Congrats, Occupiers -- You ARE the 1%!

[Piggy]

Btw, in case anybody thinks it's just my opinion that the OWSers are shooting themselves in the foot and don't know what they're doing, note that their public support has declined and they're now less popular than the Tea Party.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is not wearing well with voters across the country. Only 33% now say that they are supportive of its goals, compared to 45% who say they oppose them. That represents an 11 point shift in the wrong direction for the movement's support compared to a month ago when 35% of voters said they supported it and 36% were opposed. Most notably independents have gone from supporting Occupy Wall Street's goals 39/34, to opposing them 34/42.

Voters don't care for the Tea Party either, with 42% saying they support its goals to 45% opposed. But asked whether they have a higher opinion of the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street movement the Tea Party wins out 43-37, representing a flip from last month when Occupy Wall Street won out 40-37 on that question. Again the movement with independents is notable- from preferring Occupy Wall Street 43-34, to siding with the Tea Party 44-40.

I don't think the bad poll numbers for Occupy Wall Street reflect Americans being unconcerned with wealth inequality. Polling we did in some key swing states earlier this year found overwhelming support for raising taxes on people who make over $150,000 a year. In late September we found that 73% of voters supported the 'Buffett rule' with only 16% opposed. And in October we found that Senators resistant to raising taxes on those who make more than a million dollars a year could pay a price at the polls. I don't think any of that has changed- what the downturn in Occupy Wall Street's image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the 'Occupy' than the 'Wall Street.' The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message.

 

[000063]

what the downturn in Occupy Wall Street's image suggests is that voters are seeing the movement as more about the 'Occupy' than the 'Wall Street.'

I can't imagine why! You'd think that OWS had made more hay about their presence and "getting the word out" then figuring out what that word is.

 

[Vorticity]

It all seems to be line-item modifications to something called the "Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971", which we don't have the text of here to refer to.

Let's see if I can find it...

OK, right, so let's look at just one particular clause of the DISCLOSE act:

(A) IN GENERAL- Section 317(a)(1) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441c(a)(1)) is amended by striking ‘purpose or use; or’ and inserting the following: ‘purpose or use, to make any independent expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering communication; or’.

The relevant portion of the existing law from 1971 to be amended (2 U.S.C. 441c(a)(1)) can be found here:

§ 441c. Contributions by government contractors

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) who enters into any contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof either for the rendition of personal services or furnishing any material, supplies, or equipment to the United States or any department or agency thereof or for selling any land or building to the United States or any department or agency thereof, if payment for the performance of such contract or payment for such material, supplies, equipment, land, or building is to be made in whole or in part from funds appropriated by the Congress, at any time between the commencement of negotiations for and the later of

(A) the completion of performance under; or

(B) the termination of negotiations for, such contract or furnishing of material, supplies, equipment, land, or buildings, directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use; or

(2) knowingly to solicit any such contribution from any such person for any such purpose during any such period.

Here I've bolded the bit that is amended by this part of the DISCLOSE Act.

I don't know about any of you, but I have a hard time parsing the above. A plain reading of the 1971 act seems to be saying that anyone engaging in any sort of business with the US government is forbidden from making any political contributions of any kind. But that can't be right, since people and companies do that all the time.

So somebody help me out here...

Is the 1971 Act just a rather baroque way of forbidding political bribery to attain a government contract, or what?

ETA:

WildCat:

I'm going to assume that you weren't basing your opinion of the DISCLOSE Act on the section heading ("PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS"), and can instead parse the relevant legalese for us to explain how you came to your conclusion Re 1st Amendment violations?

 

[WildCat]

The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message

Whatever that is.

 

[BenBurch]

This is correct, Vorticity. They found a way to shelter bribery. This closes the door.

My IANAL opinion; It is not a prohibition of rights in the slightest. It is a choice you make when you decide to be a contractor to the federal government. You are not compelled to contract with the government. (But if you were, this would abridge your Rights.)

 

[Vorticity]

This is correct, Vorticity. They found a way to shelter bribery. This closes the door.

My IANAL opinion; It is not a prohibition of rights in the slightest. It is a choice you make when you decide to be a contractor to the federal government. You are not compelled to contract with the government. (But if you were, this would abridge your Rights.)

I've read the text of both laws over and over, and I still don't understand them.

I work for Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). All 12,000 or so employees of LANL are - for reasons that don't matter here - technically classified as US government contractors. So does the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 really mean that all 12,000 of us can't make any kind of political contributions? I can't believe that's true.

What I could believe is that the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 prohibits political contributions for the explicit or implicit purpose of obtaining a government contract. That would be roundabout bribery. But I have a hard time extracting this more circumscribed meaning from the text of the law.

If it is the latter case that is true, then I fail to see how the DISCLOSE Act's modifications in any way constitute a 1st Amendment violation.

 

[WildCat]

WildCat:

I'm going to assume that you weren't basing your opinion of the DISCLOSE Act on the section heading ("PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES AND ELECTIONEERING COMMUNICATIONS BY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS"), and can instead parse the relevant legalese for us to explain how you came to your conclusion Re 1st Amendment violations?

"to make any independent expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering communication"

That's the problem. You don't lose your 1st Amendment rights just because you get a government contract. The language about campaign donations and donations to other government entities is fine, Congress certainly has the power to regulate those things. But they have no right to ban independent expenditures to non-government entities.

 

[Vorticity]

"to make any independent expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering communication"

That's the problem.

Yeah, I saw that part, but I'm still trying to understand what it means. Sometimes words and phrases mean something different in a legal context than they do in ordinary speech. Could that be true for "independent expenditure"?

Here's the 1971 law, with the proposed modifications (bolded) that would have resulted from the DISCLOSE Act:

§ 441c. Contributions by government contractors

(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person—

(1) who enters into any contract with the United States or any department or agency thereof either for the rendition of personal services or furnishing any material, supplies, or equipment to the United States or any department or agency thereof or for selling any land or building to the United States or any department or agency thereof, if payment for the performance of such contract or payment for such material, supplies, equipment, land, or building is to be made in whole or in part from funds appropriated by the Congress, at any time between the commencement of negotiations for and the later of

(A) the completion of performance under; or

(B) the termination of negotiations for, such contract or furnishing of material, supplies, equipment, land, or buildings, directly or indirectly to make any contribution of money or other things of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party, committee, or candidate for public office or to any person for any political purpose or use, to make any independent expenditure, or to disburse any funds for an electioneering communication; or

(2) knowingly to solicit any such contribution from any such person for any such purpose during any such period.

The "independent expenditure" clause, whatever it means, seems to only apply during contract negotiations.

So does the original 1971 Act (without modification) prohibit me, as a US government contractor, from making political contributions, or not?

 

[Vorticity]

Yeah, I saw that part, but I'm still trying to understand what it means. Sometimes words and phrases mean something different in a legal context than they do in ordinary speech. Could that be true for "independent expenditure"?

Ah, here we go:

In elections in the United States, an independent expenditure is a political campaign communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate’s authorized committee or a political party.

Pamphleteering, not money.

So, this means they're simply amending the 1971 Act to include pamphleteering and stumping in favor of a candidate, in addition to simpl cash donations to a candidate. Whether or not this aspect of the DISCLOSE Act is a 1st Amendment violation therefore hinges on what the original 1971 Act means.

By the most charitable reading, it simply forbids campaigning for a candidate in exchange for a contract, an indirect form of bribery that I think should rightly be banned.

It all stems from what the 1971 Act says. The DISCLOSE Act doesn't change things either way.

 

[WildCat]

So, this means they're simply amending the 1971 Act to include pamphleteering and stumping in favor of a candidate, in addition to simpl cash donations to a candidate. Whether or not this aspect of the DISCLOSE Act is a 1st Amendment violation therefore hinges on what the original 1971 Act means.

By the most charitable reading, it simply forbids campaigning for a candidate in exchange for a contract, an indirect form of bribery that I think should rightly be banned.

Uh, no. It bans any independent expenditures at all, not just those made under a promise to get a contract (which is illegal anyway). Notice the word is "or", not "and".

"or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party"

You can't make independent expenditures, nor can you promise to make same at a later date.

 

[Vorticity]

Uh, no. It bans any independent expenditures at all, not just those made under a promise to get a contract (which is illegal anyway). Notice the word is "or", not "and".

"or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution to any political party"

You can't make independent expenditures, nor can you promise to make same at a later date.

OK, so as I point out above, "independent expenditures" here apparently has the legal definition in this context of "a political campaign communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate’s authorized committee or a political party." I interpret this to mean things like financing or initiating an independent ad campaign in favor of a given candidate. The DISCLOSE Act would have added this to the already-existing 1971 list of things that government contractors cannot do, including making monetary contributions. It seems therefore that the fundamental problem, if it exists, lies with the 1971 Act, the spirit of which is unchanged by DISCLOSE.

I've been a government contractor for years, and I've made campaign contributions. No one told me I'm a felon!

Actually, "government contractors" covers a vast swath of people, and I've never heard that these people are forbidden by a 1971 law to make political contributions. I'm not sure I believe it, and I still think we must be missing some legal nicety.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/30/us/california-occupy-los-angeles/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

We need an official Occutard theme song. Choose from:

1) Turn Out The Lights, The Party's Over

2) Another One Bites The Dust

 

[Piggy]

"Gee, we sat there and we sat there, and we played our drums, and no one did anything! Nobody solved our problems! Didn't they see us camping out? Didn't they understand that this is supposed to make them take action on our behalf? What's wrong with everybody?!"

This morning, I was thinking about a recent example of successful sit-ins... the anti "Don't Ask" protests at recruiting stations.

Young gay and lesbian citizens went to recruiting offices, said they wanted to enlist, and said they were homosexual. When denied, they repeated that they were there to enlist, and they stayed, peacefully and respectfully.

At the end of the day, after receiving news coverage, they went home.

Those images were effective -- not to hardcore anti-gays, of course, but to the people they were targeted at. That's because these folks didn't have pink hair, weren't dressed in outrageous getups, didn't pull any stunts like taping their mouths shut, and didn't camp out for weeks on end.

It made you think, "Here are young Americans who want to serve, while we're involved in 2 wars, and they can't, just because they're honest; but if they lied, they'd be accepted", and you see what's wrong with that.

That's an effective and targeted protest.

OWS is just a mess.

 

[trustbutverify]

Sweet Potato was probably just some random street crazy that the corporate media selected to further their clown show coverage. Does ABC, NBC or Fox Boobs have any interest in destroying the political power of the corporations? Or is it in their financial best interest to preserve that power?

I spent the day at the protests last month. The high truther ratio was depressing.

 

[BenBurch]

I spent the day at the protests last month. The high truther ratio was depressing.

I could very much do without the Anarchists too. I feel like showing them some Anarchy. With a bat.

 

[Piggy]

Well, now they've gotten a kick in the pants.

We'll see where they go from here.

I actually think they might get their act together. This might blow off the chaff and we'll see what's left.

I've heard some OWS folks talking about organizing and elections.

Then again, I also heard some random guy say they shouldn't involve themselves with candidates because politics is dirty, but you know, he's like the Tea Party guy with the monkey doll... you can't keep him out, but he's not at any of the meetings.

So we'll see if they manage to get organized.

And if they do, will they try to capture the mainstream, or park out somewhere left of MoveOn.org?

 

[Mr.D]

Well, now they've gotten a kick in the pants.

We'll see where they go from here.

I actually think they might get their act together. This might blow off the chaff and we'll see what's left.

Being kicked out of Zuccotti park may end up being the best thing that's happened to the NYC OWCers.

CNN had a short segment the other day showing how many Occupiers had moved into actual offices building space with desks, computers and restrooms; They were shown having meetings in an open (indoor) business lobby area. The reporter even commented things were even looking a little like a "traditional campaign office."

With a little luck maybe they'll actually start to come up with things like legislation, ballot initiatives and political candidates.


ETA:

So we'll see if they manage to get organized.

Funny thing is that a "spokesperson" (for lack of a better word) speaking to the above mentioned reported said they didn't have any leaders, only "layers upon layers upon layers upon layers of organization, the difference being that we came up with them ourselves." Left unmentioned was what it was they were organizing towards or for.

 

[000063]

I spent the day at the protests last month. The high truther ratio was depressing.

I could very much do without the Anarchists too. I feel like showing them some Anarchy. With a bat.

So they're not True Occupiers?

 

[WildCat]

With a little luck maybe they'll actually start to come up with things like legislation, ballot initiatives and political candidates.

I hope they abandon their current course, which is gutting the 1st Amendment.

They're literally using the 1st Amendment to demand dismantling the 1st Amendment... if they actually create an official OWS advocacy group their right to free speech would be taken away by the very Constitutional amendment they demand.

 

[BenBurch]

So they're not True Occupiers?

They are wastes of human DNA. In fact, killing an Anarchist isn't even murder because subhumans don't count.