Violence Against Women Act Focus of Heavy Lobbying
This article is re-posted from OpenSecrets.org.
This week the House is debating the reauthorization of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act, and there seems to be little danger of a relapse of the relative bipartisanship that occurred at the end of April, when the Senate approved its version of the bill.
By the time of that vote, 15 Republicans joined the entire Democratic caucus in passing the legislation, which is not to say that the two sides were singing in harmony from the start. And things are worse over on the other side of the Capitol.
Even before things got tense, 44 organizations were registered to lobby on the bill as of March 31 — including, somewhat unexpectedly, eight Native American tribes or groups working on their behalf and several immigration groups.
What the native Americans want, is to close what they call a jurisdictional gap that occurs when a non-Indian man assaults an Indian woman on reservation land. Tribal police have no authority in those circumstances under current law, and statistics show in a dramatic way that the feds rarely go forward with prosecutions. The Senate bill, as it was passed, would allow tribal authorities to intervene in such cases as long as they were misdemeanors, rather than felonies. But House language could leave tribal women worse off than they are under existing law, according to lobbyists for the tribes.
Most of the immigration groups supported Senate language that would preserve certain rights of undocumented women to call police, without fear of deportation, if they are being abused.
The House bill, under a package of amendments that its sponsor was expected to introduce tonight, would make it harder for women to secure “U” visas, which were designed to encourage victims of serious crimes to come forward despite being undocumented.
“The House bill rolls back existing protections,” said Greg Chen, top lobbyist for the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Lobbyists on the other side maintain that the current system lends itself to fraud, although there’s little statistical evidence to support that.
A vote in the House is expected on today.
On May 16, 1998 people all across the globe took to the streets, not just to protest, but to reclaim the streets.
The Reclaim the Streets (RTS) movement has been around since at least 1991, but by 1998 it had become a global forum of direct action.
The original Reclaim the Streets action was a way for people to reclaim streets from cars and other fossil fuel-based vehicles. People were becoming more aware of how deadly car culture had become and they wanted to resist the power that cars have in our communities by taking over busy roads and intersections to say, “the streets belong to people, not cars.”
By 1998, the Reclaim the Streets actions had evolved to include more than just resistance to cars, but as a way of protesting corporate globalization and capitalism. The hyper-commercialism of public space and the privatization of public space was alienating to a growing number of people, so the reclaiming of public space, like streets, was one way for people to say that “global capital does not rule us!”
Since 1998, people have used a reclaim the streets tactic as a way to draw attention to other forms of ecological destruction, to protest war, racism, police brutality, violence against women, hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ community and discrimination directed at immigrants.
In fact, people began to use road intersections to talk about and creatively dramatize the intersectional nature of justice issues. People began to do street theater to draw attention to how ecological destruction disproportionately impacts women or to show how economic gentrification impacts communities of color and queer youth.
However, beyond using the streets as a forum to protest or dramatize an injustice, the Reclaim the Streets Movement has also been about the social and cultural importance of play and spontaneous celebration. For many people who have participated in a Reclaim the Streets action it has been exhilarating to just be able to be in the street without worrying about being hit by a car, to just dance, beat on a drum or embrace other humans who want to reclaim their humanity by reclaiming a road, a parking lot or street intersection.
How wonderful it is to see people talking in the streets, to see bicyclists, people on stilts, people in drag, people juggling, children using chalk to make images on the pavement, with music and dancing setting the tone for the action.
In 1998, over a million people took part in the Reclaim the Streets Global Day of Action. People took over streets in London, the Netherlands, Prague and Berkley, where 700 people reclaimed the streets.
On this day is resistance history, let us not only remember these kinds of actions……let’s continue to engage in them wherever we are!
The following video is from the 1998 Reclaim the Streets Action in London.
Several years ago I wrote a book about my experiences of doing solidarity work in Guatemala and Chiapas, Mexico. After I completed the book I also produced a documentary film that was first screening in Grand Rapids in 2006.
The book is now online here at GRIID for those who are curious about the 20 years of working with Guatemalans in Grand Rapids and numerous trips to Central America as a human rights worker.
The book is entitled Sembramos, Comemos, Sembramos: Learning Solidarity on Mayan Time. The main title doesn’t translate well, but basically means we plant in order to eat in order to plant.
I first encountered this phrase from a Mayan farmer one morning as we were walking to a village to interview people who were brutalized by the Guatemalan military. He told us that this phrase represented the simple, yet profound cycle of life for most Mayans who lived off the land.
I was inspired by such a simple truth and I recount those kinds of experiences in the book in three sections. The first section is entitled Q’anjobal Mayans Invade Amway Territory. I share thoughts on being bit by the Central America bug, part of the Sanctuary movement in the 80’s and how I negotiated cultural solidarity in an area permeated with Christian conservatism.
Part II is called Sembramos, Comemos, Sembramos – We Plant, in order to Eat, in order to Plant. This is a saying I learned from a Mayan farmer that reflects the simplicity and consistency in the lives of the Mayans I met in Guatemala and Chiapas. Here I gleaned sections from my journal entrees from various trips between 1988 – 2005, where I have had numerous opportunities to accompany and observe the relentless persistence of the Guatemalan popular movements and the participatory democracy of the Zapatista communities. 
Part III, The Way You Live, Determines How We Live, is a collection of articles that I have written over the years on various aspects of how US policy impacts Guatemala and Chiapas and what we might do to change those policies. As Noam Chomsky has always pointed out, the responsibility of the citizens of countries that dictate global policies are key in determining the outcome of many liberation struggles around the world.
The film takes on a slightly different title, with Reversing the Missionary Position: Learning Solidarity on Mayan Time. It is an hour-long film that primarily covers my experiences in Guatemala and Chiapas doing human rights work. You can watch the trailer here or contact me at jsmith@griid.org to get a copy of the film.
Millions in Michigan political ads unreported
This article is re-posted from the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.
A five-party, multi-million-dollar Michigan television ad campaign orchestrated by Mentzer Media Services illustrates the major role of nonprofit advocacy corporations in contemporary presidential politics.
Four nonprofits organized as 501(c)(4) corporations – Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, American Energy Alliance and the 60 Plus Association – have spent $3.4 million so far this year in a steady barrage of campaign-style ads criticizing the Obama administration for its energy and health care policies. Because of their timing, the ads do not have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the sponsoring nonprofit corporations are not required to disclose their donors.
The SuperPAC Restore Our Future, which Mitt Romney has referred to as, “my SuperPAC,” is spending an additional $589,000 on TV in Michigan this month, extolling Romney’s virtues as a caring corporate executive. As a SuperPAC, Restore Our Future will report its donors and its spending to the FEC.
The data on the advertising were compiled by the nonpartisan Michigan Campaign Finance Network from the public political files of Michigan broadcasters and cable systems. All figures are gross sales.
Americans for Prosperity began the Mentzer advertising campaign in January, spending $670,000 and stopping its ads just before the 30-day reporting window for the Michigan presidential primary began. Advertisements that feature the name or image of a candidate and run within 30 days prior to a primary election must be reported to the FEC as electioneering communications.
The day after the Michigan presidential primary, American Future Fund began a two-week $706,000 ad blitz. That was followed by two weeks of ads sponsored by 60 Plus Association for $802,000; then two weeks of ads sponsored by American Energy Alliance for $488,000. After a two-week hiatus in April, Americans for Prosperity began a new two-week flight of ads that was overlapped first by American Future Fund, then by Restore Our Future.
As data were being collected by MCFN on May 11th, American Future Fund and Americans for Prosperity were placing new ad buys. Spending for those ads is not included in this report.
All the fore-mentioned advertising was created by Mentzer Media Services. In addition, Mentzer was the agency for Restore Our Future’s $2.2 million Michigan TV ad blitz in the weeks immediately preceding the Michigan presidential primary.
“This Mentzer-orchestrated campaign is exploiting the inadequacy of federal campaign disclosure rules,” said Rich Robinson of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network. “We are in the midst of the endless presidential campaign, but these corporations’ spending doesn’t have to be reported because year-long campaigns were not contemplated when the rules for reporting electioneering communications were developed. “An additional benefit to the corporations is that they retain their 501(c)(4) tax status, and the right to provide anonymity to their donors, because their spring and summer advertising is not acknowledged to be electioneering,” Robinson said. “Since they are allowed to deny that their advertising is electioneering, they can say that their main purpose as organizations is not electioneering.”
Organizations whose main purpose is electioneering are classified as 527 committees. 527 committees must disclose their spending and their donors.
MCFN will report periodically throughout 2012 on campaign advertising that is not disclosed to the FEC.
C4G MIA in 6th CD; Chambers, Chemistry Council support Upton
Earlier this year the anti-tax Club for Growth announced that it would challenge incumbent U.S. Rep. Fred Upton in his campaign for reelection in Michigan’s redesigned 6th Congressional District. So far that challenge hasn’t amounted to much: A modest $6,000 cable TV ad buy.
The Club’s ads were answered initially by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The state and national Chambers spent $128,000 for television spots touting Upton’s service.
The U.S. Chamber and the American Chemistry Council are in the midst of a new three-week TV ad campaign praising Upton. The Chemistry Council is spending $240,000 and the U.S. Chamber is spending $118,000 in the Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo media market.
While Club for Growth has a demonstrated capacity to mobilize large sums of money in a hurry, the business establishment has signaled that it will not surrender the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to the radical fringe of the Republican Party for a low cost.
DIBC ad campaign totals $1.6 million in 2012
The Detroit International Bridge Company resumed its advertising against a new public-private bridge between Detroit and Windsor in March, after a pause that avoided the escalation in ad rates at the time of the February presidential primary.
From Christmas until early February, the DIBC spent $728,000 for its ads. From late March through May 7th, DIBC spent $877,000, bringing its 2012 total to $1.6 million.
DIBC spent more than $6 million for TV ads in 2011 and succeeded in killing the enabling legislation for a new bridge in the Senate Economic Development Committee.
Media Alert: Defend the First Amendment
In anticipation of police repression at the anti-NATO protests in Chicago starting this weekend, FreePress is asking people to sign on to this letter to send a message on the rights of free speech and freedom of the press.
Since September, police have arrested dozens of journalists and activists around the country for the “crime” of trying to document political protests in public spaces.
People with smartphones and cameras are changing the way we record and share breaking news. In return, police have targeted, harassed — and in many cases, arrested — those trying to bear witness.
Whether you’re a credentialed journalist, a protester or a bystander with a camera, you are guaranteed freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of access to information. In the digital age, these freedoms mean that we all have the right to record.
Free Press and a coalition of free speech and digital rights groups have sent a letter urging Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to defend this right.
This article by Dave Lindorff is re-posted from CounterPunch.
A new trove of heavily redacted documents provided by the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) on behalf of filmmaker Michael Moore and the National Lawyers Guild makes it increasingly evident that there was and is a nationally coordinated campaign to disrupt and crush the Occupy Movement.
The new documents, which PCJF National Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard insists “are likely only a subset of responsive materials,” in the possession of federal law enforcement agencies, only “scratch the surface of a mass intelligence network including Fusion Centers, saturated with ‘anti-terrorism’ funding, that mobilizes thousands of local and federal officers and agents to investigate and monitor the social justice movement.”
Nonetheless, blacked-out and limited though they are, she says they offer clues to the extent of the government’s concern about and focus on the wave of occupations that spread across the country beginning with last September’s Occupy Wall Street action in New York City.
The latest documents, reveal “intense involvement” by the DHS’s so-called National Operations Center (NOC). In its own literature, the DHS describes the NOC as “the primary national-level hub for domestic situational awareness, common operational picture, information fusion, information sharing, communications, and coordination pertaining to the prevention of terrorist attacks and domestic incident management.”
The DHS says that the NOC is “the primary conduit for the White House Situation Room” and that it also “facilitates information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental operation centers and the private sector.”
A better description for a fascist police state network could not be written.
Remember, this vast yet centralized operation — what Verheyden-Hilliard describes as “a vast, tentacled, national intelligence and domestic spying network that the U.S. government operates against its own people” — was in this case deployed not against some terrorist organization or even mob or drug cartel, but rather against a loose-knit band of protesters, all conscientiously and publicly committed to nonviolence, who were exercising their Constitutionally-protected right to gather in public places and to speak out against the crimes and abuses of the corporate elite and the politicians who are bought and paid by that elite.
Among the documents obtained by the PCJF in this second batch of responses to its FOIA filing is one from the NOC Fusion Center Desk dated Nov. 5, 2011, which collects at the federal level and then distributes the names and contact information of a group of Occupy protesters who were arrested during a demonstration in Dallas, TX against Bank of America, one of the nation’s biggest predatory lenders. Although none of the seven arrested were charged with any serious crime (six were charged with “using the sidewalk!”), their names and contact information were widely disseminated by the DHS.
Fusion Centers, a post-9-11 creation, are a federally-funded joint project of the DHS and the US Justice Department which are designed to share intelligence information among such federal agencies as the DHS, the FBI, the CIA and the US Military, as well as state and local police agencies. By their nature they are designed to circumvent legal constraints on various agencies, for example the ban on CIA domestic spying, or the Posse Comitatus Act, which bars active military activity within the borders of the US. There are currently 72 Fusion Centers around the US.
Another group of documents shows that on November 9, two days after a demonstration by 1000 Occupy activists in Chicago protesting social service cuts in that city, the NOC Fusion Desk relayed a request from Chicago Police asking other local police agencies what kind of tactics they were using against Occupy activists. They specifically requested that information be sought from police departments in New York, Oakland, Atlanta, Washington, D.C. Denver, Boston, Portland OR, and Seattle — all the scene of major Occupation actions and of violent police repression.
Realizing that it would look bad if it assisted in such coordination overtly, higher officials in the DHS ordered the recall of the request but then simply rerouted it through “law enforcement channels,” where presumably it would be harder for anyone to spot a federal role in the coordination of local police responses. In response to that order, the documents show that the duty director of the NOC wrote that he would “reach out” to “LEO LNOs (liaison officer) on the floor” to assist. Verheyden-Hilliard explains that LEO is FBI’s nationally integrated law enforcement, intelligence and military network.
On December 12, when Occupy planned anti-war protests at various US ports, Verheyden-Hilliard says the new documents show that the NOC “went into high gear” seeking information from local field offices of the Department of Homeland Security about what actions police in Houston, Portland, Oakland, Seattle, San Diego, and Los Angeles planned to deal with Occupy movement actions.
Another document shows that earlier, in advance of a planned Occupy action at the Oakland, CA port facility on Nov. 2, DHS “went so far as to keep the Pentagon’s Northcom (Northern Command) in the intelligence loop.”
Given the subterfuge revealed in these documents that went into trying to create the illusion that the DHS was and is not coordinating a national campaign of spying, disruption and repression against Occupy activists, it is almost comical to find documents that show the DHS was in “direct communication with the White House” to obtain advance approval of public statements by DHS officials denying any DHS involvement in anti-Occupy actions.
These documents show that both DHS and one of that department’s police arms, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) were in direct contact with Portland, Oregon’s police chief and mayor, discussing how to deal with protesters who were in part on federal property. The coordination between the feds and the local police and political authorities were intense. Yet the approved statement sent to DHS from the White House read:
Any decisions on how to handle specifics (sic) situations are dealt with by local authorities in that location. If a protest area is located on Federal property and has been deemed unsanitary or unsafe by the General Services Administration (GSA) or city officials, and they make a decision to evacuate participants — the Federal Protective Service (FPS) will work with those officials to develop a plan to ensure the security and safety of everyone involved.
There was, comically, also a White House-approved DHS “background” statement, too! (Typically background statements by federal officials are supposed to be used when they want to tell a journalist the true situation but don’t want to have that statement attributed to them or their department. Having it pre-approved by the White House defeats that purpose and is simply a manipulation of the media.)
The faux “background” information included the following–a flat-out lie:
DHS is not actively coordinating with local law enforcement agencies and/or city governments concerning the evictions of Occupy encampments writ large.
Tellingly, the documents also include a Dec. 5 copy of the “Weekly Informant, ” an intelligence report published by the DHS’s Office for State and Local Law Enforcement. The issue includes an update from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) concerning the activities of the Occupy Movement. PERF, Verheyden-Hilliard notes, is the group that the federal government claims organized a series of multi-city law enforcement calls to coordinate the police response to Occupy, which led immediately to the wave of violent crackdowns. It was at those meetings that police were advised among other things to act at night, to use aggressive tactics and weapons like tasers and pepper spray, and to take steps to remove journalists and cameras from the scene of crackdowns.
The overall sense from these latest documents is that Washington and the DHS, along with the FBI, was the nexus of the crackdown, orchestrating it, encouraging it, and attempting to cover its tracks.
The documents among other things expose the massive hypocrisy of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party, which this election year have tried to co-opt and claim as their own the anti-fat-cat theme of the “We are the 99%”-chanting Occupiers, while actually acting in the interest of Bank of America and its fellow financial sector mega-firms in trying to crush the movement itself.
To see all the new FOIA documents, go to the PJIF website.
Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow has surpassed the $10 million mark, according to data from the Center for Responsible Politics.
Comparatively, the other candidates (10 in all) who are challenging Stabenow have raised collectively less than $5 million, with former Congressman Pete Hoekstra the closest with $2,701,341.
Hoekstra and Clark Durant, the top challengers to Stabenow are receiving funds from companies that have clear agendas, such as Bank of America (has given $14,750 to Durant) and Amway, which has given Hoekstra $18,800 to date.
The insidious nature of companies like Amway and Bank of America make it easy for those stuck in a right/left dichotomy to say this is why people should re-elect Stabenow, since she is not as tied to corrupt, money grabbing corporations as her opponents are.
However, a closer look at Senator Stabenow’s contributors would make it clear to any free-thinking person that her allegiance is to the same capitalist class.
At the top of the list of entities donating to Stabenow’s re-election campaign is Emily’s List, a political action committee that gives money to Pro-Choice Democrats. The rest of the list is much less ideologically driven or one-issue driven and clearly represents corporate America.
These companies essentially represent who Senator Stabenow will be accountable to, since they are the ones providing the bulk of the funds necessary for her to get re-elected.
There are those entities from the financial sector, that not only engaged in fraudulent behavior that led to the 2008 financial crash, they are also entities that were bailed out by US taxpayers and continue to benefit from any real government regulation.
JP Morgan Chase is primarily backing incumbents this year, since it has been clear that the current members of both the House and the Senate support the current financial status quo. The same is the case for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanely, like JP Morgan Chase, are primarily backing incumbents.
The list of major donors to Senator Stabenow also includes health insurance giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield and “we don’t pay any corporate taxes” poster-child, General Electric.
The rest of the list is mostly made up of Michigan-based corporations, which reflects whose interests Stabenow defends in Washington – companies such as DTE Energy, Dow Chemical, GM and the Ford Motor Company. These are companies, which were major contributors to Senator Stabenow in 2006 and 2000, which is further evidence of her allegiance to the capitalist class.
In March, labor unions across the state announced an effort to change the Michigan Constitution by making collective bargaining rights part of the Constitution.
According to the Protect Our Jobs site:
“For more than a year, Lansing politicians and corporate special interests have made one attack after another on Michigan workers: cutting middle-class families’ wages, health care benefits, retirement security and safety protections. They’re not done yet — there are more than 80 bills waiting for a vote in the state Legislature that would strip basic protections from working people.”
Last week, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce formally came out against such an effort with their own rhetoric about what would be good for the state’s economy.
The Chamber’s Press Release on the Protect Our Jobs campaign states in part:
“This anti-taxpayer petition drive is squarely aimed at repealing dozens and dozens of cost-saving reform measures recently enacted by Gov. Snyder and the Michigan Legislature,” noted Jim Holcomb, Senior Vice President, Business Advocacy & General Counsel for the Michigan Chamber. “Across the nation, Michigan is increasingly being recognized as a leader in government efficiency and reform for enacting common sense solutions to government spending, but this proposal is a power grab by government employee unions who want to maintain the status quo without regard for the Michigan taxpayers footing the bill.”
“The Michigan Chamber doesn’t currently have a position for or against right-to-work,” Holcomb added. “However, the idea that a special interest group would amend the state constitution to cut off debate about legislation it doesn’t like is unfair and unwise.”
These last two sentences are interesting and worth looking at. While it is true that the Michigan Chamber of Commerce has not taken a strong public stand on the issue of making Michigan a Right to Work state, several local Michigan Chambers have come out in favor.
The Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce created a lobbying entity known as the West Michigan Policy Forum, which makes as one of its stated goals the implementation of Right to Work laws in Michigan. At their 2010 Summit, the West Michigan Policy Forum made Right to Work a key goal and even brought anti-union PR strategist Rick Berman to present on how to change public opinion about Right to Work.
The Michigan Chamber President Rich Studley concluded in the Press Release:
“Government employee unions have declared war on our state’s economic competitiveness with this deceptive and counterproductive ballot proposal. Michigan’s job providers did not ask for this fight. But we will do whatever it takes to defeat the union’s plan to stop reinventing Michigan.”
It seems pretty clear that with these words that there is a class war going on in Michigan. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce and groups like the Mackinac Center for Public Policy have made it clear that profits are valued over working people in Michigan.
The ballot initiative by many labor groups in Michigan may not be the best response to challenge the power of capital, but it has clearly exposed the class war that capitalists continue to wage against working people.
Occupy Chicago Week of Actions – Press Conference
This video is re-posted from ZNet.
Occupy Chicago hosted a press conference on May 10 in the Windy City in preparation for the upcoming week of actions at what has been billed at is the NATO/G8 Protests.
The press conference featured people with Occupy Chicago, the People’s Summit, National Nurses United, CanG8, Iraq Veterans Against the War, mental health advocates, the American Friends Service Committee, musicians and Chicago Indy media.
Does the Black Political Class Actually Protect or Defend Black People? If Not, What Do They Do?
This article by Bruce Dixon is re-posted from Black Agenda Report.
Let’s take a trip to an imaginary black America, a place in which black leaders regularly stood on their hind legs to safeguard and protect the interest of their constituents against greedy banksters and institutional racism in the job, credit and housing markets. It’s a pretend world where African American politicians are busily engaged in building and expanding opportunity for all, and leading the fight for peace, jobs, justice, and quality education and participatory democracy. It’s a mythical place where prominent blacks in the business world too, work to create good jobs and stable communities and provide key support to the civic organizations engaged in this work as well.
Imagine that the Katrina disaster had occurred in such an imaginary world. Black America’s best and brightest would have convened hundreds of meetings and workgroups in real and virtual spaces across the country. Urban planners, educators, and professionals of all stripes would have speedily devised just and equitable plans for regional education, transit, agriculture, tourism and more. They would have insisted that the six figure number of black Gulf Coast residents deported to the four corners of the continental US on buses paid for by charitable donations to the Red Cross be returned and put to work rebuilding a just and sustainable region. This single example reveals that such a world, if it did exist would differ so profoundly from the one we know as to be almost unrecognizable.
In the real world that does exist, we now have more than 10,000 black elected officials, from small town mayors and sheriffs up to forty-some reps in Congress and the president. Still, black unemployment, black incarceration rates, foreclosures on black homeowners and the gap between black and white family wealth are at or near all time highs, with not a one of these key indicators moving rapidly in any good direction.
Black faces are found more often than ever in corporate boardrooms. Chevron named a tanker after Condoleezza Rice, one of its longtime board members. In recent years, black corporate execs have run the NAACP, the National Urban League and big-city school systems like Atlanta, where public schools CEO Erroll Davis boasts that he learned all he needed to know about running a school system in his time on the board of BP. Black-owned and operated banks in cities like New York are heavily invested in gentrifying developments that push African Americans out of the five boroughs toward the suburban periphery, or in many cases, back to the South. Some contend that it is the shriveling of urban housing and job markets in places like Chicago, Cleveland, New York and Detroit that accounts for the net flow of black population in the twenty-first century reversing from the north back to the south, something not seen in almost a hundred years.
National black leaders, even with popular winds at their backs were unable to prevent the legal lynching of Troy Davis. Since the freelance killing of Trayvon Martin more than thirty police and vigilante killings of young blacks have occurred, and our leaders can’t point to even the beginnings of any official process on the national level aimed at preventing the next thirty. Like the man whose lower lip brush the ground and whose upper lip caresses the clouds, they are all mouth.
Local black political leaders in places like Columbia SC and Atlanta GA have proved as vicious toward the homeless as any of their white colleagues. Black mayors like Philly’s Michael Nutter have endorsed widespread stop-and-frisk policies that presumptively criminalize black youth, and like his black and white counterparts in City Halls across the land, the mayor of Philadelphia tells parents and children that there is no alternative to the piecemeal destruction of public education, driving it into a crisis whose only solution, we will be told, is privatization. The black mayor of Newark is pushing to privatize that city’s water system, and the black mayor of Atlanta has proposed taxing rainwater that some catch as an alternative to the city’s wate rsupply.
At the 2004 Democratic convention, pointedly held on and constantly referring to the anniversary of King’s 1963 March on Washington, Barack Obama gathered more than 20 African American generals and admirals on stage around him, hypocritically linking their mission with that of the apostle of economic justice and nonviolence. Despite the fact that black America is the most antiwar segment of the US population, Barack Obama has boosted military spending to all time highs, has put more troops in more countries than any of his predecessors, and is waging wars in more countries, including African countries than any president in recent memory.
At that Democratic convention, just like the one in North Carolina this year, the goodie bags and receptions will be held by AT&T, the nuclear industry, GE and GM, Big Oil, Big Ag, Big Insurance, drone manufacturers and “defense” contractors, defending US interests in more than 140 countries. Nobody will be the least surprised when Barack Obama again proclaims himself the president of “clean coal and safe nuclear power.” For the black political class, the road leads to exactly the same destination as their white counterparts.
The Congressional Black Caucus and the CBC Foundation like the careers of most black politicians, and traditional civil rights organizations, from NAN to NAACP, the Urban League, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation and the National Conference of Black State Legislators, is funded by the generous contributions of actors like Microsoft, Boeing, Lockheed, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and on and on and on on and on. It’s hard to regard most of the black political class these days as anything but sock puppets for the folks who fund their careers.
The Congressional Black Caucus still stages a weeklong annual celebration of itself and the black political class. A look at its weeklong agenda any time over last few years shows lots of relationship workshops, celebrity meet-and-greets and workshops on how to be a black military subcontractor, a black real estate developer, a movie producer, or a contractor with the Department of Homeland Security. You will search in vain for workshops on how to organize to protect black homeowners and keep them in their homes, how to prevent municipal and state privatizations of transit, education and infrastructures, how to organize unions and strike for better wages and conditions, or sessions how to obtain permanent title to vacant urban land for community agriculture projects.
There are a handful of corporate actors, like Koch Industries and Exxon-Mobil that give exclusively or mainly to Republicans. But these are relatively few, and there are some big players that give mostly to Democrats as well. For the most part however, corporate America is happily bipartisan, with a pronounced bias toward incumbents of whatever party and color, and only too happy to shine on the favorite charities of black congresscreatures in the inner city, or Tom Joyner’s computer giveaways, or pet charter schools in black communities, to name just a few.
President Barack Obama, far from being the exception to this rule, will be standing atop a heap of more than one billion dollars in direct corporate contributions to his re-election campaign this year, in addition to another billion in indirect contributions to super-PACs, state and national Democratic parties, and other channels, even without the nickels and dimes of a diminishing number of hopeful ordinary people.
Since it doesn’t protect us, doesn’t defend our jobs, our homes, our education, our children or our elderly, all that the black political class can do for black people, all they can do to prolong their careers, is to wave in our faces the rancid racism of their Republican colleagues. And that’s what Republicans are —- not their rivals, but their colleagues. Keeping the black conversation focused on what racist s.o.bs these Republicans are is vital to the survival of the black political class. It takes attention away from the fact that black politicians in power, of whatever party, no matter what they say on the campaign trail, pursue roughly the same policies in office, in keeping with the fact that they all have the same funders.
The ideology of the black political class is best described with the clumsy world “representationalism”. It’s supposed to “represent” us, mostly by looking like us, but while not defending our children or elderly, not protecting our families or jobs or institutions, not defending our political gains or the public sector that our advocacy built. And the last thing the black political class will do is argue with militarism or war, even though these penalize black communities and nonwhite people around the world. It is only now, with the ascension of a black president, prominent blacks in all branches of the military, courts and corporate American that the end of the representationalist rainbow can clearly be seen. This is it. This is as good as it gets.
It’s time for something completely different. It’s been a long time since we had black leadership that didn’t depend on corporate America for its funding. But until our people can throw up new leaders and mass organizations whose bills aren’t paid by corporate elites, little will change. It’s time for all of us, and especially for those who would be leaders to let pharaoh go.
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 