Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We HaveAlready Won!
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@igc.org
[Original Message] From: Joe Lynn <joelynn114@hotmail.com> To: David Fairley <pamndave@speakeasy.net>; Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability@sfgreens.org>; Green Active list <active@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@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@hotmail.com> wrote:
I��ve 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��s 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@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@mindspring.com> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Susan King <funking@mindspring.com> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won! To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114@hotmail.com> <mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com> Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability@sfgreens.org> <mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org> , "Green Active list" <active@sfgreens.org> <mailto:active@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��ve 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��s 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��s 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@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@aim.com> >> <mailto:brookse32@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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
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@igc.org
[Original Message] From: Joe Lynn <joelynn114@hotmail.com> To: David Fairley <pamndave@speakeasy.net>; Eric Brooks
<brookse32@aim.com>
Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability@sfgreens.org>;
Green Active list <active@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@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@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@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@mindspring.com> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> wrote:
From: Susan King <funking@mindspring.com> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won! To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114@hotmail.com> <mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com> Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability@sfgreens.org> <mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org> , "Green Active list" <active@sfgreens.org> <mailto:active@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@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@aim.com> >>> <mailto:brookse32@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@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
There may have been reporting violations, but those were not causative of the measure failing. When you talk about stopping PG&E from ³pulling this again,² I assume you¹re talking about the obscene spending. Buckley as reinvigorated by the Alito/Roberts Court blocks us from that. Spending is speech. However, there may be some creative way of involving public finance in ballot measures. There¹s a lot to absorb from the way our new public finance program worked. We changed this in early 2008 to more than double the assistance available to campaigns. It appears we finally got enough cash into the campaigns so that they could withstand large independent expenditures. The critical issue to me is not how much is being spent against someone, but whether that person has enough funds to get the message out. I feel somewhat confirmed in that view from the results of D1, 3, and 11.. This lesson may be extrapolated to a ballot measure campaign as well. There are problems. Who would qualify for financing and how? What amounts would be available? Trying to block spending will run afoul of the courts. Empowering folks to communicate to the public in an unfiltered fashion seems the best avenue to me. On 11/10/08 10:05 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@aim.com> wrote:
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@igc.org
[Original Message] From: Joe Lynn <joelynn114@hotmail.com> <mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com> To: David Fairley <pamndave@speakeasy.net> <mailto:pamndave@speakeasy.net> ; Eric Brooks
<brookse32@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@aim.com>
Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability@sfgreens.org> <mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org> ;
Green Active list <active@sfgreens.org> <mailto:active@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@speakeasy.net> <mailto:pamndave@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@hotmail.com> <mailto:joelynn114@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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@mindspring.com> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > From: Susan King <funking@mindspring.com> > <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> > <mailto:funking@mindspring.com> > Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have > Already > Won! > To: "Joe Lynn" <joelynn114@hotmail.com> <mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com> > <mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com> > Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <sustainability@sfgreens.org> > <mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org> > <mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org> , "Green Active list" > <active@sfgreens.org> <mailto:active@sfgreens.org> > <mailto:active@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
participants (3)
-
Cal Broomhead -
Eric Brooks -
Joe Lynn