[Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We HaveAlready Won!
Eric Brooks
brookse32 at aim.com
Mon Nov 10 22:05:53 PST 2008
I'm not sure that PG&E is not culpable for violating election laws. But
it's definitely a judgment call, and even if we won, what's another big
fine to them when they just spent $12 million against us.
I'd rather, as you suggest, codify new law that really has teeth and can
keep them from pulling this again.
Cal Broomhead wrote:
> It appears you have already discussed whether PG&E was in violation of
> campaign laws or not, and that the answer was 'not'. I agree that we need
> a stronger campaign financing law to stop this crap. Then, before the
> election, an injunction against them to prevent them from doing anything
> during the election...and then pay the fine afterwards...which they see as
> just part of the cost of doing business or the campaign.
>
> Cal Broomhead
> broomhead at igc.org
>
>
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Joe Lynn <joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
>> To: David Fairley <pamndave at speakeasy.net>; Eric Brooks
>>
> <brookse32 at aim.com>
>
>> Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability at sfgreens.org>;
>>
> Green Active list <active at sfgreens.org>
>
>> Date: 11/7/2008 11:24:12 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We
>>
> HaveAlready Won!
>
>> I should have said that it has come to stand for the principle of
>>
> corporate
> personhood.
>
>
> On 11/7/08 7:31 AM, "David Fairley" <pamndave at speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>
>> In the Southern Pacific case, the Supreme Court did not set a precedent
>> that ruled corporations are persons. There's a short Wikipedia article on
>> this:
>>
>>
>>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
>
>> Here's what it says:
>>
>> 'Although the question of whether corporations were persons within the
>> meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts
>> and briefed for the Supreme Court, the Court did not base its decision on
>> this issue. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice
>> Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on
>> the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
>> Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its
>> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these
>> corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." This quotation was
>> printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the
>> opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any
>> legal precedential value. Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's
>> essentially ultra vires statement did influence later courts, becoming
>> part of American corporate law without ever actually being enacted by
>> statute or formal judicial decision.'
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:11:00 -0800, Joe Lynn <joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I©öve mentioned the resonance between the Dred Scott decision and the
>>> Southern Pacific case, which granted to corporations the personal rights
>>> guaranteed by the Constitution. In his debates with Sen. Douglass,
>>> Lincoln
>>> addressed the role of the public in confronting the Dred Scott
>>> decision. He
>>> believed the Constitution invested the other branches of government a
>>> role
>>> in challenging antidemocratic Supreme Court decisionson questions
>>> involving
>>> personhood. Perhaps a challenge to Southern Pacific would draw on his
>>> savvy lawyering. There©ös plenty of recent precedent with right wing
>>> movements attempting to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/6/08 8:31 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's already happened in individual communities. That's the whole
>>>> point. To
>>>> challenge corporate personhood on the local level because states and
>>>> the Feds
>>>> won't do it..
>>>>
>>>> Rita Goldberger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Ending corporate personhood is one of Ralph Nader's
>>>>> chief proposals. I don't think it can be done on a local
>>>>> or even state level.? I think it requires a constitutional
>>>>> amendment on the national level.? On a local level,
>>>>> however, we could pass a non-binding resolution
>>>>> calling on Congress and the Senate to pass such an
>>>>> amendment.
>>>>> ?
>>>>> Rita Goldberger
>>>>>
>>>>> --- On Thu, 11/6/08, Susan King <funking at mindspring.com>
>>>>> <mailto:funking at mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Susan King <funking at mindspring.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:funking at mindspring.com>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have
>>>>>> Already
>>>>>> Won!
>>>>>> To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
>>>>>> <mailto:joelynn114 at hotmail.com>
>>>>>> Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability at sfgreens.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:sustainability at sfgreens.org> , "Green Active list"
>>>>>> <active at sfgreens.org> <mailto:active at sfgreens.org>
>>>>>> Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:03 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm interested in taking part of this discussion. Let me know if
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> is set up for further discussion/action.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> peace
>>>>>> susan
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Joe Lynn wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case
>>>>>>> before the
>>>>>>> Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. ?I©öve always seen the case as the
>>>>>>> flip side
>>>>>>> of the Dred Scott decision. ?In the Southern Pacific case the rights
>>>>>>> of a
>>>>>>> person were given to propert. ?In the Dred Scott case the rights of a
>>>>>>> person were denied to a person because he was property. ?That said,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> Southern Pacific case blocks reform along these lines, at least with
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> Roberts/Alito Suspreme Court.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am convinced that public financing is the only remedy that makes
>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>> ?It may be possible to set up a public finance program to wage
>>>>>>> ballot-measure campaigns. ?Public finance is an extension of Benjamin
>>>>>>> Franklin©ös principles of a public library. ?In both cases, the
>>>>>>>
> public
>
>>>>>>> treasury may be used for ideas not embraced by the majority under the
>>>>>>> principle that dissemination of ideas to a free-thinking people is
>>>>>>> critical
>>>>>>> to democracy. ?There are a lot of kinks to work out for such a
>>>>>>> program, but
>>>>>>> a reactionary Court has ruled that regulation of money entails
>>>>>>> regulation
>>>>>>> of speech. ?This raises a profound obstacle to reform efforts. ?In
>>>>>>> addition, administration of regulatory schemes presumes
>>>>>>> administrators
>>>>>>> committed to the political philosophy that gives rise to the
>>>>>>> regulation.
>>>>>>> ?As we have seen in San Francisco, that presents an even more
>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>> practical problem for reformers. ?Along these lines, Oliver Luby, the
>>>>>>> Campaign Fines Officer at the SF Ethics Commission, has an op-ed
>>>>>>> piece in
>>>>>>> Tuesday©ös Chronicle relating Ethics decision to give major donors
>>>>>>> ($10,000
>>>>>>> or more) a free ride on disclosures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> ?http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D
>
>>>>>>> TL
>>>>>>> &hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D
>
>>>>>>> TL
>>>>>>> &hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be a gutsy and very difficult move, but I'm thinking we
>>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>>> launch a campaign as CELDF has in smaller towns to pass a Charter
>>>>>>>> amendment striking down corporate 'personhood' in San Francisco
>>>>>>>> County.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On a more practical and doable level, we need to sit down with some
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> attorney's and pass a Board ordinance with the strongest limits
>>>>>>>> possible
>>>>>>>> on independent and corporate election expenditure behavior that we
>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> come up with. It will take some deep boiler room consensus meetings
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> make it happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joe Lynn wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on how to control PG&E
>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>> spending on a ballot measure initiative. ?Particularly when the
>>>>>>>>> Supreme
>>>>>>>>> Court is controlled by Roberts/Alito style thinking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/5/08 11:42 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:brookse32 at aim.com> ?wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Remember all, that though the vote itself was lost, we have
>>>>>>>>>> already won.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have forced PG&E to spend more money than has -ever- been
>>>>>>>>>> spent on a
>>>>>>>>>> San Francisco campaign. And, after both Lennar corporation's $7
>>>>>>>>>> million
>>>>>>>>>> ballot deception to force toxic gentrification on the Southeast
>>>>>>>>>> side in
>>>>>>>>>> the last election, and now PG&E's even more outrageous moves to
>>>>>>>>>> buy this
>>>>>>>>>> election at an even higher (ludicrous) price, it is a -very- good
>>>>>>>>>> bet
>>>>>>>>>> that we will easily pass a strong corporate and independent
>>>>>>>>>> expenditure
>>>>>>>>>> campaign finance reform measure in the next year.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we have now built a strong and angry coalition of
>>>>>>>>>> progressives and
>>>>>>>>>> Supervisors who are -pissed- at PG&E.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PG&E's days are numbered.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we have already won ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But most importantly, the Community Choice renewable energy
>>>>>>>>>> project (the
>>>>>>>>>> first 51% referred to in Prop H) is already moving forward
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of
>>>>>>>>>> Prop H and PG&E is going to attack it as well. Our campaign has
>>>>>>>>>> helped
>>>>>>>>>> strongly reveal all of the tactics that PG&E will use to attack
>>>>>>>>>> Community Choice, and we will now be ready for them. And those
>>>>>>>>>> attacks
>>>>>>>>>> will carry much less weight, both because Community Choice is
>>>>>>>>>> much less
>>>>>>>>>> vulnerable to them in the way it is worded, because State law
>>>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>>>> forbids PG&E from attacking Community Choice, and because the
>>>>>>>>>> angry core
>>>>>>>>>> of organizers that PG&E has just attacked on Prop H, are now
>>>>>>>>>> primed and
>>>>>>>>>> ready to kick PG&E's ass on a much more level playing field with
>>>>>>>>>> Community Choice.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We will need all of you to help us win the Community Choice
>>>>>>>>>> fight; which
>>>>>>>>>> will -absolutely- bring us that 100% clean energy by 2040
>>>>>>>>>> regardless of
>>>>>>>>>> last night's outcome. Prop H simply would have made it easier too
>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To see why Community Choice is so important and why it will need
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> help, go to:
>>>>>>>>>> http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> http://communitychoiceenergy.org/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note that Community Choice has already passed as law, and it is
>>>>>>>>>> now
>>>>>>>>>> going out for bids to contractors. The key fight will be to get
>>>>>>>>>> customers to stick with Community Choice and not opt out for PG&E
>>>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>>>> the next year. This is a fight that we definitely can win, if we
>>>>>>>>>> stay on
>>>>>>>>>> it with a sharp focus.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we win this fight San Francisco -will- go 100% renewable and
>>>>>>>>>> soon.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note also that there are two more appointments to be made to the
>>>>>>>>>> SF
>>>>>>>>>> Public Utilities Commission (which is overseeing Community
>>>>>>>>>> Choice) and
>>>>>>>>>> the Supes now have the power to leverage those appointments and
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> sure that they will support Community Choice; and also support
>>>>>>>>>> closing
>>>>>>>>>> down the city's remaining polluting power plants.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So we have actually won our first battle by getting fully up in
>>>>>>>>>> PG&E's
>>>>>>>>>> face! and forcing its bullshit out in to the light of day.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now let's win the war for Community Choice which will kick PG&E
>>>>>>>>>> the hell
>>>>>>>>>> out of the City, and lead the world to save the planet.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> peace
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Eric Brooks
>>>>>>>>>> ????
>>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ??
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>>>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
>>>>> To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
>>>>> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sustainability mailing list
> Sustainability at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
>
>
>
>
--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/sustainability/attachments/20081110/ec8aaa23/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Sustainability
mailing list