It was a morning in Seoul, South Korea. I looked at my iPhone and the notification says that the hashtag '#EndCorruption' is trending on Twitter. It led me a series of tweets which links to the Indiegogo campaign page for fundraising the documentary Under The Influence.
The conception of documentary begins with a filmmaker named Terry Bennett and his son, Sy, who had a cancer and 9 months to live, following Doris “Granny D” Haddock, an old woman who protested against corporate money in politics by walking from California to Washington D.C.. Granny D made herself a big news by walking 10 miles a day for 14 months back in 1999, during the time John McCain and then-Senator Russ Feingold was planning to propose a campaign finance regulation. She became interested in campaign finance reform and raised an awareness by becoming a real-life Forrest Gump. She have had enough with corporate influence in political process so much. and said "We’re losing our democracy, and nothing’s being done about it.”
Granny D even ran for a Senate seat in 2004, at the age of 94. She lost but still remain active in politics until her death in 2010, and pass the torch to all of us.
After his son's death, Terry Bennett met Sam Oliver and the two realized they had a mutual passion for the subject and took to the road, following the same footsteps Granny D took. They interviewed many people and activists, including Cenk Uygur of Wolf-PAC and Ben Cohen of Stamp Stampede. They finished with interviews, but they had little money to edit footage together. The filmmakers asked the people of Indiegogo page to fund-raise a money for the editing in order to complete it.
There has been many documentaries recently about corporate influence in politics like Citizen Koch and Pay 2 Play. These movies might prove that 2010s will be the decade when the people fight back at the rigorous establishment formed by corny capitalism. Starting at the wealthiest country in world, the United States of America.
You know things are not right when a former majority leader and Republican Senator from Kansas thinks we should stop this money in politics. He said he is troubled by the amount of money that is being spent on political campaign. Dole, the GOP's presidential nominee in 1996, said in a recent interview for AARP Bulletin that campaign spending gone out of hand.
What has been the biggest change in presidential politics since you were the Republican nominee in 1996?
Money. Now they talk about raising $1 billion to run for president. It's unreal. We need to do something to stop all this money inpolitics. I've always believed when people give big money, they — maybe silently — expect something in return.
Do you think you could have been the nominee if money had played such an important role back then?
I don't think so. And I might not be conservative enough to be the nominee today.
Whether you agree with his politics or not, he is right about the current state of the presidential campaign. Not only that, he also concerns about the recent polarization within the congress and how his Republican Party is no longer the party that he used to know as we can see this editorial written by The New York Times staffs:
“It seems to be almost unreal that we can’t get together on a budget or legislation,” said Mr. Dole, the former Senate majority leader and presidential candidate. “I mean, we weren’t perfect by a long shot, but at least we got our work done.”
The current Congress can’t even do that, thanks to a furiously oppositional Republican Party, and that’s what has left mainstream conservatives like Mr. Dole and Senator John McCain shaking their heads in disgust.
Senators Marco Rubio and John McCain last month, two Republicans at odds over how to deal with the federal debt.Approach to Debt Widens Rift Among G.O.P. SenatorsMAY 24, 2013
The difference between the current crop of Tea Party lawmakers and Mr. Dole’s generation is not simply one of ideology. While the Tea Partiers are undoubtedly more extreme, Mr. Dole spent years pushing big tax cuts, railing at regulations and blocking international treaties. His party actively courted the religious right in the 1980s and relied on racial innuendo to win elections. But when the time came to actually govern, Republicans used to set aside their grandstanding, recognize that a two-party system requires compromise and make deals to keep the government working on the people’s behalf.
The current generation refuses to do that. Its members want to dismantle government, using whatever crowbar happens to be handy, and they don’t particularly care what traditions of mutual respect get smashed at the same time. “I’m not all that interested in the way things have always been done around here,” Senator Marco Rubio of Florida told The Times last week.
Tom Mann of the Brooking Institute and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute released a book in the spring of 2012 called: "“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism". In an essay taken from the book, the duo wrote:
We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.
The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise;unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.
When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal
(You could read more further on how polarization got so heavy in Washington in this article here)
All of them have this connections between big donors' demands in Washington and their endorsed candidates from both parties. Republican Presidential candidate Lindsay Graham sponsored a bill that will ban internet gambling in the Senate when his big supporter and donor, Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner, asked him to do so in order to get rid of competitors. Big donors like Alice Walton of Walmart and big Israel supporter Haim Saban from Democratic side, in other hand, already got Hillary Clinton in their pocket and push her to have policies that could benefit them not only financially, but also their personal interest like agreeing with her political opponents' Israeli policies.
This is one big disconnect between their voters and candidates. They spent most of the time through raising campaign money form their big donors and only meet their voters through the candidate's donor-sponsored small speeches, rather than talk with them face to face. That's what Bernie Sanders did with his supporters: gathering up ten thousand people in Madison, Wisconsin last week - maybe the biggest in 2016 election.
Big money in politics is one of biggest issues we must talk about during 2016 elections. Candidates from both parties have discussed about reforming the government and some of them, including Republicans, willingly support campaign finance reform.
This is not a partisan issue - but BIPARTISAN issue. We must act now. We must return to the time Bob Dole used to familiar with.
In this article that's surfacing around the net about the recent polls among voters show that there are too much influence from wealthy individuals within the elections and, of course, money in politics.
American voters say their top concerns about the upcoming presidential election are wealthy individuals and corporations who might have too much influence who over wins, as well as campaigns that spend more time on negative attacks than proposing solutions, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Also, most of these issues the voters concern about were election issues. Most people concerns about what's behind the curtain rather than the candidates.
Thirty-three percent of voters say the influence of wealthy individuals and corporations is their top concern, while 25 percent say they're more worried about negative attacks.
Another 16 percent are more concerned that nothing will change no matter who wins, and 12 percent believe that too many wealthy candidates don't understand the economic problems of average Americans.
But only 4 percent of voters say their top concern are dynastic candidates — like Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul — who are from families who have run for the presidency before.
I have seen more people grew interests in joining the campaign finance reform and its causes. Whether its Wolf-PAC or Ben Cohen's Stamp Stampede movement, people demands more voices in the government rather than the megaphone-level of voices from corporations.
Yesterday, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, kicked off his Presidential campaign against former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who announced her candidacy since April 12th.
Speaking from Burlington, Vermont, where Sanders served as mayor from 1981 to 1989, he declared a revolution for the middle class family and laid out his progressive agenda. "Today we stand here and say loudly and clearly: Enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people and not to a handful of billionaires."
You could go to his campaign website right now and see what happened in Burlington.
Actually before photos and videos from his campaign launch released in online, the website gotten 404 error and Sanders posted up this video of himself explaining the error message.
It is interesting to see more people begin to prefer Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton, who is too conservative for mainstream liberals and progressives' taste and tries way too hard to pander left-wing bases.
In fact, she has a lot of campaign money from big businesses and corporate banks like Goldman Sachs. Believe it or not, her family's charitable Clinton foundation faces so much scrutiny for accepting donation from foreign countries and oil companies.
Bernie Sanders made his public image as some sort of an antithesis of President Barrack Obama's 2012 Republican opponent Mitt Romney. Or just an opposite of President Obama himself. People, especially liberals and supporters of Occupy Wall Street movement, wanted Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to ran for the President of the United States. However she declined the challenge, so her supporters decided to endorse Sanders as an alternative to Warren.
The problem is: can Sanders make it?
First, I like his campaign model. He accepts public donation rather than Super PAC money as many candidates usually accepts. His Presidential goal is to overturn Citizens United and restore democracy back to the people. Second, throughout his political career, he is honest. Even one of conservative politicians in Washington will admits that Sanders is one of the most honest politicians in the house. And finally, he openly declared war on billionaires and oligarchs and constantly spread his populist message. He will expand medicare and improve healthcare system, give larger tax to the rich, and make college tuition free.
However, here are possible problems along the way as a long shot candidate.
Billionaire donors like the Koch brothers would public smear him through negative ads produced by their own Super PACs and bring down his campaign. Good thing is, this won't deters Sanders, and he said he will not do attack ads and decided to play fair. Also, he is open about his socialist view and considering how United States of America had a negative attitude toward Marxian idealism and left-wing views in the past (look up McCarthyism), people won't easily accept his message. But that doesn't worries Sanders. He even replied to George Stephanopoulos's concerns about upcoming Republican attack ads that Sanders will turn America to Scandinavia, by saying, "What is wrong with Scandinavian countries?" (By the way, socialism is now popular among millennials.)
Most importantly: the cost. Any candidates with public-financed campaign and supported by the Occupy Wall Street movement will never make it due to the cost of being in televised debate. According to former Governor of Louisiana Buddy Roemer, who tried to ran as Republican in the last Presidential election, the broadcasting network won't invite him to the televised debates between other Republican candidates because he didn't have enough money. When Roemer ran for Louisiana governor, he had seven televised debates. He liked being in debate because he liked the "fire and the passion." That was when he had a million and half dollars and won the election while others have more money than him. The problem for him now, if he wants himself to be in people's living room television, he have to raise more money and be on the debate. He had both Washington and state political experience, but he never invited to national debate.
If Bernie Sanders could make himself to the televised debate, then he better pile up all money he could. Fortunately his campaign able to raise more than 1.5 million dollar in less than 24 hours, more than any other current Republican candidates in the first 24 hours after their announcement. 4 days later, his campaign raised 3 million - a building anticipation.
Ben & Jerry Ice Cream founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield jumped into his support as well along with actors Mark Ruffalo from The Avengers and Patton Oswalt. While other people in Washington and in Hollywood publicly endorse Hillary Clinton, Sanders managed to bring ragtag group of idealists on his side.
For me, I would personally endorse him. In fact, he is one of my favorite politicians in Washington. If I live in the most chaotic moment in the history of mankind and lists out three people I could forever trust with, one of them would be Bernie Sanders (the others are Paul Krugman and Glenn Greenwald).
Even before his campaign launch, I flirted with democratic socialism and admired Nordic model of democracy. Scandinavian countries like Norway or Sweden tends to have less political corruption and all political campaigns are public financed. Also, they don't have income inequality and anyone can live like their ideal capitalist while the state provide appropriate amount of welfare at the same time. If their way democracy proven to be efficient, why can't United States of America learned anything from them?
How many times do we have to listen political ads from candidates how pro-family they are or how much moral they have. I am tired of this "one guy with big megaphone on a soap box" way of election. It is time for people to get up and vote for candidate who can represent their voters, not billionaire donors.
If you are a loyal reader of my blog, you've been wondering why I haven't updated blog for a long time.
I got busy with final exams for couple of weeks, and I got no times to make any blog post on recent money in politics news.
If you are following me on twitter, you see I tends to post up The Young Turks videos of money in politics news (and other random stuffs).
Recently I am part of this Stamp Stampede Millionaire Club and I am top of the chart right now (I was #1 for a while, now I am like #2 or so). I even made a music video of myself stamping every twenty dollar from my bank account and they just approved it and shared it to their website. If you Stamp Stampede stampers out there, if you want to beat me, then come join the fight.
At the same time, I was also named as Super Stamper of the Month, which is awesome. James Earle, the Outreach Coordinator, contacted me and we had a phone conversation about how I got introduced into campaign finance reform movement and how do I feel about winning Super Stamper of the Month. It's interesting how much I am close with the community.
Next month, my family and I are going to South Korea over the summer. I will still blogging there and report money in politic stories. Even better, I could update this blog more frequently than before, rather than bi-weekly as usual. So look forward to more stuffs later in the future.
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."
