now allegedly “citizens” and “persons.” …

First Amendment –
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Obviously, this was meant to be individuals – even groups of farmers, or a community appealing in some way for change, logically –

but all common sense would say they didn’t mean Monsanto/Bayer – they didn’t mean “Big Pharma” – and they didn’t mean organizations such as ALEC – or the Council on Foreign Relations –

or PAID lobbyists.

As devious as Our Founders were, not sure that they could have foreseen corruption by the Supremes
going so far as to suggest that corporations are people. All evidence shows they don’t breathe, don’t have a conscience and don’t need health care.

What I intended with my BAN was citizens and extended citizenry as mentioned above.


#14

As our political system is now structured, both of those conditions seem unlikely. That Senators and Representatives would vote in numbers to give up their own prospects for easy wealth seems unlikely so even if they would put on a show by enacting the legislation we can be pretty sure that enforcement provisions would be lacking. The problem is that Washington politicians do not now fear the voters.

Voters could wise up, form movements and make the politicians fear them of course but the system now seems stacked against that happening. We have an electoral system that is rigged against the voter in many ways. It is a system that makes it hard for many people to cast their votes at all, it restricts the options that voters have and it keeps voters even from adequately expressing their wishes.

Although it is gratifying that even one good Senator is tackling this issue, it seems doubtful that these are structural problems that Washington will be able to solve. A solution will require grass-root efforts at serious structural reform. But a promising place to begin would be with the voting system itself. Maine recently changed its voting system through a ballot initiative process and other states could follow that example, though perhaps not with the same choice of voting system.


#15

I respect Warren for say’n she’s a capitalist to her bones (Intercept rundown on this). I’m not one all the way to my bones, but I think it’ll serve as a bridge to whatever. Neoliberalism’s an evil. Shock doctrine’s an evil. But Eisenhower capitalism…with racial/pluralistic justice…could be a bridge.

How it’s a bridge. Imagine for one moment that air travel is a justifiable thing. OK, you want new planes ever so often. Well, without Russia’s titanium it would be a heck of a lot harder to build’em. Course I know “trade makes for peace” is hackneyed, but it’s been true to an extent. Ebola vaccine…Johnson & Johnson. To get to socialism…capitalism will have to start qwacking fairer and more rational first. If it doesn’t, we’ll never get there. We’re not gonna jump on over into Utopia overnight. We should jump to GAI, though, forthwith. Otherwise, what are folks gonna do?

There are sites that decry the evils of capitalism, and push socialism. It’s right to do this, but to me the emphasis sometimes seems a little off. Nader “sort” of had an article about this the other day regarding the House Progressive Caucus of the Dems. The socialist in me would add something to Nader’s items he says the caucus is mum on. We need to start planning production for the far future. Green production, no redundancy. If it’s a machine, no disarticulated production…all the parts made here (cuts down on bunker fuel burned by freighters at sea). Doesn’t have to be a machine, though…Cuba in their “special period” (isolated tough period) did rum, cigars, and doctors. If China doesn’t end up the big hegemon, things’ll be multi-polar [like Alfred McCoy says, a real different world]. In that situation, where we won’t be IT, the markets and the Republicans’ll be like…it’s the wrath of God! OTOH, if the world adjusts, maybe it’ll mean less wrath from a big cheese hegemon.

“to my bones” comment https://theintercept.com/2018/08/21/elizabeth-warren-unveils-radical-anti-corruption-platform/

the Nader article https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/08/17/going-fundamental-eludes-congressional-progressives


#16

Hi GuildF312s, and LOL, let’s see "Compelling national interest,: could mean:
the rich people are crying;
Koch Bros closed their wallets
everyone on Earth hates us
Israel doesn’t like it…
so I’m with you as “compelling national interests,” could be “Lets’ war on Iran --again.
I like the ideas, but there’s that nebulous phrase. " compelling national interest”
Do you ever watch old Twilight Zone stories? If you do , look for one called “To Serve Man,” and it’s just so interesting of the multiple meanings of words. : )


#17

We know, because we’ve been talking about this for decades now. The rich have full representation, the middle class have some, and the poor have no representation whatsoever. This is what defines today’s America.


#18

It isn’t re-regulation of Capitalism, either –


#19

Liberals aren’t going to get this issue because they swept a big chunk of the former Dem voting base under the carpet since the 1990s – the poor. Most voting choices, research has consistently confirmed, come down to economic issues. The Dem voting base had long consisted of the poor and middle class, workers and those who are left jobless. The Clinton administration split this base wide apart in the 1990s, and the Obama administration confirmed that this split is permanent.


#20

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember Warren being upset, or saying anything negative about the Dem. party walking back their promise not to take money from the energy companies last week.
I smell a Presidential run coming.