There Are Still 7 Crucial Congressional Primaries Coming Up For Progressives

Progressives have had a mixed year in terms of primaries. We had four big losses-- Norman Solomon in California, Ilya Sheyman in Illinois, Cecil Bothwell in North Carolina and Eric Griego in New Mexico-- and five big wins-- David Gill in Illinois, Patsy Keever in North Carolina, Matt Cartwright in Pennsylvania, Beto O'Rourke in Texas, and Nate Shinagawa in New York. Here's the schedule for the key primaries still unfolding that we're watching:

Darcy Burner (WA-1)- August 7
Syed Taj (MI-11)- August 7
Trevor Thomas (MI-3)- August 7
Chris Donovan (CT-5)- August 14
Nick Ruiz (FL-7)- August 14
Matt Heinz (AZ-2)- August 28
Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3)- August 28

The 3 primaries in Washington and Michigan are two weeks from yesterday! And all three look good, though none are in the bag. Darcy Burner's main opponent in a 5-way race for a new district stretching from Seattle's technology-forward suburbs to the agricultural areas up towards the Canadian border, is a quintessential self-entitled one-percenter, Suzan DelBene. DelBene is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic congressional cycle-- a serial business failure in every way but one: she made lots of money for herself as she caused nothing but economic devastation around her. Everyone in America now knows that multimillionaire Mitt Romney is engulfed in a scandal because he didn't release his tax returns and refuses to disclose his assets and finances; multimillionaire Suzan DelBene similarly refused to file her 2011 financial disclosure despite the fact that federal law required it. If she's the nominee, the Republicans will have an easy time beating her because of that alone. Polling against the crazed GOP candidate has consistently shown that DelBene would lose to him and that only Darcy has a chance to keep the seat blue.

But DelBene and (especially) her husband are loaded and they're determined to buy the nomination. DelBene has put more of her own money into the race than any other Democrat anywhere in America... and is running over a million dollars in self-funded TV ads against Darcy right now. She's outspending the other 4 candidates combined 4 to 1! Because of her money she's the favorite of the Inside-the-Beltway corrupt Establishment and has been endorsed by the New Dems (basically, the Blue Dogs without the white KKK sheets). It must be driving her insane that Darcy has been ahead in every single public and private poll of the district's Democratic voters. The DCCC, slimy as always, has asked donors to keep out of the race-- in effect leaving DelBene and her self-funding with the overwhelming money advantage. Daily Kos' Orange to Blue PAC, Blue America, DFA and the PCCC have pitched in for Darcy.

Michigan also has it's primary 2 weeks from tomorrow and we have two hot races, although there are other important ones as well (including in MI-14 where two incumbents face off, progressive and underfunded Hansen Clarke vs right-of-center Gary Peters and in MI-13 where progressive icon John Conyers is battling to save his seat against 3 Democratic state legislators and a school board trustee). Michigan's 3rd district (Grand Rapids/Battle Creek) has a hot primary between a young and super-accomplished activist, Trevor Thomas, and a rich old hack, Steve Pestka, who, as a state legislator consistently voted with the Republicans against Choice and to defund Planned Parenthood. He doesn't even allow for an exception in his anti-Choice mania for women who have been raped or when there is incest involved! He's the worst of what the old-time Democratic Party is still trying to foist on voters. Although he has some corrupt institutional support, 74% of his money ($590,118) comes by way of writing checks to himself. He's heavily invested in Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil, Occidental Petroleum and Devon Energy which is currently planning a controversial fracking project in Michigan. Pestka has failing grades from the League of Conservation Voters. Trevor pointed out that it doesn't make sense to "say you're concerned about high gas prices, or tax loopholes, or our environment when you're personally holding investments in Exxon." Pestka's campaign stinks to high heaven and Amash would make mincemeat out of him in no time flat.


In terms of contributions from real voters, Thomas is beating him handily and polls show that if there's a big turnout Thomas will win the primary. A big turnout in a summer primary is never easy and we're asking for anyone who can afford it to send Trevor last minute contributions for his get-out-the-vote efforts.

We've also talked a bit about the contest in MI-11 where Thad McCotter's hasty resignation has opened up a Republican-held seat to the Democrats. Under the new boundaries Obama would have beaten McCain in this district 50-48%. Dr. Syed Taj is unlikely to ever get real chummy with Michele Bachmann, but he's a distinguished physician with fantastic ideas for how to improve ObamaCare. Dr. Taj is a strong across-the-board progressive champion and in the primary he's facing a bizarre sociopath, Bill Roberts, who brazenly calls himself a LaRouche activist and is obsessed with impeaching President Obama. (Yes, we're talking about a Democratic primary.) This is the header from his website:


The following week, the action shifts east and south, to Connecticut and Florida. Chris Donovan, Speaker of the Connecticut House is a real threat to the corrupt Beltway Establishment. He's the embodiment of everything they fear-- with a record of achievement to prove it. Donovan defines what it means to be a champion of regular American working families-- and he's running against two self-entitled careerist hacks who are eager to immerse themselves in the sewers of Washington. One is the son of a wealthy lobbyist and the other is a grotesque ConservaDem bolstered by EMILY's List who, thankfully, has never accomplished any of her goals-- all of which were to cut services to working families while giving tax breaks to her wealthy financial supporters.

Also on August 14 there are two big match-ups in FL-7, one between Republicans and one between Democrats. Oddly, both have teabaggers! On the GOP side, old time Republican hack, John Mica-- one of Boehner's stooges-- faces off against the Member of Congress considered the stupidest person on the Hill, teabagger Sandy Adams. On the Democratic side Blue America's first endorsee of the cycle, Nicholas Ruiz, is facing a strange Tea Party Democrat, Jason Kendall. Grassroots Democrats everywhere are looking for elected officials equal to the challenge of today's Republican Party, and, alas, Obama, Hoyer, Reid, Wasserman-Schultz and Israel just aren't going to cut it in this climate. There's a time for magnanimity, timidity and bipartisan statesmanship-- and there's a time for kicking their asses. It's time to kick their asses-- which is why people are so excited about Nick Ruiz. We've been in these circumstances before as a people, when we were faced with the debauchery of the early 20th century and the subsequent implosion, followed by FDR's appearance in the 1930s and that's why FDR and the progressives of that time had such a tremendous impact on our country. After Bush, for whatever reason, Obama and the conservative consensus that rules Congress, didn't rise to the occasion. This is the time when we need more tribunes for working families who won't hesitate in standing up for Americans values and progressive principles and will never sell out to the one percent. Nick Ruiz is the embodiment of that kind of candidate.

The two teabaggers are likely to lose their primaries and then it will be a tough contest in November between Mica, who the district is pretty sick of, and Nick Ruiz, the independent-minded progressive who will get to Congress owing nothing to the corrupt conservative Democratic Beltway hierarchy.

And that brings us to the end of August-- the 28th-- when Arizona moves front and center. Blue America has two candidates, both in the southern part of the state with districts that split Tucson-- incumbent Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3) and challenger (and state Rep) Dr. Matt Heinz (AZ-2). Raúl is the nexus of the progressive movement inside Congress... and the power of the one percent has arrayed against him again. This time-- knowing they probably can't beat him in a general election-- they're throwing their money behind a fake Democrat, a conservative shill Amanda Aguirre who's getting tons of PAC support from health insurance companies, corporate agriculture (BCBS and CropLife America) and Canadian mining operation, Rosemont Copper. And she's got George Braun, a Republican Party operative, running her campaign. Raul spends his time and energy working for us, not working the phones for campaign contributions, the way most incumbents do. If you can, please consider stepping up for him now. He's the only incumbent member of the House endorsed by Blue America this cycle. While stumping for him in Tucson, Jim Hightower reminded voters that "they're not coming after Raúl... they're coming after YOU!"

Corporate interests have been successful in getting conservatives elected as Democrats in Arizona and they certainly succeeded in the other Tuscon district, where Ron Barber got elected and immediately started voting with the GOP, first to gut all the environmental legislation ever passed and then to gut Eric Holder as part of Darrell Issa's deranged anti-Obama witch hunt. This isn't the kind of Democrat anyone needs and, luckily, a progressive state Rep., Matt Heinz, looks like he can beat Barber next month. During an interview with Piers Morgan, Barber said in response to the recent Colorado tragedy that “between now and the election, I really believe that very little is going to be said about major policy issues.” Barber can’t talk the talk or walk the walk. He will not tackle hard issues that require a strong advocate-- issues like gun control, the environment and equality. That's why Democrats and independents are so excited about Matt. All Barber can do is hope people think he's Gabby Giffords.

The Antidote to Ryan's Toxic, Divisive Budget-- The Budget For All

In the aftermath of Ryan's smoke and mirrors budget proposal yesterday, Raul Grijalva and Keith Ellison convened an emergency meeting of the Congressional Progressive Caucus this morning to set the budget priorities for the Democrats' biggest and most influential House caucus. Grijalva pointed out that Ryan's feckless budget "compounds last year’s mistakes: reckless cuts that slash millions of jobs, an end to the Medicare guarantee, and higher health costs for America’s seniors. The GOP scheme gives more tax breaks to billionaires, Big Oil, and corporations that ship American jobs overseas."

Stressing, as they did last year when they presented the People's Budget, that "getting our fiscal house in order will require tough decisions. In charting a fiscally sustainable path and addressing the jobs crisis, the Congressional Progressive Caucus’s "Budget for All" adheres to a vision of this country espoused by all Americans: We believe in lending a helping hand; keeping an eye out for our neighbors; a shot at the American dream for everyone; hard work, responsibility, and equal opportunity; and ensuring basic fairness."

In striking contrast to Ryan's budget, which is basically a roadmap to impoverishment for working families and a further collapse of the middle class, the CPC proposal asks "the most fortunate to contribute a sensible share, and help remake a country badly shaken, but whose best days have yet to come. We ask because we value a teacher as much as a CEO, a grocer as much as a venture capitalist, working moms as much as working dads, and our rough neighborhoods as much as our safe suburbs... The American living on Main Street believes in the covenant made between a government and its citizens. We hear them, and honor the promises made by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The CPC Budget protects these basic guarantees: When you are old, you will not live in poverty; when you are sick, you will have affordable health care; and when you’ve fallen on tough times, you will have financial support. Those promises are not up for negotiation or experimentation."
In essence this is a brief summary of what came out of today's meeting:

Americans believe, and experts agree, that the solution to our debt and deficit woes should rely on three components: Job growth, increased revenues, and spending cuts. The Budget for All-- like any legitimate budget plan-- relies on all three. Government is not the panacea for the issues that we face, but it is not the singular cause of our nation’s strife as some would suggest. Our budget is a plan for those that believe in a government that works for them and helps find solutions.

Our Budget Invests in Job Creation Now & Lays the Foundation for the Future

When middle-class Americans earn a paycheck, the entire economy succeeds. By focusing our investments in targeted areas such as transportation infrastructure, domestic manufacturing, and small businesses innovation, while supporting tax credits for working families, the Budget for All gets the economy back on the right track.

Our Budget Eliminates the Deficit by 2022

The CPC budget eliminates the deficit in a way that does not devastate what Americans want preserved, specifically, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Instead of eroding America’s hard-earned retirement plan and social safety net, our budget targets the true drivers of deficits in the next decade: unsustainable tax policies, the wars overseas, and the causes and effects of the recent recession.

Comprehensive Economic Recovery Package

• Infrastructure Bank

• Surface transportation investment (we propose a six-year $556 billion reauthorization bill that, over ten years, would lead to a $213 billion increase in transportation funding)

• Making Work Pay tax credit for 2013 through 2015

• $1.45 trillion domestic investment package including:

The Emergency Jobs to Restore the American Dream Act-- School Improvement, Park Improvement, Student Jobs, Neighborhood Heroes, Health, Community, and Child Care Corps Job Creating Initiatives from the President’s FY2013 Budget

o Temporary 10 percent tax credit for new jobs and wage increases ($18.4 billion)

o Additional tax credits for investment in advanced energy manufacturing ($3.5 billion)

o National Network of Manufacturing Innovation Institutes ($1 billion)

o Capital access for entrepreneurs and small businesses ($2 million)

o Manufacturing Communities tax credit ($4.4 billion)

o Tax credit for the production of advanced technology vehicles ($1.9 billion)

o Tax credit for alternative-fuel commercial vehicles ($1.7 billion)

o Double the amount of expensed start-up expenditures ($3 billion)

o Enhance and make permanent the research and experimentation tax credit ($108 billion)

Individual Income Tax Policies

• Allow the Bush-era tax cuts to expire for the top 2% of earnings at the end of 2012, while extending marriage relief, credits, and incentives for children, families, and education.

• Allow the 28% and 25% brackets to sunset once the economy is on solid footing, in 2017 and 2019, respectively.

• Maintain refundable credits’ expansion as outlined in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child and Dependent Care Credit, and the American Opportunity Tax Credit)

• Index the AMT for inflation for a decade (the AMT patch is fully paid for)

• Enact the Fairness in Taxation Act - millionaire and billionaire tax rates proposal (adding 45%, 46%, 47%, 48%, and 49% top rates)

• Tax all capital gains and qualified dividends as ordinary income

• Repeal the step-up basis for capital gains

• Adopt sensible, pre-2001 estate tax policy

• Limit the rate at which itemized deductions can reduce tax liability to 28% for high earners

• Eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for vacation homes and yachts

• Replace the tax exclusion for interest on state and local bonds with a subsidy for the issuer

• Enact a high net worth surcharge (0.5% on wealth over $10 million, phased out over 10 years)

• End the exclusion for foreign-earned income

Corporate Tax Reform

• Eliminate corporate welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies

• Enact a financial crisis responsibility fee

• Enact a financial speculation tax (derivatives, foreign exchange)

• Reinstate Superfund taxes

• Price carbon pollution together with a robust rebate that holds low and moderate income households harmless

• Close various corporate loopholes that distort true tax liability

• Adopt the international tax reforms in the President’s FY2013 budget

Health Care

• Enact a public option

• Allow Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drug prices in Part D

• Adopt the CMS program integrity and other Medicare and Medicaid savings in the President’s budget

• Adopt the generic prescription drug development and release proposals in the President’s budget

• Reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicaid in the President’s budget

• Adopt the Narrowing Exceptions for Withholding Taxes (NEWT) Act

• Prevent a cut in Medicare physician payments for a decade (the “doc fix” is fully paid for)

• End subsidies for junk and fast food advertising to children

Social Security

• Eliminate the taxable maximum on the employer and employee side, phased in over 5 years.

• Maintain benefit structure, increase benefits based on higher contributions on the employee side

Defense Savings

• End overseas contingency operations emergency funding starting in Fiscal Year 2014, providing funding for a secure redeployment in FY2013

• Reduce baseline defense spending by reducing strategic capabilities, conventional forces, procurement, and end strength

Other Policies

• Enact Comprehensive immigration reform

• Reduce agriculture subsidies

• Adopt public financing of elections

A good day to show Raul Grijalva that you back him and the work he's doing in Congress? Please consider a contribution to a tough reelection campaign, where conservative anti-family forces have already recruited two right-winger "Business-friendly" Democrats-- really Republicans in a blue district-- to run against him. Raul has his own Blue America page.

Nick Ruiz, the Blue America candidate in the Orlando area, e-mailed me early this morning, very excited about this budget proposal from the CPC. He finds it "ambitious."

And that's exactly what America needs right now. Sound and vision-- not silence and textbook talking points. Not closet neoconservatism. Not ramshackle austerity. But rather, fresh ideas, diverse insights, and pure democratic fidelity.

America needs a socioeconomic Emancipation Proclamation-- for every man, woman and child. The CPC's Budget for All is it. Where Lincoln freed enslaved Americans, America again shall be freed from the punishment of misguided market fascism. The Budget for All invests in Main St. It requires patriotism from all, in the form of individual shared investment and corporate social responsibility.

We can do this. We can pass a budget like this, if not in 2012, then in 2013. Put me in Congress-- and I will see it through."

The Republican Party War Against The National Park System... Meet Cliff Stearns (R-FL)

I can never repeat these paragraphs from Mike Lux's book, The Progressive Revolution, too frequently:

If you look at our country’s long history, from the days of the first stirrings of our revolutionary impulses against Britain to today, progressive leaders and progressive movements have moved this country forward in the face of bitter-- and frequently violent-- opposition from reactionaries and defenders of the status quo. Consider the major advances in American history:

• The American Revolution
• The Bill of Rights and the forging of a democracy
• Universal white male suffrage
• Public education
• The emancipation of the slaves
• The national park system
• Food safety
• The breakup of monopolies
• The Homestead Act
• Land grant universities
• Rural electrification
• Women’s suffrage
• The abolition of child labor
• The eight hour workday
• The minimum wage
• Social Security
• Civil rights for minorities and women
• Voting rights for minorities and the poor
• Cleaning up our air, our water, and toxic dump sites
• Consumer product safety
• Medicare and Medicaid

Every single one of those reforms, which are literally the reforms that made this country what it is today, was accomplished by the progressive movement standing up to the fierce opposition of conservative reactionaries who were trying to preserve their own power. American history is one long argument between progressivism and conservatism.

The striking thing about this long debate is how much the arguments that have occurred are repetitive over time, in terms of their rhetoric, constituencies, philosophy, and the values they represent. From generation to generation, the conservatives who oppose reform and progress have used the same kinds of arguments over and over again.

Notice what Mike has right between the progressive vs. conservative battle to emancipate the slaves and the progressive vs. conservative battle to move towards guaranteeing food safety for consumers: the progressive vs. conservative battle to establish the great American national park system. Hard to believe but the conservatives fought against it like enraged animals-- well... not so hard to believe if you're watching what corrupt and sleazy Florida Congressman Cliff Stearns has been up to lately.

There have been (sick) jokes about how Greece should sell off some of their Aegean islands to German (and Wall Street) banksters to end the financial crisis the banksters have helped get them into. Ha-ha. Stearns says we should sell off some of our national parks to the same people. Watch the video above. "We don’t need more national parks in this country," the bribe-besoted criminal told a townhall meeting. "We need to actually sell off some of our national parks." Think Progress tells the whole sordid story.

Our national parks represent America’s heritage, held in trust from one generation to the next.

Despite Stearns’ idea for a national-park fire sale, the facts show that parks, monuments, and other protected places generate a steady stream of wealth for both the treasury and local businesses. In 2010, Florida’s Everglades National Park generated 2,364 jobs and over $140 million in visitor spending, and Florida’s 11 national parks in total provided $582 million in economic benefits. The National Park Service also reports that America’s parks overall created $31 billion and 258,000 jobs in 2010. In addition to their economic impacts, national parks have important value in that they are available to all of us for recreation, not just the wealthy few.

This is not the first time Republican members of Congress have advocated selling off Americans’ public lands without clarifying how taxpayers would get a fair return for them. Last fall, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) proposed selling off 3.3 million acres of the public lands that belong to all of us. And former Rep. Richard Pombo proposed selling national parks to mining companies in 2005.

So you have Cliff Stearns above with his perspective-- "We need to actually sell off some of our national parks"-- so let me contrast them with a few progressives with a different perspective:

"The establishment of the National Park Service is justified by considerations of good administration, of the value of natural beauty as a National asset, and of the effectiveness of outdoor life and recreation in the production of good citizenship." -President Theodore Roosevelt

"There is nothing so American as our national parks... The fundamental idea behind the parks... is that the country belongs to the people, that it is in process of making for the enrichment of the lives of all of us." -President Franklin D. Roosevelt

"National parks are the best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best rather than our worst." -Pulitizer Prizing-winning author Wallace Stegner

"The parks do not belong to one state or to one section.... The Yosemite, the Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon are national properties in which every citizen has a vested interest; they belong as much to the man of Massachusetts, of Michigan, of Florida, as they do to the people of California, of Wyoming, and of Arizona."

"Who will gainsay that the parks contain the highest potentialities of national pride, national contentment, and national health? A visit inspires love of country; begets contentment; engenders pride of possession; contains the antidote for national restlessness.... He is a better citizen with a keener appreciation of the privilege of living here who has toured the national parks." -Stephen Mather, National Parks Service Director (1917-1929)

"The American way of life consists of something that goes greatly beyond the mere obtaining of the necessities of existence. If it means anything, it means that America presents to its citizens an opportunity to grow mentally and spiritually, as well as physically. The National Park System and the work of the National Park Service constitute one of the Federal Government's important contributions to that opportunity. Together they make it possible for all Americans--millions of them at first-hand--to enjoy unspoiled the great scenic places of the Nation... The National Park System also provides, through areas that are significant in history and prehistory, a physical as well as spiritual linking of present-day Americans with the past of their country." -Newton Drury, National Parks Service Director (1940-1951)

"As we Americans celebrate our diversity, so we must affirm our unity if we are to remain the 'one nation' to which we pledge allegiance. Such great national symbols and meccas as the Liberty Bell, the battlefields on which our independence was won and our union preserved, the Lincoln Memorial, the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, and numerous other treasures of our national park system belong to all of us, both legally and spiritually. These tangible evidences of our cultural and natural heritage help make us all Americans." -Edwin C. Bearss, NPS Chief Historian

"The parks are the Nation's pleasure grounds and the Nation's restoring places... The national parks... are an American idea; it is one thing we have that has not been imported." -J. Horace McFarland, president, American Civic Assn., 1916

Watch this preview from Ken Burns' PBS series, The National Parks: America's Best Idea and then think about these Republican freaks like Cliff Stearns who want to steal from all of us and sell the national parks off to help enrich their already TOO rich campaign contributors. Watch it, please...because the Republican Party plans to steal it from us. They really do.



UPDATE: I Don't Want To Give Anyone The Wrong Impression Of The Great State Of Florida

It's not all about beasts like Cliff Stearns. Nick Ruiz is a young father and an environmentalist-- he ran as a Green in 2010-- who is the Democratic Party challenger to whoever wins the vicious primary between clueless anti-environmental Republican John Mica and Sandy Adams. Nick was the first candidate Blue America endorsed this cycle-- and for good reason. He's the antidote to the Republican one-percent extremism that's turned their party topsy-turvy. He can really use some help with his 100% grassroots campaign. Earlier today I asked him for his views on Stearns outrageous proposition.

"Market fascists like Rep. Cliff Stearns, with their GOP TeaParty, obsessive-compulsive disorder of hyper-privatization, represent nothing short of a political sickness. Privatize parks? To what end? America today bears witness to a thoroughly deranged, GOP attempt to deconstruct American civilization as we have come to know it: No parks. No healthcare. No worker rights. No vacations. No collective bargaining rights. No right to choose. No equality.

What's next for the GOP? Cut wages? Oh, yes-- and during the Great Recession, amidst record unemployment and declining prosperity for the 99%-- the GOP proposes to cut wages in half, or rather, that's what the GOP tried to do here in the FL legislature in the 2012 session.

Until my last political breath, I will challenge this market fascist crusade to slaughter the liberal commonwealth of the United States of America. Our beautiful parks, lands and oceans deserve to be protected in the name of the people-- and that is exactly what I intend to do in Congress."

Romney Contributors Are The Hedge Fund Managers And Commodities Speculators Driving Up The Price Of Gas

Last week we tried drawing attention to the fact that it is the same hedge fund managers and commodities speculators funding Mitt Romney's profligate campaign who have pushed the price of gas up for their GOP allies. Every time you buy an increasingly expensive gallon of gasoline, you're funding Mitt Romney's shameful attack ads. Bernie Sanders-- whose reelection efforts you can support here-- has been fighting this battle for years-- and this week he stepped it up.

Bernie penned a letter to Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the other 4 members, asking them to crack down for real on excessive oil speculation. Both senators and House Members are stampeding to sign on to the letter. Not Republicans of course. Here's the letter:

Dear Chairman Gensler, and Commissioners Chilton, Wetjen, Sommers, and O’Malia:

We are writing to urge you to immediately enact strong position limits to eliminate excessive oil speculation as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. As you know, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that your agency promulgate and enforce such limits no later than January 17, 2011. We are disappointed that, more than a year later, the Commission has not fulfilled this important regulatory duty.

Congress determined that speculative position limits are an effective and critically important tool to address excessive speculation in America's oil and gasoline markets. It is one of your primary duties--indeed, perhaps your most important--to ensure that the prices Americans pay for gasoline and heating oil are fair, and that the markets in which prices are discovered operate free from fraud, abuse, and manipulation.

There has been a major debate over the last several years as to whether spikes in oil prices are caused entirely by the fundamentals of supply and demand or whether excessive speculation in the oil futures market is playing a major role. It is clear to us that debate has ended. Exxon Mobil, Goldman Sachs, the Saudi Arabian government, the American Trucking Association, Delta Airlines, the Petroleum Marketers Association of America, and even a report last year from the St. Louis Federal Reserve have all indicated that excessive oil speculation significantly increases oil and gasoline prices. According to a February 27, 2012 article in Forbes, excessive oil speculation “translates out into a premium for gasoline at the pump of $.56 a gallon” based on a recent report from Goldman Sachs.

The facts bear this out. According to the Energy Information Administration, the supply of oil and gasoline is higher today than it was three years ago, when the national average price for a gallon of gasoline was just $1.90. And, while the national average price of gasoline is now over $3.70 a gallon, the demand for oil in the U.S. is at its lowest level since April of 1997. Nor is the global supply of oil at issue. According to the International Energy Agency, in the last quarter of 2011 the world oil supply rose by 1.3 million barrels per day while demand only increased by 0.7 million barrels per day. Yet, during this same period, the price of Texas light sweet crude rose by over 12%. Meanwhile, oil speculators now control over 80 percent of the energy futures market, a figure that has more than doubled over the past decade.

As the cost for American people to fill their gas tanks continues to skyrocket, the CFTC continues to drag its feet on imposing strict speculation limits to eliminate, prevent, or diminish excessive oil speculation as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. Although the CFTC has adopted initial position limits, they are not strong enough and not yet in force owing to industry opposition, delays in swaps oversight and data collection. This is simply unacceptable and must change.

We urge you to take immediate action to impose strong and meaningful position limits, and to utilize all authorities available to you to make sure that the price of oil and gasoline reflects the fundamentals of supply and demand. This could entail promulgation of rules only with regard to the currently regulated exchange markets. Swaps rules should also be implemented immediately, but even so, waiting for swaps rules to trigger all position limits is simply not adequate to protect consumers. We urge you to develop alternative methods of moving forward and to do so as swiftly and expeditiously as possible.

We have a responsibility to ensure that the price of oil is no longer allowed to be driven up by the same Wall Street speculators who caused the devastating recession that working families are now experiencing. That means that the CFTC must do what the law mandates and end excessive oil speculation once and for all.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to receiving your response.

Many of the Blue America candidates have been campaigning against speculators manipulating prices of gas and other commodities all year. Lee Rogers (D-CA) has been using the argument effectively in discussions with voters in Santa Clarita, Antelope Valley and Simi Valley in Southern California:

"Oil speculators gamble on Wall Street and we pay the price at the pump. The price is not governed by supply and demand. The supply is not our problem. Fuel was America's largest export in 2011. Our oil output is higher now than it has been in decades. But speculators who bet that oil will be a higher price in a month from now, based on turmoil in the Middle East, rising global demand, or refinery capacity, end up causing an artificial supply problem even when one doesn't exist. This is because those who own the commodity, hold on to it waiting for the price to raise. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that makes both the speculator and the oil company rich. Oil is one of our most valued commodities. It affects the price of nearly everything we purchase from fresh produce, to shipping, to airplane tickets, to taxi rides. In some cases those who gamble with speculation, also own the commodity. Talk about a conflict of interest!


"Big oil and the Republicans solution is to 'drill, drill, drill.' Since high gas prices isn't really a supply problem, drilling for more oil and increasing the supply won't solve our problems. It will just make more money for the oil companies already raking in record profits, because speculators will keep the price high and there will be more oil to sell at that high price. Plus, if we start drilling today, the real effects at the pump will take months or years to feel. On the other hand, ending oil speculation will have an immediate effect on gas prices.

"Speculation causes volatility in the market price for oil. Let's restrict oil trading like other goods, in the open market based on real stock investments. I'm calling for an end to oil speculation and when I get to Congress, some of my first actions will be fighting to remove this stranglehold around the necks of consumers at the hands of big oil companies and speculators trying to get rich."

Straight across the country, Nicholas Ruiz makes a similar argument against the right-wing tag team Sandy Adams and John Mica:

"Senator Sanders' letter illustrates that there are members of Congress that understand the problems of trade and speculation, and who are working on solutions to these problems. For my part, I not only support the objectives of the letter, but urge the nation to consider that we must move forward with a New Deal agenda that tethers the investment activity of Wall Street to the viability of Main Street. An important component of the New Deal agenda I propose is the institution of the Public Trust, a new federal trading institution which ensures that the American people's interests are protected against excessive speculation."

A couple dozen senators-- from the best of the best, like Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Al Franken (D-MN), to the real bottom of the barrel, your Mark Pryors (D-AR) and Joe Manchins (D-WV)-- have signed onto Bernie's letter, giving him the clout he's needed to get this show on the road. Over in the House there is a great ideological span, from stalwart progressives to sleazy Blue Dogs supporting this-- though no Republicans, of course. These are the Democrats who have signed on so far:

Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Louise Slaugher (D-NY)
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)
Pete DeFazio (D-OR)
Peter Welch (D-VT)
Pete Stark (D-CA)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Bruce Braley (D-IA)
Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Sale Kildee (D-MI)
Mike Honda (D-CA)
Brian Higgins (D-NY)
Paul Tonko (D-NY)
Leonard Boswell (Blue Dog-IA)
Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Joe Donnelly (Blue Dog-IN)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
John Tierney (D-MA)
Mike Michaud (Blue Dog-ME)
Hank Johnson (D-GA)
John Lewis (D-GA)
John Olver (D-MA)
Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
Rosa LeLauro (D-CT)
Jim McDermott (D-WA)
John Conyers (D-WA)
Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
David Cicilline (D-RI)
Lucille Royball-Allard (D-CA)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)

My new congressman, craven corporate shill and Blue Dog, Adam Schiff hasn't bothered to sign on. He might fear losing a nickel from some corporate lobbyist. How about your congresscritter? Did he or she sign? Paul Ryan (R-WI) would probably rather cut his hand off than sign anything like that. The Democrat running against him, Rob Zerban, would have been glad to sign it-- and help push it. He told us that "Paul Ryan and the GOP are looking at the jobs numbers and they know our country is rising and our economy is growing. None of this progress is due to their help and instead all they have done is obstruct and get Congress sidetracked. This effort to shift the conversation from encouraging job growth figures to gas prices is a desperate attempt to distract the American people. Ryan has pushed for tens of billions in tax breaks to oil but refuses to see that now, more than ever, we need to end our dependence on foreign oil." And Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), who narrowly lost her congressional seat today, told us that "With gas prices causing real concern among Ohio's working families, it is time for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to get to work and make sure that Americans are not being taken advantage of at the pump. Speculators hurt industry and businesses from airlines, to trucking, to grocery stores and restaurants, as unfair gas prices drive up the price of goods and services. Regulators need to do their job, a lesson we should have already learned from the financial collapse of 2008."

Today's newest Blue America endorsee, Montana national security expert, Rep. Franke Wilmer sees the situation from another perspective: "For 40 years we have considered oil and energy independence to be national security issues. If that's still true-- and I think it is-- then of course we must prevent excessive speculation. Would we speculate on the future probability of nuclear war or another terrorist attack? Of course not." Norman Solomon (D-CA), also devoted to national security as a priority in his campaign told us that "The myth that rising gas prices are mere results of supply-and-demand is very useful to oil cartels. What we need from Congress is the clarity and commitment that insists on regulatory integrity instead of corporate-friendly passivity." All of these candidates want to stop excessive speculation and they all agree with Bernie Sanders approach. The way Alan Grayson (D-FL) put it was that "I have this quaint and hopelessly old-fashioned view that when the law sets a deadline, it should be met." All they candidates are on the same page-- and all on this page too (if you'd like to see them in Congress next year).

Let me leave you with a few words from someone who will hopefully be in Congress next year, Darcy Burner (D-WA), who would have not just signed the letter, but would have offered to help Bernie draft it:

"It's long past time we cracked down on people who make money by manipulating markets to rip Americans off. Hard-working Americans deserve fair prices, and Senator Sanders is right on in calling for the CFTC to live up to it's legal obligations."

Unmanned

As we mentioned a few days ago, California criminal Congressman Lucky Bucky McKeon started and chairs, the House Unmanned Systems Caucus, a polite way of saying the Drone Caucus. This is little more than a garden variety scam by the manufacturers of drones to ingratiate themselves to a bunch of Military Industrial Complex whores in Congress... like Lucky Bucky and money grubbing warmongers like Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX), Joe "You Lie" Wilson (R-SC), Ken Calvert (R-CA), Todd Akin (R-MO), Rick Berg (R-ND), Mike Rogers (R-MI), Brian Bilbray (R-CA), David Dreier (R-CA), Don Young (R-AK), Michael McCaul (R-TX), Darrell Issa (R-CA), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Robert Brady (D-PA), Joe Heck (R-NV), Anne Marie Buerkle (R-NY) and, of course Dan Boren (Blue Dog-OK).

But the problems with the drones isn't just about killing in other countries. There isn't enough of a market for that. And Lucky Bucky and his band of whores stepped in to help the industry solve that by pushing to have drones flying all over a sky near you... very soon. A bill McKeon was paid very well to see passed was approved by the House 2 weeks ago and by the Senate on Monday "to open U.S. skies to unmanned drone flights within four years."

The FAA is also required under the bill to provide military, commercial and privately-owned drones with expanded access to U.S. airspace currently reserved for manned aircraft by Sept. 30, 2015. That means permitting unmanned drones controlled by remote operators on the ground to fly in the same airspace as airliners, cargo planes, business jets and private aircraft.

Currently, the FAA restricts drone use primarily to segregated blocks of military airspace, border patrols and about 300 public agencies and their private partners. Those public agencies are mainly restricted to flying small unmanned aircraft at low altitudes away from airports and urban centers.

Within nine months of the bill's passage, the FAA is required to submit a plan on how to safely provide drones with expanded access.

Even if you think it's cool that American drones are bombing the hell out of Pakistani civilians and causing unthinkable amounts of collateral damage-- people's sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, dreams... you want them spying on you here at home? The Tampa police has already ordered some. Thursday the Center for Democracy & Technology sent out this statement to the press. Did you hear anything about it on TV or radio... read it anywhere?

Congress is demanding drones in the air over the United States-- without considering the civil liberties issues. Within the span of three days last week, the House and then the Senate passed a law-- H.R. 658-- requiring the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to speed up, within 90 days, its current licensing process for government use of drones domestically and to open the national airspace to drone aircraft for commercial and private use by October 2015. While the law requires the FAA to develop guidance on drone safety, the law says absolutely nothing about the privacy or transparency implications of filling the sky with flying robots.

As CDT and others have pointed out, drones are powerful surveillance devices capable of being outfitted with facial recognition cameras, license plate scanners, thermal imaging cameras, open WiFi sniffers, and other sensors. Drones' unique ability to hover hundreds or thousands of feet in the air-- undetected, for many hours-- enables constant, pervasive monitoring over a wide area. Without clear privacy rules, public and private use of drones can usher in an era of unparalleled physical surveillance. Without transparency requirements, citizens will not even have the basic right to know who owns the drone watching them from above. Congress, the FAA, industry bodies, and the American people all should play a role in ensuring that drones are used responsibly.

Congress missed a major opportunity to build civil liberties protections into H.R. 658. Instead, Congress fast-tracked the bill, ordering the FAA to unleash drones without even requesting a study or holding a hearing on the civil liberties implications of domestic drone deployment. Perhaps indignant hearings are inevitable, however, once hours of embarrassing drone footage hits YouTube. Ideally, privacy rules for civilian and government use of drones would be an explicit part of the baseline privacy legislation, though Congress should consider giving the FAA authority to build privacy into the drone licensure process.

As CDT argued in a previous blog post, the FAA should build transparency standards into its drone certification process. First, applicants for a license to use a drone should be required to submit a statement disclosing the surveillance capabilities of the drone and the intended use of information the drone might collect. Second, the FAA should make the drone license and accompanying privacy statement publicly available online. There should not be an exception for law enforcement, although there may be a national security exception. Transparency requirements alone will certainly not provide adequate civil liberties protections to the American people, but they would generally prevent the secret use of drones.

The transparency requirements CDT proposes are well within the FAA's mandate to ensure the airways are used safely. There are many realistic scenarios in which knowledge of drone ownership can affect public safety, such as if an individual seeks to learn whether her abusive ex-husband possesses a drone license, as well as numerous legal precedents alleging a risk of harm to the public in divulging travels patterns, political views, or sensitive affiliations-- all of which drone surveillance can reveal. The FAA already makes many aircraft licenses searchable online, enabling the public to search for license-holders by name, craft tail number, or craft make and model - it would be illogical not to establish a similar process for drone licenses. Unfortunately, the FAA has steadfastly refused to identify current drone license-holders.

The drone industry has a big image problem. A glance through the comments section of any online news article on drones reveals an outpouring of strong opinions that alternate between alarm, fatalism, and-- very often-- fantasies of shooting drones out of the sky as a means to protect privacy. To counter this widespread negative sentiment, the drone industry has announced a major public relations effort to make Americans more comfortable with drones. (I sincerely hope this PR push will include drones dropping ice cream sandwiches and confetti on you on your birthday.) To be sure, drones can do many positive things and can spark broad technological innovation. However, the industry's goodwill gesture will not mask continued use of unmanned aircraft to watch over political rallies, monitor traffic, or levy taxes. The industry needs to do something a lot more substantial than PR.

The drone industry has a strong interest in supporting-- at minimum-- transparency requirements for drone licenses. Secret use of drones magnifies the perception of privacy invasion, sensationalizes the industry, and provides cover for those who would use drones for unethical or harmful purposes. The transparency requirements CDT proposes would subject the industry to almost no extra burden while providing the public with an awareness that could foster greater comfort with the technology. The drone industry should think seriously about a set of best practices for drone operators that include not identifying individuals over space and time without permission. CDT made similar arguments with regard to facial recognition.

The FAA is widely expected to propose rules for domestic drones this coming spring, at which time the FAA will solicit public comments. All Americans can submit their concerns to the FAA and demand, at a minimum, that all drone licenses be made publicly available. There is a lot at stake here. The fact that Congress, the FAA, and the drone industry appear to be ignoring the issue portends a big mess on the horizon. But by the time they get around to establishing the needed civil liberties protections, the horizon may already be filled with softly whirring black dots.

The bill passed the House 248-169, 24 Blue Dogs and Business-Dems joining all but 12 Republicans to take another giant step into Big Brother Land-- courtesy of Buck McKeon. All the usual suspects-- corporate whores like Cantor, Ryan, Upton, et al-- joined McKeon to push this through. Interestingly enough so did several Tea party-supported Republicans who were elected by people who aren't interested in drones snooping into their lives. A good example of a well-compensated corporate whore who took lots of money from the drone industry lobbyists and then voted to sell out his constituents on their behalf was John Mica (R-FL). Florida progressive Democrat Nick Ruiz isn't sure which drone supporter he'll be facing in November, crony-capitalist John Mica or lunatic fringe teabagger Sandy Adams. The two of them are in a life-and-death cage match for who will face Nick in the general. Mica voted for the drones because he was paid to. Adams was too stupid to figure out that her Tea Party base would be unhappy with a piece of legislation that impinges so directly on individual liberties. (She's also a member of McKeon's hopelessly corrupt Drone Caucus.)

"All the way from the Left to the Right of the political spectrum-- voters, privacy advocates and everyone against unwarranted surveillance of citizens by corporations or government-- are stunned by Congress' decision to essentially underwrite drone flights over American skies. But that's what happens when you elect people like Sandy Adams (R-FL) and John Mica (R-FL), both of whom voted to OK the use of drones, domestically, this week. And that's one more reason, why I'm running against them in the new FL District 7.

Rather than obsessing over the greater good of defense contractors that want to sell America surveillance drones, let's focus instead on the greater good, livelihood and socioeconomic improvement of our people. We don't need more unwarranted surveillance and invasions of our privacy-- what Americans want and need are higher wages, more jobs, greener energy, a cleaner environment and a better education for our children. It's just that simple."

UPDATE: Is This What Tea Party Activists Want-- 30,000 Drones Spying On Us?

Led by Buck McKeon, conservatives voted overwhelmingly to approve 30,000 drones flying over the American skies. Is this what the foolish Tea Party activists gave us by giving the Republican Party the majority in Congress? Were they just kidding about personal privacy?

Do not feel bad for not knowing about this, because, similar to the anti-Constitutional NDAA legislation, they purposefully tried to hide this from the American public. The corporate controlled mainstream media was once again complicit and was an integral accessory in this crime against “We the People.” The corporate mainstream media failed us all miserably once again.

Sure, the corporate media did fail us. And these guys are paid by the same sociopaths who have bankrolled the careers of politicians like Buck McKeon, Sandy Adams, John Mica, Eric Cantor, John Boehner, Paul Ryan, Fred Upton and the rest of the gang that pushed this outrage through.

Marcy Winograd Leaves The Democratic Party-- Or Did The Democratic Party Leave Progressives?

In 2010 Nick Ruiz ran as a Green Party write-in candidate in a central Florida district with a reactionary Democratic incumbent, Suzanne Kosmas, and an insane teabagger challenger, Sandy Adams. Nick didn't really expect to win but he very much wanted to make sure that progressive ideas were inserted into the conversation and that the election wouldn't just be about two candidates fighting for ownership of right-wing ideas positions. As often happens when there's a DINO and a real Republican both advocating conservatism, the Republican won. Nick immediately switched party registration and is running again-- as a Democrat. He hasn't changed a word of his platform or his grassroots approach, of course. But this time voters in Seminole County will get a choice between a reactionary vision and a progressive vision-- unless the DCCC decides to put up a rich conservative candidate of their own, as they often do when grassroots progressives like Nick run in winnable districts.

Here in Los Angeles, Marcy Winograd has been an icon of those same kinds of values and principles... and tactics. She announced this week that she's moving in the opposite direction though. A former Democratic Party activist and congressional candidate, she's re-registered as a Green Party member. She explained what's she's doing in a post at the California Progress Report, part of which is reproduced below:

After the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, with its codification of imprisonment without charge or trial, I could no longer register voters for the Democratic Party – even with the hope of involving new registrants in the California Democratic Party’s popular Progressive Caucus. If I could not ask someone to join the Democratic Party, I could not in good conscience stay in the party, even as an insurgent writing resolutions and platform planks to end our wars for oil.

Unfortunately, too many corporate Democrats, beholden to big-money donors or to a jobs sector dependent on militarism, vote for perpetual war and the surveillance state, replete with secret wiretaps, black hole prisons, and targeted assassinations. Far too many who are fearful or bought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee vote for legislation that relegates Palestinians to second-class citizenship and threatens to take our country to the brink of an unthinkable war on Iran. 

President Obama, despite his eloquence and initial popularity, has continued, and in some cases, expanded Republican Party policies under George Bush by escalating drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; hiring deregulators from predatory banks to craft economic policy; repeatedly putting Social Security cuts on the table; lifting a 20-year moratorium on new nuclear power plants; signing NDAA legislation that eviscerates due process; increasing U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids and arrests of undocumented workers.

As the US empire crashes on the shores of rapacious greed, as power shifts from the federal to the local level, the Green Party can play a crucial role in creating and promoting local economies, worker or consumer-owned cooperatives, model municipal policy and participatory democracy. The time is ripe for municipal federalism with its emphasis on cities sharing expertise, policies, and strategies for community building in a sustainable world. 

I want to be part of that movement to create a post-empire future that rejects perpetual war, addictive consumerism and vulture capitalism to embrace a life-affirming vision of sustainability with measurable goals for energy, water and food independence.

As more people struggle financially and the cost of energy and optional travel increases, Americans will stay closer to home to invest and recreate more intensely in their communities and neighborhoods. Our challenge in the age of withering empire is to set a new economic course that helps us invest our resources in ourselves, rather than multinational companies that extract our wealth and labor for the 1%. 

While running Greens for federal office may help to register new Greens, to attract young people to the Party, the Greens’ resources – economic and grassroots-- are best used at the local level where the Party has experienced the most success in the United States. In 2011, 8 out of 12 California Green Party members running for local office got elected. 
 
In Richmond, California, the working class city’s Green Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, representing more than 100,000 residents, took on Chevron, resulting in a 115-million dollar pollution settlement, enacted a waiver on residential solar power fee installation; and spearheaded one of the nation’s toughest anti-foreclosure ordinances that exacts a $1,000 a day fine on banks who fail to maintain foreclosed property. McLaughlin was one of several Green Mayors to publicly oppose the dirty tar sands project, signing on to a letter to President Obama urging him to reject, as he recently announced, the XL pipeline that would carry the dirtiest crude from Canada across the United States to the Gulf of Mexico.

In the city of Fairfax in Marin County, Green Mayor Pam Hartwell-Herrero and a majority Green city council has banned intrusive Smart Meters, and authored successful ballot initiatives to ban plastic bags and the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. Fairfax is the third California city to have a Green majority on its town council, joining Sebastopol in Sonoma County from 2000 to 2008 and Arcata in Humboldt County, which had the world's first Green majority on any legislative body between 1996 and 1998 and then again from 2000 to 2002. 

...Rather than running candidates for every state and federal office, Greens can invest their energy in campaigning for local non-partisan offices, in electing Greens to neighborhood councils  and city councils; union leadership positions, pension and credit union boards, associated student bodies – and to movement-building and media messaging that injects and accentuates a Green anti-consumerist pro-sustainability vision into the economic discourse.

Though our emphasis should be local, our scope global as we solidify relationships with Green Party members across the world. Let us hold the Greens from Europe to Africa close to our hearts as we reject nationalism-- its attendant racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating-– and embrace global citizenry  and planetary-caretaking.

Let us look to the German Green Party, the first to enjoy national prominence and the catalyst behind Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Encouraged by the German Greens, we must challenge billions in U.S. federal subsidies for new nuclear power plants and demand plant closures from California to New York. With a void in leadership in the U.S. anti-nuclear movement, the Green Party can play a key role in re-invoking the moratorium lifted under the Obama administration.

Elsewhere in Europe, Greens have launched a Green New Deal (GND) aimed at “reducing inequalities within and between societies, and reconciling our lifestyles-- the way we live, produce and consume-- with the physical limits of our planet” through progressive taxation, tax incentives for green initiatives, and new economic indicators beyond the Gross Domestic Product. For example, in Vienna, Austria, a GND initiative built “bike city”-– a housing project that includes bike rental and maintenance, a compressed air station, 300 bicycle parking spaces, and extra large elevators for bike transport.

Let us build a new American landscape of bike cities, urban gardens, municipal credit unions, barter economies, and city-owned utilities with Greens organizing a new power-sharing worker-member-owner paradigm a la the Mondragon Cooperatives Cooperation in northern Spain. Based in Basque region, the Mondragon is a federation of worker cooperatives employing 84,000 people in four critical sectors: finance; industry; retail; knowledge.

Electorally, I envision a fusion approach-– whereby Greens support progressive Democrats, just as Los Angeles Green Party members recommended my candidacy when I challenged war profiteer Jane Harman for Congress, and just as Green Party activists in northern California support PDA’s Norman Solomon to fill retiring Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey’s seat. 

Endorsing progressive Democrats-- a la Congress Members Kucinich, Lee, Grijalva-– on the national level-– and Assemblyman Bill Monning and Senator Fran Pavley on the California state legislative level-– makes sense until the Green Party is ready and able to successfully elect statewide and federal candidates of its own, either because the Party has exponentially multiplied its current voter registration, estimated at 300,000 in the nation; 110,000 in California, or because enough cities like Oakland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Portland have instituted instant run-off or ranked-choice voting to increase the likelihood that voters will not simply cast their ballots for pre-ordained winners or lessers-of-evil but instead choose a candidate who truly represents their vision of peace, social justice, and environmental sustainability. 

Ranked choice voting must be a strategic priority for the Green Party in the U.S., with Greens in every leadership position-– be it a partisan office or a non-partisan environmental organization-- introducing ranked-choice voting into their respective organization. Strategically, Greens might organize a coalition of third parties-– Greens, Peace and Freedom, Libertarians, and the well-funded centrist Americans Elect – to institute proportional representation through state ballot initiatives for ranked choice voting.

Such initiatives would appeal to voters who want to save budget-starved states, counties or cities millions of dollars wasted on run-off elections.

In the meantime, until widespread adoption of ranked choice voting, the Green Party might leverage its power by becoming a fusion party, regardless of state laws like the one in California that prohibit candidates from becoming the nominee of more than one party. On the grassroots level, endorsing Democratic Party candidates active in Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) would address the “spoiler” charge and position Greens as a swing voting constituency, much as a swing state can decide a Presidential election.

Let the Greens be wooed; let every candidate running for city, state, or federal office feel compelled to address the priorities of the Green Party, and let our party learn the lessons of the Swedes and Norwegians who successfully challenged the 1% by building strong coalition governments and coalition movements behind those coalition governments.

While it’s true that California Democratic Party delegates can be stripped of their delegate status for endorsing Greens in elections, there is nothing stopping non-delegates active in PDA from participating in a blue-green coalition that endorses and works to elect local Greens. In fact, that should be the call to action, watering the Green seeds for the next generation.

In LA County, where there are 23,000 registered Greens, and over 900,000 Declined to States, the Party will participate in an aggressive voter registration campaign before the November 2012 election when a Green Party Presidential candidate, perhaps  pioneering environmental health advocate Dr. Jill Stein,  will likely enjoy ballot status in at least 17 states, including the largest state, California, with its 55 electoral votes, and swing states Ohio, Florida and Colorado. Other Green Party ballot access states or districts include Arkansas, Arizona, DC, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

Though Green Party strengths lies in bottom-up organizing, running a Presidential candidate can provide a strategic stage for the left to critique and challenge the status quo, while attracting “millennials” or younger voters to a party platform that refuses all corporate contributions, supports single-payer health care, advocates zero-waste, calls for a tax on the rich, and opposes not only pre-emptive wars for empire, but weapons sales to other countries.

With strategic planning and a shift in focus, those newly registered Greens can rock the world of monopoly capitalism with a sturdy footing in city soil and municipal radicalism. I will proudly stand with them.

Losing Marcy Winigrad is a huge loss for the California Democratic Party, though, happily not for California progressives.

Strange Being On The Same Side With Darrell Issa?

This week California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, an unlikely proponent of something good for a change as stalwart warrior to stop SOPA, released the Judiciary Committee list of the businesses and organizations pushing Congress for passage of the bill. There were a lot of unsavory characters who spend an awful lot of money legally bribing congressmen on that list.

Odd to find a pillar of the Estabishment like Issa lined up on the same side with the forces that make up Anonymous, which is going absoluely ape-shit over the proposed legislation. "The goal of the so-called 'Stop Online Piracy Act' SOPA is to empower litigious U.S. corporations to police the internet, with the ability to act as judge, jury and executioner," says an Anonymous statement.

"SOPA tramples civil rights laws, fair use, freedom of press and freedom of speech. Under SOPA an average person could be arrested, fined, sued and spend time in a federal prison for so little as uploading a video to YouTube or even linking to one. This law further proves the reality of corporate rule and totalitarianism."

The law is unlikely to be used that way by a Democratic administration-- at least not in theory, though after 3 years of Obama, I'm not buying that-- but what would happen when the next fascist-oriented Republican takes over, a Mitt or Newt? Oddly, one of DC's most high-profile and extreme right-wing think tanks, the Heritage Foundation, is also against SOPA.

"The concern with SOPA is that it enforces private property rights at the expense of other values, such as innovation on the Internet, security of the Internet, and freedom of communication," James Gattuso, Heritage's senior research fellow in regulatory policy, told CNET this evening. While SOPA addresses a "very real problem," he says, it's not necessarily the right solution.

Unlike some Washington advocacy groups that are predictably anti-copyright, Heritage has historically taken the opposite position. It called the Motion Picture Association of America's decision to sue peer-to-peer pirates a "wise choice," and suggested that disrupting P2P networks to curb piracy, an idea that some politicians actually proposed, is a step "in the right direction."

Heritage's criticism is important because SOPA author Lamar Smith of Texas, who has become Hollywood's favorite Republican, is almost certain to win committee approval in early 2012. Then the bill's fate will rest in the hands of the Republican House leadership--which could chose to delay a floor vote indefinitely if the GOP appears divided. (See CNET's FAQ on SOPA.)

"The areas that are the most concern are the obligation of service providers to block resolution of IP addresses and the obligation of search engines to block search results," says Gattuso, whose conservative credentials include working at the Federal Communications Commission during the first Bush administration and for then-Vice President Dan Quayle. "Those get to the core issue of why the federal government could be able to interfere with the way the Internet is operated, and the core issue of what people can say and what information they can get on the Web."

A warning from a group like Heritage, usually a staunch ally of copyright holders, could help to sway undecided Republicans. It's no exaggeration: Ed Meese, Reagan's attorney general who's now a Heritage fellow, seemed to be channelling an MPAA lobbyist when writing in 2005 that "there is no difference between shoplifting a DVD from a store and illegally downloading a copyrighted movie from Kazaa." Heritage's warnings of international "threats to intellectual property rights" date back to at least 1987. And it scores protection of intellectual property rights in its annual Index of Economic Freedom.

SOPA, of course, represents the latest effort from the Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, and their allies to counter what they view as rampant piracy on the Internet, especially offshore sites such as ThePirateBay.org. It would allow the Justice Department to obtain an order to be served on search engines, Internet providers, and other companies forcing them to make a suspected piratical Web site effectively vanish, a kind of Internet death penalty. It's opposed (PDF) by Internet companies and many Internet users.

While Heritage may be the largest, it wasn't the first free-market group to criticize SOPA.

In a letter to Smith last week, TechFreedom, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans for Job Security, and Americans for Limited Government warned Smith that his committee "simply has not spent enough time on this legislation to properly address the complex and important issues at stake." These aren't left-leaning groups by any measure: TechFreedom has argued against Net neutrality, warned against expansive antitrust and privacy regulations, and defended the now-abandoned merger between AT&T and T-Mobile.

"You don't have to be against copyright to be skeptical of SOPA," Berin Szoka, president of TechFreedom, told CNET today. "Even those who will defend copyright (believe that SOPA) would have sweeping unintended consequences. So it's perfectly consistent for conservatives to insist on both the need to enhance copyright enforcement and to be exceedingly careful about how we do so."

The most prominent group on the other side is probably the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become the most aggressive defender of SOPA, likely because it receives more money in membership dues from Hollywood than Silicon Valley. (Yahoo and Kapersky Lab have dropped out in protest, and Google is under pressure to do the same.) Concerned Women for America and the National Association of Manufacturers have also endorsed SOPA.

Fortunately, you don't have to get into bed with Heritage, AOL or Issa to be against SOPA. The progressive challengers Blue America is backing for House seats are also SOPA opponents. This week Darcy Burner, who's running for the open seat in the Seattle area, released a Send A Nerd To Congress statement that was widely discussed among progressives:

Send a nerd to Congress! Congress has lots of doctors. Congress has lots of lawyers. You know what Congress doesn’t have lots of? Geeks! So when they consider legislation affecting the Internet they get it wrong-- and defend themselves by saying, “I’m not a nerd.” It's time to change that! The Internet is the most important invention of the last 50 years. It has increased the transparency of government; made it possible for grassroots donors to bind together and change campaigns nationwide; and was used to organize the Arab Spring. Over the last couple weeks, Congress has been considering legislation that would destroy the open Internet. It would allow anyone holding a copyright to say that a site-- even just a commenter-- infringed on their copyright-- and the domain name of the site would be revoked without due process. What said Congress? “I’m not a nerd.” Well, we need some nerds in Congress. I was given my first computer at the age of 13. My family couldn’t afford to buy any software, so I wrote it myself. At Harvard, I earned a degree in computer science with a special field of economics. I’ve worked in software in Boston, in Silicon Valley, and at Microsoft. I understand how bad the Stop Online Piracy Act legislation is, and why it's frankly a stupid idea. It’s poorly written, it’s wrong, and it’s done in the name of big corporate interests. I think its time we had a few more nerds in Congress.

A Blue America candidate from Florida who's very much like Darcy, Nick Ruiz, fully agrees with her assessment. This is what he told me this morning:

We should not let private equity interests entangle, censor and criminalize the open-ended architecture that makes the online experience a free and collaborative event. We can't allow that fair use of material and open source collaboration be muzzled by private entities that want to profit at every click of the mouse. That's what's wrong with SOPA, and in many ways, that's what is wrong with America. Everything humanity creates or is engaged in need not be 'profitable' or 'accountable' to Wall Street's definitions of value and control.

Joe Miklosi, the progressive running for the suburban Denver seat currently held by racist teabagger Mike Coffman, expressed a similar perspective. "I am deeply concerned about the piracy of intellectual property," he told me.

Our first priority to protect American ingenuity and creativity must be the strict and firm enforcement of strong international trade agreements that respect the value of intellectual property. Foreign theft of IP costs our economy billions of dollars. Online piracy is a concern at home and abroad. However, our efforts to protect IP at home should not unduly infringe on our 1st Amendment rights. Online discussions, information sharing, and creative expression must be allow to flourish.

Ken Aden, who's running in northwest Arkansas against one-percenter Steve Womack takes an even more aggressive stance:

Neither SOPA nor the PROTECT IP Act (S. 968) address the real problems related to copyright and trademark infringement online and neither will work well from a technological standpoint. TechDirt.com founder Mike Masnick put it best last month when he noted that "the approach put forth by these bills is a joke."

In addition to essentially creating framework for government-sanctioned censorship via DNS blocking similar to the Chinese government's Golden Shield Project, this legislation will have a disastrous impact on the continually growing tech sector of the U.S. economy. The broad definitions in the legislation have the potential to create significant liability for nearly every site online, and the uncertainty surrounding how the legislation could be enforced will have significant effects on job growth in the tech sector.

From changing what is considered a felonious violation of copyright law to allowing judges to determine the best network architecture, to broadly expanding secondary liability, this legislation is a potential disaster for the tech sector and the American people.

Rather than creating an environment to help new innovators create platforms which would actually expand the reach of movies, music, and other forms of entertainment, Lamar Smith, SOPA's author, has simply created legislation that gives lobby groups like the Motion Picture Association of America and the recording Industry Association of America the keys to the proverbial candy store when it comes to protecting their own pocketbooks. That's no surprise since the television, film, and music industry have given him more money in the last cycle than any other contributors.

We need real solutions to allow for the protection of intellectual property that don't put a potential wet blanket on the concept of "fair use," don't result in censorship, and will not stifle technological innovation in this country.

Just as we were about to publish, two more Blue America-endorsed candidates sent me SOPA statements. First, Norman Solomon (D-CA): "While I strongly support the right of creative artists to be compensated for the work they produce, I oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) as an overreaching bill that threatens Internet freedom in our country. We live in an era when the Internet is instrumental to global movements for democracy and openness. I will resist all legislative efforts that threaten Internet openness. We need a more focused, sober approach to combating foreign 'rogue websites' engaged in counterfeiting and copyright infringement. We've got to find ways to protect musicians, filmmakers, writers and other artists without putting into the hands of government officials the hammers that could be used to crush vibrant online sites. The legitimate concerns and interests of creative communities must be safeguarded at the same time that we uphold the sacred principles of free speech."

And we'll finish with Mary Jo Kilroy, the once and future Representative from Colombus, Ohio-- short and right to the point: "The bill risks damage to the structure and design of the internet, could restrict freedom of expression, and impede needed cybersecurity measures. While we should be concerned about copyrights and American intellectual property, this bill will do little to address the problem of on-line piracy."

Supporting the Blue America candidates-- which you can do right here-- will help guarantee that men and women with this worldview are writing laws-- and not just about the internet. If you can, please contribute what you feel comfortable giving. It's a slow time for congressional candidates right now.

Going Beyond Various Levels Of Suckage

Nick Ruiz, may have run into some unexpected good luck, when Florida Republican legislators-- embarrassed by Congresswoman Sandy's Adam's mindless extremism-- just gerrymandered her district (and Ruiz's) in such a way that will make it more difficult for her to be elected. Ruiz was the very first candidate endorsed by Blue America this cycle. His platform alone tells much of the story. No one is ever going to accuse him of being a Blue Dog type or of being a corporate shill, like so many Democrats, or even a goes-along-to-get-along type candidate that the DCCC prefers. Ruiz is ten steps ahead of the rest of the pack-- on everything. When I told Bernie Sanders about him, I told him Ruiz had passed the Bernie Sanders test.

When other candidates are arguing about the pros and cons of Austerity, Ruiz is explaining why a hefty increase in the minimum wage and a lowering of the age of retirement are the best ways to fix the economy. He's not going to engage in a discussion of cutting back on Medicare. He favors universal health, single payer health care, in effect, Medicare for all Americans. And yesterday, as his prospects of victory were brightening he sent central Florida voters a message about real progressive governance most of them have never experienced in their lifetimes:

The American legacy should not be one of poverty and abandonment, and yet increasingly, that’s how it is.

The American perspective should not be dogmatized by the singularity of conservative governance, and yet increasingly, that’s what it is happening.

American social justice requires that those that can do more-- do more to help the entirety of the whole. The American story is characterized by the solidly middle class, New Deal legacy that we have reconstituted time after time when facing economic
challenges. But since 1970, the top earners have been taking an ever larger piece of the American pie, as their tax obligations have shrunken to crumbs. The result: social injustice and spreading poverty, as there is less and less capital to go around.

And yet, conservative politicians tell you the top earners need more money.

Why?

And why, amid a national unemployment epidemic, and spreading poverty, would the US lower the lowest federal tax rates for the wealthy in decades, to even lower levels? It’s already evident that lower tax rates and diminished government investment destroy the middle class. So why suggest more of it, as conservative politicians
do?

If we continue to reward conservative politicians with election, they will continue to mock the middle class with condescending rhetoric and policies that lessen equality and opportunity for all.

If we continue to reward a political party apparatus and conservaliberal PACS that do not support New Deal candidates that we know are most inspired and competent to fight for our interests, then they will continue to fund and promote second-rate candidates that will ultimately take orders from the status quo. It's unequivocal
that in the crucial battles to come-- they will flounder, cut and run.

We should be rushing into renewable energy, nor wallowing in dirty tar sands.

We should be rushing home from undeclared wars, not wallowing in deathly defense spending and destructive human chaos.

We should ensure a fair federal minimum wage, conditions of employment and affordable necessity commodities.

Poverty should be eradicated, like the scourge that it is.

It’s not just Republicans that we must hold accountable. Democrats, ourselves must be held accountable.

If you like the way America is today, then you know where to send your money. The status quo is always happy to give you more of the same, and lead America further down the rabbit hole of middle class destruction. They can’t help themselves.

If you are like me, then you will fight back for the New Deal legacy, and you will not take no for an answer.

Progressives aren't going to get far electing corporate hacks in blue t-shirts who are slightly less bad than the corporate hacks in red t-shirts. Steny Hoyer, the Blue Dogs and Debbie Wasserman Schultz may suck less than the Republicans-- or maybe not. On that level of suckage, it hardly matters. If we don't opt for real leadership and real vision... we won't get it. I'm not asking you to put your life on hold and run for office. But how about contribiting to Nick Ruiz's campaign, so he can?

What Districts Like NH-1 and FL-24 Have In Common-- Growing Disdain For Tea Party Extremism

Earlier today we touched on some of the issues around the race between progressive Carol Shea-Porter and teabagger Frank Guinta in New Hampshire's 1st CD, where Guinta managed to unseat her last year 121,655 to 95,503. Democrats were so angry and disappointed-- more at Obama and the conflicted, pointless national party than in Carol per se-- that Democratic and left-leaning independent turnout plummeted in the district. Two years early (presidential election, in which Obama took the 1st, a district Bush won both times, with 53%), 176,435 voters turned out for Carol (and 156,338 for the Republican, former Congressman Bradley). It makes more sense to compared 2010 to 2006, which was also a midterm. That year, when Carol first beat Bradley 100,899 voters cast their ballots for her (as opposed to 94,869 for the Republican). So if we just compare the 2 midterms, 2010 and 2006, the GOP performance was much better in 2010 (up over 26,000 votes and the Democratic performance... just like everywhere in the country-- in the toilet. Over 5,000 of her 2006 voters didn't show up. And over 80,000 people who voted for her in 2008, didn't come to the polls in 2010!

Although Guinta has consistently tried-- both as a candidate and a congressman-- to appeal to the state's teabaggers, he was too much of a political coward to actually join Michele Bachmann's official Tea Party Caucus in the House. Nevertheless, the new Pew polling fits the political profile of the district in a way that should worry the deranged Guinta. Voters are sick and tired of the Tea Party and their disastrous, obstructionist agenda.

Since the 2010 midterm elections, the Tea Party has not only lost support nationwide, but also in the congressional districts represented by members of the House Tea Party Caucus. And this year, the image of the Republican Party has declined even more sharply in these GOP-controlled districts than across the country at large.

In the latest Pew Research Center survey, conducted Nov. 9-14, more Americans say they disagree (27%) than agree (20%) with the Tea Party movement.  A year ago, in the wake of the sweeping GOP gains in the midterm elections, the balance of opinion was just the opposite: 27% agreed and 22% disagreed with the Tea Party. At both points, more than half offered no opinion.

Throughout the 2010 election cycle, agreement with the Tea Party far outweighed disagreement in the 60 House districts represented by members of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. But as is the case nationwide, support has decreased significantly over the past year; now about as many people living in Tea Party districts disagree (23%) as agree (25%) with the Tea Party.

The Republican Party’s image also has declined substantially among people who live in Tea Party districts. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of the GOP, while 48% say they have an unfavorable view. As recently as March of this year, GOP favorability was 14 points higher (55%) in these districts, with just 39% offering an unfavorable opinion.

Among the public, 36% now say they have a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, down from 42% in March... [T]he steep decline in GOP favorability in Tea Party districts means that these constituencies now view the Republican Party about as negatively as the Democratic Party. As recently as March, GOP favorability exceeded Democratic Party favorability by 15 points (55% vs. 40%). Today, both parties receive about the same rating from people in Tea Party districts (41% favorable for the GOP, 39% for the Democratic Party).

One far right extremist who wasn't afraid to come out of the closet and join Bachmann's lunatic fringe caucus is Florida teabagger Sandy Adams. But she has more to worry about than just the Pew results. The Republicans who drew up the new districts were unkind to her. Rumors are the Republican Establishment in Tallahassee wouldn't terribly mind seeing, Adams, one of Congress' most ineffectual members, defeated anyway. It probably doesn't matter that the new 24th CD is now also the home of Republican power John Mica; he'll stick with his much redder old district regardless of where he lives. But they actually made it easier for a Democrat to win back the district. McCain won the 24th with 51% of the vote in 2008. Had the new boundaries been in place then McCain would have only won 50% of the vote. In 2008, Democrat Suzanne Kosmas defeated Tom Feeney who seemed on the verge of indictment for his role in the Abramoff scandal. She beat him 211,284 (57%) to 151,863 (41%), a pretty resounding victory with wins in all 4 counties, Brevard (52-46%), Orange (59-40%), Seminole (54-44%) and Volusia (61-37%). After one miserable term of calling herself a Democrat while voting like a Republican and acting in the interests of the Wall Street banksters she was supposed to be watching over the Financial Services Committee she thought of as a piggy bank, she lost 146,129 (60%)-98,787 (40%). Adams killed her in all 4 counties-- Brevard (64-36%), Orange (57-43%), Seminole (62-38%), and Volusia (58-42%). Just pathetic

But this time it won't be a race between a radical right teabagger (Sandy Adams) and a corrupt conservative shill (Suzanne Kosmas). This time a real Democrat is running against Adams, Nick Ruiz. Kosmas spent her two years in Congress having breakfasts, lunches and dinners with the sleaziest Washington lobbyists in town; she didn't deserve a second term. Ruiz is about as far from her as he is from Adams. A month ago he sent voters throughout the district an e-mail that let them know he's not just another garden variety political hack. In fact, if you're idea of a good legislator is Bernie Sanders, Nick Ruiz is someone you're going to swoon over. This morning I asked him about his commitment to take on the onerous and costly task of running for this seat-- and running for it without any help whatsoever from the DCCC. Here's what he told me:

I'm truly looking forward to representing FL-24 because for so long, central FL has had no real chance of contributing progressive ideas to her benefit, nor the national agenda. Aside from Alan Grayson's too short tenure, most of the candidates and representatives of this region have been of horribly right-wing, and repressive origins.

But Florida is far more liberal than you could ever imagine-- we have half a million more registered Democrats than Republicans. We have a hugely diverse population that respects diversity and equality. We want better times for more people. We want better jobs and higher wages for everyone. We want a more robust social safety net. We want a future that is sustainable and leadership we can believe in.

My commitment to a representative Congress arises straight out of this mix of cultural freedom, respect for diversity and socioeconomic fairness. When FL-24 elects me, it will be because they know in their heart of hearts - that I will purvey policy that benefits the majority of people. Tea Party Republican Sandy Adams has no vision for central FL, nor America, other than more of the same unequal oppression of the people by predatory wealth and neoconservative dogma.

I need your help to make sure that we can contribute our ideas and leadership to the national agenda, so that Florida's future, and that of America is a future where we invest in our people and collaborate with the rest of the world in a way that is sustainable and beneficial to all.

If you can afford to, invest with your heart. You're not going to find a better candidate than Nick Ruiz... not anywhere. You can contribute here; he was the first candidate endorsed by Blue America for the 2012 cycle.