Merged Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

[Checkmite]

I don't follow Fox News at all, but now I'm curious: Why wouldn't George Soros contribute financially to the OWS movement? If he happened to agree with their cause, and they needed help, is there any reason he wouldn't want to break off a million here or there, to supply blankets or drinking water or portajon cleanout services or whatever else the movement needs?

I mean, isn't that what people with resources do, when a cause they believe in needs resources?

Wouldn't accepting such assistance require them to concede that not all multimillionaires are exploitative and manipulative repressors of the masses?

 

[Bri]

There's no one to beholden to with a low contribution limit either, and it requires no complex and arbitrary rules.

Maybe. I really haven't thought about either idea that much to be honest -- it was off the top of my head. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to convince me that your idea is better.

As I already explained, you've just doubled the opportunities of established parties to lock out 3rd parties and independents.

Not at all. The federal laws would be written specifically to prevent that at the federal level. The state laws would remain the same, just as they would with your idea. Unless you have a way to prevent the states from establishing their own criteria for putting candidates on the ballot that you haven't mentioned.

The differing standards means that it's likely that you will have candidates on the ballot who don;t qualify for funding, and even candidates who don't get on the ballot but do receive funding. It's absurd.

It's the case now that there are candidates who qualify in some states and not others. I don't see this as being any more difficult other than adding an additional set of criteria to qualify for federal funding.

What current bureaucracy? The FEC? They certainly couldn't handle that without greatly expanding.

That depends on the guidelines.

I'm just not seeing the point, on a cost/benefit analysis. Lowering contribution limits for both candidates and parties satisfies your concerns without the expense and headaches.

Maybe. See below:

Not under my rules. If 1,000 people wish to band together and form a group to donate to a candidate the group collectively can donate the same as a single individual can. If the limit is $100 then each individual donating can donate 10 cents, write out the beach towel-sized Big Check for $100 and present it to the candidate. And that ten cents counts against any donation they wish to make to the candidate individually.

What's to stop the 1,000 people from UNOFFICIALLY banding together and each paying $100 (or whatever the limit is)? Would you prohibit organizations from trying to convince others to donate money to a particular candidate's campaign? How would you enforce this? Wouldn't enforcement require extra resources?

-Bri

 

[Nova Land]

For those Fox News fans who like to say that George Soros is sponsoring Occupy Wall Street - you are misinformed...

Gateway Pundit seems to be one of the right-wing sources promulgating this story. And, reading the Gateway Pundit piece, it appears you are correct: this is misinformation.

Gateway Pundit headlines the entry "Reuters: Soros Money Is Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests", in what looks like an attempt to give the appearance that this is something a reputable source uncovered rather than something he's inventing. But that headline is a distortion of what the Reuters piece actually says.

What Reuters says is that, while many right-wing opinionators have speculated Soros is behind Occupy Wall Street, they were unable to find evidence of any direct connection. All they were able to find was a very indirect connection:

(a) Soros has given money in the past to Adbusters;
(b) Adbusters, earlier this year, suggested the idea of protesters staging Arab Spring-type protests against Wall Street;
(c) Various activists who read Adbusters thought this sounded like an interesting idea and ran with it.​

If that's sufficient to prove someone is behind something, there are some fairly astounding revelations which can be made about the Tea Party movement, the Republican Party, and numerous other groups and movements, both left and right.

edited to add: Here's a link to the Reuters' piece.

 

[WildCat]

Not at all. The federal laws would be written specifically to prevent that at the federal level. The state laws would remain the same, just as they would with your idea. Unless you have a way to prevent the states from establishing their own criteria for putting candidates on the ballot that you haven't mentioned.

By Congress??????

What's to stop the 1,000 people from UNOFFICIALLY banding together and each paying $100 (or whatever the limit is)?

So long as none of them give more than $100 per election cycle it's all good.

Would you prohibit organizations from trying to convince others to donate money to a particular candidate's campaign?

No, why would I? Freedom of speech and all.

How would you enforce this? Wouldn't enforcement require extra resources?

Any group (whether it's a corporation, union, PAC, etc) making a donation has to list the donors. But with a low limit and especially a low limit on party donations there's little reason for them to get so involved.

And it's basically already done by the FEC: http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

Just as a side note, we have an alderman here in Chicago who has a $6 million+ campaign war chest. For an alderman! It's insane.

 

[Bri]

By Congress??????

I would assume that any campaign finance reform laws would be written by Congress, yes. You said in your previous post "Not under my rules." Who do you think would write those rules???

So long as none of them give more than $100 per election cycle it's all good.

...

No, why would I? Freedom of speech and all.

So if a group endorses a particular candidate with the suggestion that all its thousands of members personally donate $100 to that candidate, wouldn't that make the politician beholden to the group?

Any group (whether it's a corporation, union, PAC, etc) making a donation has to list the donors. But with a low limit and especially a low limit on party donations there's little reason for them to get so involved.

Except that they can spend as much as they want advertising for any candidate they want or pushing for their members to donate, meaning that the candidate now owes them.

Just as a side note, we have an alderman here in Chicago who has a $6 million+ campaign war chest. For an alderman! It's insane.

I agree.

-Bri

 

[eeyore1954]

This is about more than just Wall Street, folks...

Occupy Wall Street isn’t about Wall Street

Quote:
... This broader worry over economic inequality is a response to real developments. As we've reported, since 1979 most groups have seen their incomes barely budge, while income for the top 1 percent of earners has nearly quadrupled. ...

I see this a lot and I certainly believe the top 1% income has gone up dramatically (net worth also. A look at the Forbes 400 from 20 years ago compared to today will show that) but I find it hard to understand how for most people earnings have barely budged. People today have so many more things than in 1979. Possibly there are more two wage earner families to afford it. Homes are larger, a myriad of electronics , no more rabbit ears on the TV to get 10 channels, etc , etc.

 

[dc1971]

Is this the official OWS strawman threadf?

If you're allowing yourself, once again, to use the word 'strawman' out of context then yes it is!

 

[WildCat]

If you're allowing yourself, once again, to use the word 'strawman' out of context then yes it is!

So who in this forum was the OP addressed to? Certainly, it's someone who claime OWS was organized by Soros since this is no way no how a strawman?

 

[Travis]

Wouldn't accepting such assistance require them to concede that not all multimillionaires are exploitative and manipulative repressors of the masses?

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that all millionaires aren't some homogenous unified consciousness. And if we accept that then we might have to concede that sometimes we need to let pissed off working class people vent too.

 

[ZouPrime]

Wouldn't accepting such assistance require them to concede that not all multimillionaires are exploitative and manipulative repressors of the masses?

Who are "them"? OWS participants? Plenty of OWS participants don't have extremist views. It's not because the crazies are the ones who scream the most that they are actually relevant, or "represent" a movement that is kind of anti-representation to begin with.

Don't let the crazies drown you. Go to your local OWS event, and make your voice heard. It is possible to be sane AND concerned about our economic inequality issues. In fact, a crapload of people are exactly like that! If these peoples would go in the streets instead of staying home, cynically laughing about the crazies and their crazy ideas, maybe we could have some real change for once.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So who in this forum was the OP addressed to? Certainly, it's someone who claime OWS was organized by Soros since this is no way no how a strawman?

I think it's a response to (or rather debunking of) a story that is circulating in the culture--such as the example Nova Land provided in post number 8.

Thus, not a strawman.

 

[Checkmite]

Who are "them"? OWS participants? Plenty of OWS participants don't have extremist views. It's not because the crazies are the ones who scream the most that they are actually relevant, or "represent" a movement that is kind of anti-representation to begin with.

Don't let the crazies drown you. Go to your local OWS event, and make your voice heard. It is possible to be sane AND concerned about our economic inequality issues. In fact, a crapload of people are exactly like that! If these peoples would go in the streets instead of staying home, cynically laughing about the crazies and their crazy ideas, maybe we could have some real change for once.

Sounds like an attempt at a preemptive excuse for failure. "It didn't work because of everyone else except us."

 

[Childlike Empress]

I just heard an interview with writer Jeff Sharlet (starting 15 min in, strong language across the rest of the audio) who is putting together a list of creative writers who support the Occupy movement. He started just a good week ago and is at about a thousand writers now. Among them names like Salman Rushdie, William Gibson or Neil Gaiman. He talks about the Occupy Library they have down there in New York, and he talks about his motivation to put together such a list. It's aimed at smart asses who look down on those events with snark and bitter irony, convincing themselves that it won't lead anywhere anyhow. He wants them to ask themselves if they are really smarter than their favorite author.

So I thought i'll relay this to you.

www.occupywriters.com

 

[Checkmite]

I just heard an interview with writer Jeff Sharlet (starting 15 min in, strong language across the rest of the audio) who is putting together a list of creative writers who support the Occupy movement. He started just a good week ago and is at about a thousand writers now. Among them names like Salman Rushdie, William Gibson or Neil Gaiman. He talks about the Occupy Library they have down there in New York, and he talks about his motivation to put together such a list. It's aimed at smart asses who look down on those events with snark and bitter irony, convincing themselves that it won't lead anywhere anyhow. He wants them to ask themselves if they are really smarter than their favorite author.

So essentially, one big appeal to authority. They may as well have done it with actors rather than writers. When does it become "silly" to think I know more about socio-economics than William Gibson or Neil Gaiman? They write novels and comics. This makes them more likely to know what they're talking about or something?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I knew that this was coming.