Welcome Rep. Grayson!

Represenative, Thanks! A hearty thanks, and a medal of honor, too, if I was empowered to bestow it. I’ve already signed the petition. Everyone else should ASAP.

Welcome to Firedoglake – you’re one of our favorites!

Welcome Rep. Grayson!
What can Congress do to right this travesty?

thanks so much for being here Rep. Grayson, people are really worried about this.

I imagine you haven’t seen bmaz’s post about this (one of our lawyers), but it’s very disconcerting:

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/01/21/supreme-court-unleashes-corporate-campaign-cash-in-citizens-united-decision/

What is the appetite of people in Congress for reform?

Welcome back to FDL Rep Grayson.

Mr. Representative, YOU KICK ASS!! Thanks so much for your consistency in speaking truth to power.

Welcome Mr Representative Cajones.

Welcome, Congressman! Keep giving them hell up on the Hill.

Happy to sign.

Welcome Rep. Grayson and thank you for being outspoken.

Having fought against corporate personhood for years and having signed your petition, let me suggest that there needs to be legislation that redoes what the original U.S. C. indicated constituted a ‘legal person’ and that would be someone who actually breathes.

What’s also in need of addressing is the SCOTUS violating ‘stare decsis’ in the latest ruling.

Rep Grayson, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you… You are a ray of hope.

Oh, wow! What an honor, Congressman Grayson. You’re one of my heroes (even if I am old enough to be your mother).

I had started to wonder if Grayson was just like all the other politicians that grandstand to increase fund raising. Republicans are especially keen on this form of fundraising.

But I have to admit, this is ACTION. Its not just rhetoric thats tossed aside the moment the camera stops rolling.

So I extend a hearty thank you Rep. Grayson. It appears there is at least one person in Congress with a functioning soul.

Rep. Grayson, welcome to the Lake. And thank you for not only talking the talk, but also for walking the walk.

What are the chances for passage of The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act in the current political climate. The public would back it but how about your fellow Democrats? Also, how about R.Paul – is he with you on this one?

Representative Grayson, please continue to speak out on the issue of today’s decision. This foolish act by the Court majority will have a similar impact on our society as the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

It’s madness and you seem to be the person who is most willing to deal with the coming fiasco.

Best of luck to you and thanks for taking time to chat with us.

I don’t comment here much, but WELCOME, REP. GRAYSON!

I have the utmost respect for someone who shows the courage of his or her convictions. And you are one of those humans, sir. Thank you so much for giving people like me a voice in the increasingly weird wilderness of D.C.

Welcome Rep. Grayson! What can we do to help passage of even ONE of the bills?

Thank you Rep Grayson for coming to the Lake.

Jane, Thank you for organizing this. A great week for such a visit.

Ya, thanks for being the voice of reason in the vast void of intelligence.

Welcome, Rep. Grayson, and thank you for standing up for us!

You have a lot of fans here. Anyone trying to reign in the Fed is a true American hero.

Rep. Grayson, what can be done to eliminate the “personhood” of corporations? I noted Judge Sotomayor broached the subject, but can this be addressed legislatively?

Rep Grayson… my question is the same as others. What are the chances, realistically of these Acts passing? Including your Audit the Fed bill.

Welcome back to FDL, Rep. Grayson. Thank you for showing the courage to challenge the status quo in D.C.

Welcome, Rep Grayson! I appreciate your candor and your willingness to stand up for your beliefs. Thanks for actually doing your job!!

These are great ideas! How about devoting income from the excise tax to support Medicaid in the poor states?

Those bills are a good start, but unless and until we get public financing of campaigns and restrictions on lobbyists our government will still be purchased by those whose chief purpose is to loot it, and us.

But can we get any of them through the 41-59 republican Senate majority?!?!

Welcome Rep Grayson great to have you here

he’s coming on, password problems.

Rep. Grayson, I’m de-lurking to make my first comment at FDL to thank you for taking positions even when they might not be politically expedient but are the right thing to do nonetheless. I hope your backbone, your candor, and your fire are contagious. Please keep calling BS on the Republicans, too. And, for that matter, on DINOs.

Welcome Rep. Grayson! I must say you’re a breath of fresh air in the midst of what is apparently becoming a U.S. Congress that is solely under the control of corporations. Thanks for your great work.

Question – what do you think the prospects are for legislation to help mitigate the damage done by the Supreme Court ruling? And will Democrats finally grow a spine and represent people instead of corporations?

I sure hope Rahm didn’t give Rep. Grayson directions to the lake. He’s lost for sure if he did.

Hello sir, and good day to you. My first question is this: how can we educate the public so that they will be informed enough not to vote or act against their own best intrest? I see all too often that many people don’t understand what is going on around them until it directly affects them, but by then it’s too late. Do you have any ideas?

Golden Sacks has record profits reported today–$16 billion in bonuses. How much legislation can that buy?

the voters spoke .Will they listen?

The names of the bills are well done. Aside from their content the presentation has to be done well. that can start with the name. Good job so far.

He is commenting on bmaz’ post!

My attempt at snark in the face of defeatist attitude.

While I understand everyone’s enthusiasm on these things…the NUMEROUS “hellos” and such kinda eat up a lot of post space that the guest (and Jane) have to wade through. It takes a while for a viewer to get through that stuff to any meat.

Welcome, Rep Grayson and thanks very much for your excellent work on this and other important issues. I hope all Americans will one day appreciate your work along with other progressives (and all sides) in congress. Others have asked my questions, so I will stay on and enjoy the discussion. Cheers.

Congressman Grayson,

Thank you for speaking with us today and, of course, thank you so much for your work with Congressman Paul re auditing the Fed.

I was outraged when I heard about the SCOTUS decision. Do they realize that corporations are not citizens? They don’t run for office. They don’t vote. The decision, frankly, seems odd at best.

I’m signing your petition right now and thank you for setting it up.

I agree with, OFG’s point about eliminating corporate personhood. Do I think these things will pass. Of course not. Our elites only act in their own interests, not ours, and their chief interest is looting. So they can not reform. I like Grayson’s ideas but they are going to go nowhere, and for the same reason.

When we look back on the French and Russian Revolutions, or even our own, the question often arises why the elites of those times did not see them coming and enact moderate solutions that would have avoided revolution and kept their positions and privileges largely intact. The answer is that some did see but the consensus could not envision anything other than the status quo. This is our condition today. It is a pre-revolutionary one. Our elites have discredited themselves and failed in their basic mission of governance. They can’t change and they can’t reform. So either we get an FDR or a Lenin. Those are our choices.

Apology if this has been asked and answered; on the fly…

Is there a way to build shareholder power to block corps using shareholder dollars on partisan advertising? Will there be public disclosure of whom or which issues corporate advertising advocates? Any way to turn this around via the shareholders?

Welcome. What’s up in the Senate with the Consumer Financial Protection Agency — Dodd seems to be willing to parcel it out, not have a new entity dedicated to that task. Will the House support that?

Welcome Mr. Grayson! Not much to say, only that I hope you’re re-elected and I hope we have more of you in Congress sometime soon.

Here I am. I got lost, on a different page of the site.

It would be nice if shareholders asserted themselves, but shareholder democracy itself is a function of the law.

Please sign the petition. And have all your friends sign, too. We need to demonstrate People Power.

It will take true bipartisanship to get any constitutional amendment passed. Which we haven’t seen much, lately. But an Act of Congress is a different story.

I thought so. See my comment #34. Or not.

Hugh, I think you’ve got it backwards. It’s a constitutional amendment that risks going nowhere, because you need huge supermajorities to pass it. But an Act of Congress needs the House, the Senate and the President’s signature; that’s it.

It is an honor to be on the same forum with you, Sir. Thank you again for your efforts to straighten this mess out!

Someone on another site asked if, as a shareholder, they could sue the corporate board for any spending on politics as against his/her interest. Perhaps a law ensuring this ability could be added to the VERY nice bills you, Rep Grayson, have worked up to reign in corporate political spending?

Keep your hands off that red button.

Seriously, panic doesn’t help. You could see it coming. That’s why we already had five bills filed, last week.

Keep fighting the good fight Grayson! If we had more politicians like you in the Dem category maybe we wouldnt lose such strong holds like New Jersey and Mass.!

One of our bills builds shareholder power by requiring express authorization by shareholders before the management can use shareholder money to buy elections, and otherwise influence public opinion.

I for one see this as a golden opportunity to get some movement on an issue that is not normally very sexy but needs doing, electoral reform. First, maybe an easy way around the ruling today would be to state that a corporation that does business with DC cannot participate in a campaign. Second, maybe we should look into federally funded campaigns. Finally, I would make some simple reforms to voting like making election day a Saturday and money for voting machines that leave a paper trail.

Signed and thanks for being a voice for people

Oh – by the way.
Could you run for president in 2012?

And wouldn’t a change to the U.S.C. be an ‘Act of Congress’?
“Having fought against corporate personhood for years and having signed your petition, let me suggest that there needs to be legislation that redoes what the original U.S. C. indicated constituted a ‘legal person’ and that would be someone who actually breathes.

What’s also in need of addressing is the SCOTUS violating ’stare decsis’ in the latest ruling.”

Can shareholders sue management for spending money without their permission, to buy an election? If my bills pass, yes. If they don’t, quite possibly not.

Perhaps I’m blind? Where is this petition (or its link)?

Opening elections to foreign influence is one problem that even SCOTUS had to acknowledge, in its decision.

Welcome Rep. Grayson. Can you comment on the following statement?

“The Huffington Post is reporting today that Barney Frank told members of the Financial Services Committee that Chris Dodd will not include (the “Audit the Fed” provision) in the Senate bill.”

Thank you.

And now, success will depend on the “return on your investment” in influencing elections. Bailouts and tax breaks for sale.

This is a purely political decision. Look at the lineup. Look at the fact that they reversed over 100 years of settled law. Look at the fact that they demanded reargument on this issue. Look at the fact that they could have decided the case a dozen other ways.

Will you run for President? We need a real leader who will follow through on what he campaigns on. I

Is there any hint of understanding from Congress that the recent Democratic loss in MA is due to not following through on Obama’s campaign promises, rather than not being “centrist enough” ?

at the top where Jane introduces Rep.Grayson

On the subject of stare decisis, respect for settled law, those five justices have gutted that principle. The law and precedent against unlimited corporate spending in campaigns goes back 104 years. Talk about “judicial activism!”

Hugh is just annoyed like most progressives. We cave and cave and cave and when the corporatists can’t get everything they want (as in health care) we are called unreasonable.

We would like a victory sir. At this point, even a teeny weeny one.

Clear names, and also we try to keep the bills short and readable. None of them is longer than four pages.

Welcome and thanks.

Citizen Congressman Grayson:

I’ve heard that you clerked for a couple of “interesting” judges out of law school including Antonin Scalia, is that correct? If correct, what is your take on the decision formalizing Mussolini Fascism or corporatism disclosed today and your critique of Scalia’s concurrence?

Rep Grayson, I was wondering about something that came up with the GOP congress during the Bush/Cheney Junta. There was something mentioned about “court stripping”: removing the ability of the courts to rule on the legality of a passed law.

It sounded patently ludicrous and like a REALLY bad idea, but is it a real capability? If so, could Congress pass a law declaring corporations are NOT people and money is NOT speech and simply strip the courts of jurisdiction?

Whether or not any of your proposals are enacted into law, it’s nice to see someone call b.s. on a lot of the backrubbing and lobbyist-written legislation in D.C.

Appreciate it.

No legalese?
Scandalous!

True, but as we have seen with healthcare and financial regulation, reform legislation either gets deep sixed or gutted in Congress with the White House’s blessing.

Wonderful, expressive names for the Bills.

Just saying the name Business should mind it’s own business Act…. it a repetition of the ’cause.’ I really do love it.

What’s in a name…. ?
Very much.

Thank you for your efforts and Excellent nomenclature.

CC

P.S. I signed the petition, are you building relationshipsto create a block in the House specifically to fight for corporate transparency?

Four pages?? What, single spaced 2 point type on both sides of the paper?? Where do you hide the wooleyboogers? (a term of art many may not recognize)

§ 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth
“the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals; ”

Change this and it’s done http://uscode.house.gov/

“§ 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant
How Current is This?
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

The oligarchic takeover is just about complete.

Is there anything to stop a corporation from setting up a dummy corp and funnel campaign cash to that? Say Exxon wants to runs ads for a candidate and features as part of it, say offshore drilling. As I understand it at this point they would need to say “paid for by Exxon Mobile Corp” at the end of the ad, but that might not be the best PR, so instead could they set up a dummy corp called “People for America’s Energy Future” to run those ads?

To me I have less of a problem if they actually have skin in the game and I know who is trying to buy votes. Begin too political is just begging to lose business.

I understand that panic or overreaction is the wrong way to go, but haven’t we already seen the problems that are created – not only for our policital system, but also for our economy – when corporations are allowed to have so much influence?

It’s nice that this is so great for the folks on K Street, but this effectively ruins whatever was left of democracy, in my opinion.

I’m trying to figure out how outsiders – the people – can influence the system.

What do you and/or Jane think is the best way for those of us at FDL to advance real progressive reform in light of what’s about to happen in the new political dynamic in 2010 (i.e. with corporations dominating the scene by flooding money into it)?

I propose the following as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:

“A ‘person’ is defined as none other than a human being.”

Rep Grayson, where do you think the US should be heading (versus where it is heading)?

Any ideas on how the Court’s decision could be used to turn the Tea Baggers on conservative/corporate judgicial appointments?

Protect Oil

Protect Banks

Protect Health Insurance

Protect Corporate Identity

Eviscerate America!

Fuck “Life,” “Liberty” and “Pursuit of Happiness” for involuntary servitude, servile prejudices and profit!

Mr. Congressman, can you share your thoughts on Voter Consent laws, please?

First, I wanted to thank you for coming and speaking here today, Rep. Grayson.

Second, though, I have to ask: since the current Court is dead-set on pushing political power to the corporations, won’t they simply overturn the Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act? Granted, it’ll take some time to wind its way to them, but sooner or later I’d expect a large corporation to sue over their new right to buy elections being abridged.

Shareholders suing their companies for spending money on elections is an idea I really love, though. We could neutralize the corporate money by just buying a few shares in, well, everyone. Create some organization to buy the stock, hold it, and sue anyone who starts buying up ads. Fund it through Blue America maybe.

What the SCOTUS ruling does is enshrine what AHIP and pHarma did by funneling money thru the Chamber of Commerce to fight HCR.

A ‘person’ is defined as none other than a human being, living outside the womb

fixed it for ya :D

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section
___

Right. There is a relentless “Personhood at Conception” push going on in increasing numbers of states. We just got one initiative struck down here in Nevada, but that won’t stop them. And it would not surprise me one whit to see these 5 SCOTUS members grant “personhood” to zygotes.

Would your bills pass constitutional muster, or declared unconstitutional as limiting free speech?

Congressman Grayson, thank you for working for the good of all Americans. What a pleasure to have someone speak the truth.

What can you do to help pass these bills? Sign the petition. Call and write to congressional offices. Give financial support to members who will vote in favor of these bills. Patrol the internet, to keep the debate honest. Volunteer, and vote.

I think that’s so clearly right. Does anybody in Congress even think about this?

Norske @ 95- your question about ‘clerking’ ? I see it, hit refresh

true, but I think that is an additional “reform” that could be explored, to force groups to actually say for themselves what they want to say instead of funneling money like weasels.

Aside from supporting your excellent bills and petition, could you tell us the most effective things we can do to try and pull our country back from the brink?

Ooops! You were ahead of me @ 98.

I just signed the petition.

Hugh is just annoyed like most progressives

Hugh does not expect anything from this Congress this year that isn’t related to election year atmospherics. For the rest, I’m looking at history. As I have written before, pre-revolutionary states are downplayed or ignored by our elites because they are the targets of such periods. But such states have occurred in our history every 30 to 40 years from Jackson and the banks, to Lincoln and the Civil War, to the rise of the labor movement and TR’s trustbusting, to FDR and the Depression, to Johnson and civil rights and Vietnam, to today and the dominance of the corporatism in government, the Congress and the White House. In the past, revolution was avoided by co-opting much of the reformists’ platform, but today our elites show no interest beyond PR in changing the status quo. I mean Obama is the poster child for this kind of sweet talking the rubes while sticking it to them at every opportunity. The economic fundamentals of the country continue to deteriorate, and there is going to be a terrific smashup. We are already seeing that Obama and the Democrats are having difficulties holding it together in the runup to the November election. I have said for a long time now that we should expect things to go splat in 2011. I don’t see our elites up to the task of what we have now, let alone then. I am not optimistic.

why aren’t corporations limited to donations of 4300 dollars to a campaign, like real people?

Excellent question!

Congressman Grayson’s petition is called “Save Democracy.” I don’t think that’s an understatement. The Supreme Court did stab democracy today.

What can outsiders, us – we the people – still do to have an impact in our system of government?

For that matter, aren’t we now living under a system that seems determined to undermine its very existence, a system that doesn’t want to be saved from itself?

I dig the dollar sign ties, Rep. Grayson.

“today our elites show no interest beyond PR in changing the status quo”
___

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. I unhappily share your skepticism.

Come over to my diary later & discuss how the forecast there will contribute to your pre-revolutionary conditions.

Rep.Grayson , your perspective on the news item that Gregg/Shelby and Dodd are doing away with the House bill to audit the Fed?

Thrilled to hear you speak every time. Plain words no fluff.

How can we help clone you. Are there any others lurking in the house who might come out?

It’s pretty crazy aint it. Corporations are people. Fetuses are people. People, however, are NOT people!

This is not my America.

JANE I hope you have more people like Grayson on your blog for the long haul. At the same I mentioned we needed to start planning for OBAMA replacement. I feel Alan Grayson is one of those people. However.there are others and I hope you will check them all out,but I hope you are working on a plan or plans for this year and the next two years. to hopefully get the congress we need and plus a new President. I know it can be done,but it going to take people who are committed period.

Copy that.

I disposed of the stupid “fetal people” thingy back in 2008.

Not that that will stop them.

Rep. Grayson, thank you for your clear voice and cogency. Maybe you should run for President.

Have procedural due process rights of corporations via 14th Amendment usurped and undermined a human’s constitutional rights? The seeds of “corporate sodomy” and interests which deprive people of property and liberty under the color of law now gather the rewards?

Rep. Grayson, I’m 54 years old, and you remind me of the good-old-fashioned Liberal Democrats I remember as a kid! Keep fighting and don’t compromise with the evil and mediocrity that surrounds you! We support you and we’ve got your back!

a quick question. Given the chance would you vote for the senate healthcare bill?

I just wanted to thank you for fighting for the American people.

Even though I am in the 20th congressional district in California, you are one of the few I can send money to.

We want more like you.

Citizen cbl2:

I asked the same question before Gayson logged on it showed up between #23-29 (I think) …I left and when I returned it was burned out.

Second that sentiment.

Welcome Congressman.

I have signed your petition already so I can’t do it again alas.

But while you are here I must say something to you.

I was beyond disappointed that someone who is supposed to be the voice of progressives voted for the House healthcare bill with Stupak and all the rest of the bad included in it.

It shows a weakness of progressives that we’ve never been able to get passed.

You would have done much better to be like Kucinich and have voted no.

That being said I fully support you in this endevour. We need a constitutional amendment to completely abolish corporate personhood.

Thanks, I look forward to it.

And ubetchaiam, remember when Dodd was supposed to be a standup progressive in opposing the FISA Amendments Act? Now he and Frank are trying to see who can be the bigger cabana boy for the financial industry.

Hey Moderator: You made the decision to scratch my original question when it directly related to his opinion of the court decision today….then after 50 more posts when many asked about the same issue I posted the same fuckin question and you posted it…I don’t want an appolgy I just want you to acknowlege that ya fucked up and it won’t happen again!

[Mod Note: Your original question asked only about Grayson having clerked for Scalia. Your follow-up tied the clerking for Scalia back to the original topic of the post. There was a difference]

Dodd is scum.

We need to get HR 1207 through the Senate: when Obama signs a bill with Ron Paul, Alan Grayson, and Bernie Sanders at his side, then we will have something with which to encourage more left-libertarian cooperation.

We need to get active!

I strongly support Rep. Grayson’s moves with Ron Paul to audit the Fed. But I would also note that Rep. Grayson voted for the House version of healthcare with the Stupak amendment.

I about had a friggin’ aneurism over Obama & the FISA thing. Two words kept me on board. “Sarah Palin.”

Alan, how about adding a provision that passes through voting rights from fund managers to the owners of the fund. When mutual fund, pension fund, etc managers exercise voting rights on the shares their fund owns that distorts the outcome of the decision and institutions own the majority of the shares of our corporations. To have true corporate democracy we would need to see the actual owners – the investors / beneficiaries of the funds have the right to vote these shares rather than their hired fund management.

Thank you, Representative Alan Grayson for answering my comment #300 on the other thread, if you’ve a chance I hope you might read the entire thread.

We citizens, NOT “consumers” or “customers” have little patience with those who have the time to seek out loopholes and “advantage” and then, blatantly and arrogantly, buy Congress and write the laws (just as I mentioned) and little respect for a legal system which has become but a bludgeon for the powerful to use (quite unsparingly) to destroy human beings and justice itself. All in the name of free enterprise which is equated with freedom and capitalism (of the most brutal and unfettered form – hint: America produces damn little wealth and the epiphitic classes, by definition, only “take”) which is equated with Democracy.

Enough is enough, sir, but those epiphitic classes, among which is the political cla$$, apparently feel differently, at least judging by their behavior.

Thank you for standing up.

Perhaps your example might shame your fellow PUBLIC SERVANTS (not celebrities, in truth, any one of them) into remembering the rest of us, those of us NOT “too big to fail”?

Perhaps the political cla$$ will simply claim their “mandate” is from heaven, the rest of us be damned, and continue doing, “God’s Work”?

DW

Oh my, did we chase him away?

So um – where did everyone go?

While I appreciate the directness and sense of humor involved in the naming of these bills, so you really think it’s the best approach to “selling” them to the general public? Will they take it seriously, or will they (and the opposition) dismiss it as political posturing simply due to the names? This is not simply a criticism disguised as a question, but an actual question as what people think about it.

Bernie Sanders is all talk.

He’ll stand up there and rail against the big interests. But when he can be the one vote that stops a bill he freezes up and obeys like a good party boy.

The SCUTUS has just decided that the French AND the Chinese, and in fact the whole world can have a substantial voice in the outcomes of US elections?

The right is really going to love that one, what with the North-South Highway and the UN run World Government memes giving them heart attacks as it is already.

My guess is he only had a limited window with which he could visit and answer or questions.

Hey moderator: Someone fucked up again, the response @#119 should be referenced to #94 NOT #1….what the hell is goin on here???!!! I don’t think that the good Congressman Grayson needs to be protected from questions from common folks at FDL. In fact, his backgroun and early legal training that bears on what his ideology really is might be eye-opening for those who are fallin’ all over themselves to annoint this guy the next coming of Clarence Darrow!

I’m overwhelmed and excited that a sitting member of either Congressional house would actually come online and speak with the ‘netroots’, Mr. Grayson.

But one thing I have to wonder, how is it that we, the people, can truly do ANYTHING in the current climate? Your party responds to every crisis, criticism, and issue by becoming ‘less liberal’ (as if they were to begin with) and ‘tacking to the center’ (or in their case, moving past the center to the right). Meanwhile, the Republicans are, as usual, living on planet TeaBagger where capitalism makes every person rich and government can effectively be shrunk to ten people and work better.

The public has, by and large, GIVEN our voices on the issues of the day. Our officials aren’t listening. The public option had huge public support, and it was ignored. The treatment of Wall Street is incredibly unpopular among the people, and yet Democrats have been going at them with kid gloves.

Forgive me if I’m seeming a little disillusioned, but WHAT can we do, short of revolution, to actually get the people in charge to listen to us?

I get your point, thanks. But that language will never pass. My version avoids defining human-ness, simply says a person can’t be anything other than a human.

Why is my question stuck in moderation?

Is the online discussion with Rep Grayson over? I have not seen any comments from him in over 30 minutes.

@ Moderator

[Mod Note: Your comment/question had nothing to do with the topic of the visit today so was removed]

What?

This post is a welcome post.

Please Welcome Congressman Alan Grayson

It’s not a post about the Supreme court decision. At no point is there a declared topic to be talked about.

Since when does FDL even have a comment system like that?

The congressman is a big boy. And we don’t get to talk to people like him very often and ask questions. So in this open thread I posed a question about something other than Today’s news.

Please enlighten me as to why that deserved to be moderated.

The most important comment yet…..and one which should be widely shared. Thanks for that.

I just wanted to tell you thanks because you are standing up for our party. I wish you could spread you around and give the rest of the democratics some spine.

In any case, dakine 1, it was good of the Congressman to brave the waters here. His answers were on point even if I do not agree with them all. I hope we see more of him. If we had 300 more legislators like Grayson in the Congress, we might have a chance to get clear of the problems confronting us, but in truth there are only, maybe, a half dozen such.

@Alan

I don’t know if anyone above me has already asked, but is there any serious talk among your colleagues about bringing back Glass-Steagall? I haven’t been following politics nearly as long as others, but it almost seems like a no-brainer. Or am i missing something?

Not the moderator but it’s been my experience here that when a Congressperson comes to visit for a specific topic, Jane or whomever writes a post that starts by welcoming the guest.

Then, as she did here she mentions the topic of the visit:

We invited Rep. Grayson on to talk about the five bills he introduced last month in anticipation of today’s Supreme Court decision on corporate campaign cash:

I guess she forgot to ask folks to stay on the topic and assumed that most commenters understood that part.

Posting for the 3rd time because I do not believe this deserves to be removed.

Welcome Congressman.

I’ve already signed your petition so I can’t do it again alas.

But while you are here I feel I must comment on something as I don’t get many chances to talk to a congressman. I was extremely disappointed in your vote for the House healthcare bill with Stupak and the rest of the poison pills in it. You would have done much better being like Kucinich and voting against it.

Especially from someone who is so vocal a progressive. It shows a weakness in the caucus which makes us not get treated seriously.

That aside, I completely agree with you on the Supreme court’s decision. We need a full court press for a constitutional amendment to repeal corporate personhood.

Yeah. His visits like this, whether for Blue America or specific topics are always rather refreshing.

Even if that is the case so what?

How often do you get to talk to a congressman? Not very often for me personally. I can’t ask a question while making my comments about this subject heard?

FDL has never deleted comments for being “off topic” and Ir eally hope we don’t start now. It would violate a lot of principles I feel the site stands for and would make me less inclined to post.

I wasn’t atatcking the congressman (it’s post 144 now if it’s still there) I was asking about hsi vote on the house bill with Stupak. a perfectly legitimate question if I do say so.

Actually, having had some comments bounced from Blue America, Book Salon and other visits by folks for specific topics it IS common to ask that folks stay on the topic at hand.

It is about the only time that is so, but I know it is done as it has been done to me.

Edit: and yes, asking him about his vote on Stupak would be off topic for the reason that Jane invited him.

nothing wrong with establishing some bona fides.

Norske, I read your original comment/question so it was up for at least a little while…

so the commissariat is deciding what people ought to know?!

If what you are insinuating is true, – then that is BS.

I signed his petition around the 5300 mark, and donated to him. I do hope the problem here is not one of his making.

No, you are not trying to understand. The ONLY times when the Mods at FDL bounce comments for being off topic are when there is a visitor like Rep Grayson who today was here to discuss a specific topic OR during Book Salons or Blue America visits.

Usually, there is a note requesting folks to stay on the topic of the post in those situations. It is the way I’ve seen FDL handle visits every since I’ve been coming here and commenting.

It appears you’ve just not been around at any of these times before.

I agree about not having enough Congressfolk, such as Rep. Grayson.

Thanks for coming here to talk to us, Rep. Grayson. I appreciate much of what you do, and I wish you all the best. I have signed your petition, as I have grave concern about this, among many other, issue. Please keep up the good work. Good luck encouraging other Democrats to grow a spine and speak up for we, the people, rather than corporate interests.

I in fact have been around for the times before and I have never noticed this trend.

Where are the “rules of FDL” so I can look that up tho?

If true, Majority Leader Reid seems to have other ideas, as least as of yesterday, as I noted in Jane’s Kucinich thread today:

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 2939, sponsored by DeMint) to amend title 31, United States Code to require an audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks, and for other purposes.

Mr. BAUCUS. I now ask for a second reading and, in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day.

That’s how, according to the Senate rules, you get a bill on the calendar and ready to be brought to the floor at a time of Reid’s choosing, without a committee vote or report on the measure.

It could happen to anyone…

Welcome to FDL, Congressman Grayson!

Signing petitions has become one of my favorite pastimes, and I was especially pleased to sign yours on this post. I wish you all the success possible on this issue.

Althought what you highlight seems to be the most straghtforward approach to undo today’s Supreme Court ruling I do not see that Rep. Grayson discussed this point nor that it was part of the bills he proposed.

Clearly by nullifying in the USC that corporations, as opposed to humans, have any protected rights under the first ammendment, then all rulings that provide them with those rights fall by the wayside. It would be interesting to know to what extent the point of corporate personhood arose during the rearguing of the case.

I can see that trying to mitigate the onerous effects of this decision is important as the Grayson bills attempt to do. But in addition it would seem that legally denying that corporations merit personhood status is crucial. There is absolutely no reason other than wanting large business interests to dominate the political discourse to even entertain this self evidently false notion of corporate personhood.

Does anyone familiar with the law know whether such a personhood status is awarded to corporations anywhere else in the world?

I don’t think the “rules” are written down anywhere. And you may not have noticed it because the mods seem to usually move fast.

But if you do read the intros for Book Salon and Blue America and visits, as I say, there is usually a note requesting folks to stay on the topic at hand

the topic of this talk with congressman grayson is in the post:

We invited Rep. Grayson on to talk about the five bills he introduced last month in anticipation of today’s Supreme Court decision on corporate campaign cash:

At least the court’s decision seems to have jumpstarted the borderline-dormant Congressional committee oversight process for the moment:

The Committee on House Administration announced Thursday that it will hold a hearing next month on a Supreme Court decision that significantly altered campaign finance law.

Rep. Robert Brady’s (D-Pa.) panel became the second congressional committee to say it will hold a hearing on the Court’s decision to lift limits on corporate spending on politics.

“I will be working directly with my colleagues, the leadership and the White House to study the Court’s decision and to put together a timeline for legislative action that ensures the Court’s decision will not define the ways elections are conducted in 2010,” Brady said in a statement.

[...]

Senate Rules Committee chairman Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) also said Thursday that his panel will convene a hearing and said he will introduce legislation to mitigate the Court’s decision.

To the moderator who responded at #121:

You sir or madam, are a God damned liar!

hey norske

Excellent to read Grayson@58.

Thank you!

The decision SCOTUS made today will not only add big problems to the country’s already big problems, but (as I understand it) will also make the work of progressive much harder as we work to make a difference in the 2010 campaigns in order to effect change. The political system was already broken enough and largely unable to address the country’s problems. Now, matters are worse.

Thank you, Congressman Grayson, for the legislation you are working on to rectify the problems created by the SCOTUS decision.

Thanks, Rep Grayson for your gracious visit and for your excellent work. Let’s all sign that petition on top. Special thanks for the moderators & FDL for bringing us a wonderful guest. Cheers.

I signed the petition very early on in the discussion and took a look again about an hour later. There were already a few hundred new signers after me!

Maybe FDL should put a special announcement with a link to the petition in the side column to help Congressman Grayson with his efforts.

Kudos to Grayson & Paul and the members of Congress who supported their initiative. As much as I find Grayson offensive, one must give proper credit when he gets it right.

Petition signed. Thank you for all your good work Congressman Grayson.

I just reread this post again. I supposed I missed an important bit of info in the parenthetical note the first time. Dodd was working to kill the creation of the CFPA and he now wants to remove the Grayson/Paul “Audit the Fed” bill, too? Really? Wasn’t that not only a good idea, but one that received bipartisan support, too?

Congressman Grayson, I hope there’s a way to stop the Senate from screwing up your work to audit the Fed they way the Democratic Senate seems determined to screw up everything else that can get this country on the right track.

dday’s post here may well explain Reid’s sudden move yesterday to get a standalone Fed Audit bill ready for the Senate floor (as part of a backroom agreement to try to save Bernanke’s nomination):

One more thing on this – Barney Frank today said that Chris Dodd was blocking the Audit the Fed amendment from his financial regulatory reform bill. But many of those trying to block Bernanke want a standalone vote on auditing the Fed before allowing his confirmation. Perhaps one is a prelude to the other.

OT questions cannot possibly be a legit reason for the sudden disappearance of host and special guest. Rep. Grayson can pick and choose which questions he wishes to answer. He’s a politician for frackin’ sake!

Don’t know what happened but I’m sure we’ll get an explanation. They didn’t just leave.

Good evening, Twain.

Gosh, I hope that you are correct.

I’d hate to imagine that the flying saucers or Cass Sunstein got ahold of them.

;~)

DW

Hey! Where have you been? Missed you.

What?? OMG, Aliens have ABDUCTED Jane and the Congressman!????!

Hi DWB

robespierre wrote an excellent, clear-thinking comment in bmaz’s thread about the organized-money concepts underlying the court’s decision, that I’m ripping off to post here, because it’s the sort of thought process that should inform the Congressional review of Grayson’s bills, and any Congressional response to the court’s decision:

I always answer this argument as follows:

Corporations are not just associations of individuals. They are associations of individuals that get to shelter their debts behind a fictitious legal entity, the corporation. The corporation can go bankrupt without risking the individual fortunes behind it. So members of the association get the benefit of borrowing and making money, without the risks facing an individual in the same position. This is the reason why corporations exist.

There is a Constitutional right to associate. But there is no right to dodge your debts, as near as I know (tell me if I’m wrong–I could do stuff with a right like that). Like bankruptcy, incorporation is the creation of the legislature and the legislature can define it–or take it away–as it likes.

As an individual associate of a large corporation (employee and small shareholder), I can donate to political campaigns legally now. But I can’t, for instance, charge a $100,000 donation to a credit card, not pay it back, and then shelter my personal bank accounts, cars, house, etc. behind the corporate persona.

So, I don’t need to be a Supreme Court Justice to know that associations and corporations are different and that restrictions on corporate political donations aren’t un-Constitutional. All a corporation has to do in order to give freely is to give up its incorporated status and become a plain old free association again. Of course, every shareholder and officer then becomes liable for every invoice the association fails to pay and every legal judgment entered against it. Any one of them could lose his house at any time.

I’ve been developing a genuine antipathy for Professor Sunstein.

First he says we mustn’t crimminalize “political” behavior …

Lately, he has said that there is but one official view of history and the events and people which comprise that history may be interpreted in only one way.

Further this professor of law at Harvard UYniversity says that those who who would start contrary “rumors” should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, if they don’t come ’round to the viewpoints of those sent out to spy on and influence them.

The intellectual outrage of such utter poppycock is astounding, and the fact that no one is taking the little twit to task is appalling.

And then, Mary reminded me that Obama will prolly put Sunstein up for the Supreme Court …

I swear my view that one can predict American history by assuming that it will always get worse, taking account of the “players” involved and calculatin’ that as it applies to the Divine Right of Money, appears to be holding true.

Speaking of true: Barack Obama is a true fabulist.

DW

Reposting for the fourth time because I still see no valid reason for the mods to remove this. Keep taking it down and I’ll keep reposting it.

Welcome congressman!

I’ve already signed your petition so I cannot sign it again alas.

While you’re here and since I don’t get to talk to a congressman much I must say something. I was extremely disappointed by your vote for the House bill with Stupak and the rest of the poison pills in it. You would have been much better following Kucinich and voting no.

Especially for such a vocal member of the progressive caucus, it makes us seem weak. A weakness we’ve never really been able to shake off.

That being said I completely support your bills and what you’re doing on this issue. We need a full on constitutional amendment to take away corporate personhood.

Sunstein is just plain weird.

Twain, I had to take a little break.

Took a little time to go out and talk to folks, not ficticious “persons”, by the way, but real actual flesh and blood human beings (imagine).

We’re all makin’ progress, as about 90 percent of the folks I’ve spoken with agree that our problem might not be government, per se, but the “nature” of those who would be politicians.

I don’t guess that the political cla$$ have much of a clue as to how people really feel about them.

Bottom line is the politicians don’t care. Neither do the Bankers or the Corporate Cla$$.

Their collective mistake is in believing that the people don’t care either (and don’t have the cajones to do anything about it anyways …).

Well, the people’s attention sure is getting … um … concentrated.

DW

I’ve Diaried It Here

Petitions still up, see my comment:

“I understand it’s still up, despite the Supreme Ruling today, which DEFINITELY leads me to belive Rep Grayson is gonna do a media circus number AND likely propose or endorse some legislation to circumvent the Supreme decision.

And when Rep Grayson gets his game face on, camera’s pay attention, in the HOUSE and in the media.

It ain’t over, Bluto!

So keep tellin your pals to sign the petition!”

‘Evening ES.

E c h o. :)

“Frackin sake” from fuckno? Say what’s on your mind!

The first time I encountered this “censorship” was when Hillary Clinton came on FDL to discuss some subject I couldn’t even guess at now. Well, as you could expect, all sorts of questions rained down. In that case, as I recall, Jane deflected these comments, a much more sedate way than outright censorship.

But when you think about it, no politician in “his/her right mind” would come on this or any free forum blog without strict ground rules. Trolls anyone?
That’s not to say that the questions that were “moderated” weren’t the ones we really thought most important. They were. But this place is still the reality that I, for one, am most comfortable in.

I’ll take FDR, Hugh.

I guess that gets Obama off the hook relative to appointing liberal judicial activists. He can always say that they’re needed to balance the conservatives. Clinton, of course, refrained from doing that.

Norske, if I can interject, Scalia is A Fascist like his buddy, Dick Cheney?

Congressman Grayson, I agree with Inquisitr and was very disapppointed with some of what you said during the last stages of passage in the House. I wrote a number of diaries commenting on your activities, some very favorable, some critical: here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Of course, I’m completely in your corner when it comes countering this radical, dangerous, and wholly political Supreme Court decision.