(Stamp Stampede-related) Banks Would Likely to Silence Your "Speech" If They Don't Like The Message

Here's an anecdote I would like to share it with you.  

There is a small bank called US Bank at the Student Center in University of Missouri - Columbia. I came here to get more five dollar bills to stamp on by exchanging with a twenty dollar. When I handed my stamped twenty dollar to a bank lady, she told me I shouldn't stamp on it anymore because I am defacing it. 

Now keep in mind that this lady worked at the bank for more than 20 years and she have seen stamped bills like 'where's George' many times before. When I gave a stamped bill to her for the first time, she said it reminded her 'where's George' dollars she got from the past. 

After she said I am defacing it, I replied to her it is legal to stamp on money and also a "free speech." However, she also said that the bank can "silence" my "free speech" if they don't like it.

This reminds me of this story about how Senator Elizabeth Warren met JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon. It was featured in the afterwords from Warren's autobiography A Fighting Chance. When Dimon demanded more risky bank deregulation in front of her, Warren was furious and call him off for a possibly illegal act. Dimon laughed off and said, "So hit me with a fine. We can afford it." Which means Jamie Dimon already bought many legislators in the House of Congress and literally he runs the government. You can check out The Young Turks's report below:

Now, US Bank is nowhere near big or corrupted as JP Morgan Chase, but it seems like within a banking industry, bankers doesn't like when people speak out against money in politics and demand for prosecuting bankers who were part of the 2008 economic recessions. As you can see an image from the top, this guy mentioned how his bank shreds Stamp Stampede dollars whenever they ends up in ATM. 

This is outrageous. The banking industry knew we are coming after them. They are afraid we are turning money into weapons against them, even though Citizens United ruling (or Buckley v. Valeo) technically allowed us to speak out against money in politics through "free speech."

I am not going to make any speculation whether the banking industry would pressure the Congress to propose some restrictions on stamping dollars, but I feel like they would most likely to do so in order to "silence" our "speech."

The campaign's founder Ben Cohen's lawyer already prepared a legal opinion regarding the issue of stamping dollars and you can read and download the it right here. And when the bank tells you something about "defacing" dollars, just show them this legal opinion and tell them how it is not illegal. But just to be clear: it is ILLEGAL to destroy paper currency or deface it so much that it’s no longer recognizable. What we are doing is a legal and we want our dollars to be circulated as much as possible! 

I have seen many people on Instagram founded Stamp Stampede bills all over the country. Even within Columbia, Missouri! So don't give up. The point of this campaign is to spread the message much as possible.

As Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message."

Whatever Happened to Sen. Bob Menendez?

Looks like someone got indicted for bribery related to Super PACs. This is such a rare thing ever happened in politics. In a country where political bribery is legal, Senator from New Jersey named Bob Menendez indicted last Wednesday afternoon for 14 criminal counts of bribery, conspiracy, and making false statement. 

He has a friendly but sketchy connection with this millionaire eye doctor named Salomon Mengel, who became rich through Medicare. 

This is what The Daily Beast described the behind the scene curtain:

Three years ago, prosecutors began looking at the New Jersey Democrat’sfriendship with Salomon Melgen, an ophthalmologist who became filthy rich, much to the ire of the government, because of Medicare. Melgen was suspiciously generous to Menendez: providing him with luxury hotel suites in Paris, stays at his vacation home (called Casa de Campo, of course), and hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. In return, Menendez seemingly acted as Melgen’s personal advocate in the federal government.

Menendez claims this is typical friendly behavior. Prosecutors, he snapped on Wednesday, just “don’t know the difference between friendship and corruption.”

And sure, who among us hasn’t—as the indictment specifies—personally called an ambassador to get visas approved for three of our friend’s girlfriends, or intervened when that friend was accused of Medicare fraud, or tried to prevent a foreign government from screwing up a contract with that friend’s business—all while that friend financed our reelection campaign? It’s just what friends do.

Menendez’s defense hinges in part on the sheer length of his friendship with Melgen: 20 years. Of course, 20 years ago, Menendez was a congressman rising rapidly through the ranks in the Democratic Party. No matter, Menendez says, because the cigar-loving duo are so close that they know each other’s families.

Some may say this is the tipping point of political corruption from Super PAC. The author of the article went on and making connections with Citizen United case.

I've written about why such an outcome for Menendez might feel inevitable: New Jersey is, The Washington Post’s Philip Bump calculated, the No. 1 state in the country when it comes to politicians who also are criminals. But it also was arguably inevitable that it wasn't just New Jersey that provided the culture of corruption, but the Citizens United decision.  

Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, said the most interesting part of the indictment has to do with Melgen's $600,000 donation to Menendez, funneled through a super PAC run by former and current aides to Harry Reid, the intention of which was to maintain the Senate majority for Democrats.

“It shows how misguided the Supreme Court, in Citizens United, was when it declared that independent spending can’t or doesn't pose any threat of corruption,” he said. “In fact, we see now, a very direct instance of corruption flowing from contributions made to an independent expenditure group.”

“I think this was all very predictable,” Ryan went on. “The court was completely out of touch with how politics works and this Menendez indictment reflects precisely how politics does work and influence-seekers are going to be exerting their corrupting influence through super PACs just as they used to do it through political parties and soft money. Super PACs provide the same exact types of threats and avenues for corruption.

“The court was wrong and now we have, at least, the first bit of alleged evidence about how wrong the court was in Citizens United.”

Trevor Potter, former chairman of the Federal Elections Commission, agreed. On the Acela from Washington to New York City on Thursday afternoon, Potter told me that “the reality” is “that of course, candidates and officeholders are in the middle of the super PAC world.” He said it was a predictable outcome, although “the court claimed it wasn't going to happen.”

The whole idea of Citizens United was that huge sums of money injected into politics wouldn't cause corruption because the politicians themselves wouldn't be involved in the super PACs—but what about Menendez and Melgen, so close that the latter selected hotel suites for the former?

“It’s possible that [Melgen] did that without anyone talking to the Menendez world,” Potter said, an eyebrow raised skeptically.

Funny how the author mentioned how politicians in New Jersey are also criminals. Look at Governor Chris Christie and the BridgeGate debacle. 

The New York Times went on details of how this corruption came about. You can read the article here. 

This is the big deal because it is contrary to what Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said about the Citizen United decision, that independent expenditures “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Even though this is the rarest moment that many had warn to the Supreme Court, why it is so overlooked and why the evidence never matters to them?

“The court’s position is pretty simple, and it is not that independent expenditures can never create gratitude in an officeholder,” said Bradley A. Smith, a professor of law at Capital University Law School. “Rather it is that as a constitutional matter, they do not pose a threat of corruption sufficient to justify the invasions of First Amendment rights that the ‘reformers’ crave.”

Even worse, they would probably overlooked at it more. By the time I am writing this blog, Menendez pleads not guilty to bribery accusation (well, according to the headline).

I'm gonna leave you some links to more articles on this case. 

The Robert Menendez Corruption Charges Undermine the Supreme Court

Menendez indictment marks first big corruption case involving a super PAC

And please, if you want to fix the system and get corruption out of politics, then join us at Wolf-PAC.
Sign the petition and join as the member.
http://www.wolf-pac.com/sign_petition?recruiter_id=63374