Home | About | Donate

Sanders is First to Sign 'Fix Democracy' Pledge Rejecting Fossil Fuel Cash


Sanders is First to Sign 'Fix Democracy' Pledge Rejecting Fossil Fuel Cash

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Bernie Sanders is the first presidential candidate to sign onto an ambitious "Fix Democracy" pledge launched Monday by Greenpeace and more than 20 other climate justice organizations.

In doing so, Sanders vows to reject campaign contributions from the fossil fuel industry and to support a "people-powered democracy" marked by full voting rights for all and public funding for campaigns.


Expecting Hillary to sign such an agreement is pretty naive. Her sole and only reason to be in this campaign is the quest for personal power and wealth.


Expect some serious spin by Hillary's camp. She might ignore this pledge as will the corporate media, or as always following Bernie's initiatives, will engage in sophistic legalese, avoidance and pig lipstick application that together with well practiced wording and a great makeover will make it seem as if she appears to promise something even more significant.


Bernie was the first to sign, and will also be the last, with the possible exception of O'Malley. All the others are a bunch of hypocrites!
Though Trump won't need the money and may just sign too to feed his populist image.


If HRC does sign the pledge it will not be worth the paper it is written on once she gets selected for POTUS!


If Trump is the eventual GOP candidate (and that's far from certain) there is no way that he will self-finance a national campaign. Nor could he, as the sums of money that are going to be spent on this charade are beyond the dreams of avarice. He won't sign it because with its eco-linkage it is an absolute non-starter to the flavor of "populism" embraced by his avid supporters. They don't need no pansey-assed tree-huggers interfering with their "right to pollute."


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Hillary cant and she wont....She is them in a shadow sort of way....Besides it is to late who would donate money to her campaign ...I wonder how much of her campaign money is from single donations...Hillary supporters know they dont need to give money because the super packs are giving it for them..


Trying to get a set of policies through Congress isn't a "revolution." Rejecting fossil fuels is something the masses support in theory, but not enough to end up with gas shortages and higher fuel prices. What America actually does have is a poverty crisis, and the longer we ignore (or even deny) it, the more it sinks the country. People want a representative govt. Today, the rich have full representation, the middle class have some, and the poor have no representation whatsoever. That's a pretty shabby excuse of a democracy.

As a candidate, Obama repeatedly pointed out that if we wanted change, we would have to organize, get to our feet and demand it from Congress. We almost did that, too, with Occupy, but before we could even catch our breath, Dem pols and liberal media redefined Occupy as a "movement of middle class workers." The rest of us -- the poor, and those who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the US -- finally walked away. Those who aren't on the right are deeply divided today, and it would have been wise to begin addressing this years ago.

A "revolution" would have required daring to address the reality that not everyone can work (health, etc.) and that there aren't jobs at all, using our own history as proof of why poverty relief is essential to any chance of rebuilding the middle class. A revolution takes courage, and courage -- even enough courage to point out that the emperor (our corporate state) is naked as a jaybird -- is in short supply.


O'Malley has called for public funding of all congressional races in five years so I assume he will sign the pledge. Clinton is really running a campaign based on the general election. I don't think she will sign it because of the enormous amount of money needed to run in the general election. All her policies can be used in the general election. She is trying to go left enough to win the nomination but not so far to possibly hurt her in the general election. Sanders and O'Malley are running campaigns to win the nomination. If either wins the nomination they could be too far left in the general election and have to deal with that when the times comes win over voters who are not Democrats.


Yes, there is a good chance that Democrats will lose 2016. All they have left is middle class Democrats and a few who still cling to illusions of eventual trickle down. Even with the recent downward revision of the income level that means "middle class," there aren't enough left to win any elections. The truly poor (and those who get why it matters) have only been more deeply alienated. Think about it: Not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren't jobs for all. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare in the 1990s.That's reality. What do you think happens to those who are left out? Obama was regarded by most as the last/only chance to shine a light on our poverty crisis, and the impact it is having on the nation/economy overall. It was worth a try.


If he did that, it would be the only sensible thing he has proposed so far. An alliance with Moscow would also entail an alliance with Russia's most important ally: China
Now, I expect a lot of flag from this but here is a brief factual summary of China's role on this planet. That role has an even harder time to make it into our media than Bernie:

All statements in this article can easily be verified through Google.
Compare that with what we have been doing the last few decades.


I wouldn't expect Clinton to move on this until she has had this vetted by the "experts" and studied the polls six ways from Sunday. She is like Lindsey Graham who recently admitted that his policies are determined by who pays the bills and the poling of the people and not his own inner beliefs. I much prefer to follow a leader who has passion for his causes and does not follow the herd,


Here's an interesting proposition... Bernie could ask Jill Stein to be his running mate before we begin the Primaries. All though 99% of Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, I'm sure they would learn to appreciate her quickly once her name became mainstream. The Primaries are the key and Bernie must continue to reinforce his message of removing money from politics. But Jill Stein will also temper his weaker points such as foreign policy and the environment. Just a thought.


On its face your suggestion of Stein as a running mate has its merits. She does seem very bright, but I fear a quiet reasonable person like Jill may be eaten alive by the show-biz aspects of the process of being in the National spotlight.

I do believe it would be a shewd political move to choose a running mate in the middle of the primary season, especially for Bernie, as his biggest handicap, other than his ethnicity, is his age ( that and the stubborn fact that many Americans still don't know who Bernie is).
No, I'm afraid Bernie is going to need a younger, vibrant, more known commodity as a running mate. I have no suggestions as, unfortunately, I can think of no young, vibrant, preferably ethnic (re: Hispanics) that are recognizable on a national scale (funny how the GOP has already successfully placed a few Hispanics in the spotlight, yet the Dems have none). If O'Malley were more popular I would suggest him. But I don't think he has excited a single voter as of yet. I suppose the obvious choice is Elizabeth Warren, but since that too would be a bold choice, I doubt it could happen.
Again, I do like Stein. But Bernie needs young and vibrant. Jill seems about as dynamic as oatmeal.
But we can hope, eh?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Elizabeth Warren would be the dream team IMO. She brings name recognition, bold tenacity, proven fight for the "little folk" history, and she is a woman. Sure to bring a lot of rational republican female support. Plus she would be a shoe in for the first female President.


I will second what hp writes. One really appreciate Jill Stein's speaking and reasoning skills when they actually encounters her. I've been to more than one of her campaign meetings. Unfortunately for Sanders, he is tied to the Democratic party. She is tied to no one except the voters. Like Sanders, she takes no support from the corporation.


Simple Choice:
Vote for more of the same (on steroids), business as usual, more war, more environmental decline--Vote For Hillary and her Republican Colleagues.
Vote for a new direction, for the restoration of the planet and humanity, vote for Bernie or for Jill Stein.

As we learned in the past election:... People thought that voting for Obama, was voting for a new direction, the First Black President.
But as we learned, this was only skin deep.....We really got much more of the same. The same could be said of people voting for Hillary, to elect the first women to office.
Hillary will much worse, more of the same. I think that Jill Stein would make a great President. We don't need a new Maggie Thatcher here. We don't need "Female warriors" as Hillary or Carly would be; we need more women bring their compassionate and authentic views to the tables of power and decisionmaking...Look what came out of the recent Paris talks-Corp 21- a conference of all men...The only thing that emerged was protection of more of the same...the path of continued Earth & ecological support system destruction.


With her eyes on today's USA Today poll, expect her to sign, then find a black hole to suck up the dirty money anyway. Money in, zero information out. If caught, slither through with lawyer words. That is the Clinton way