Think our vote should count?

California - the biggest state in the union, and arguably the most

influential, is counterintuitively of little interest to presidential

candidates.

There is a blessing in this, of course. The barrage of horrifying political

attack ads may be lessened a little by the fact that California is

considered "safe" for the Democratic Party.

But it also means that Californians' enlightened perspective need not be

"pandered" to during political campaigns. In other words, in spite of our

numbers, in spite of our wealth as a state and our undeniable cultural

influence, we can be safely ignored in the most important race of all.

It also means that California's Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, and

others not voting Democratic, are voiceless in presidential contests.

Our electoral votes are presumed spoken for, however far either political

party may stray from California's unique interests and attitudes.

If we could eliminate the electoral college system entirely, and the

winner-take-all element in particular, California's numerous, and highly

aware, voters would be very important in the scheme of things, and the

nation's politics would be greatly affected by California's political will.

The electoral college was deemed essential to slaveholding states at the

inception of the republic. That being no longer an issue, I can see no

reason why we should not have "one person, one vote" now.

There may also have been, in the beginning, more than a little distrust in

the will of the people - or rabble, as the aristocrats who then governed the

world preferred to call them. Self-government is no longer a risky

experiment, but an accepted principle in the world. The training wheels we

once were thought to need are superfluous now - indeed, they are an obstacle to the expression of the popular will.

But the archaic, and arcane, electoral college is not the only barrier to a functioning democracy. Money (never insignificant in any form of governance) has assumed overwhelmingly importance- and that has endowed corporations with exceptional power. First - and against all reason - the Supreme Court declared in the nineteenth century that a corporation is a "person" and then - in the same irrational spirit during the 1970s - the Court ruled that money was equal to "free speech."

During the same time period that the franchise was hesitantly extended from

its original province of landowners, first to poor men, then to black men,

and finally to women, the principle of government by the people was being steadily eroded by the growing influence of wealth at every level. The ruling that afforded personhood to a scheme designed to aid business partnerships in the pursuit of limited taxes and legal liabilities, was a brazen betrayal of the principle of equality given such prominence in our founding documents.

A corporation is not a democracy and not democratic. In fact it may be quite

despotic both in its treatment of employees and in its dealings abroad. And

it is by necessity, amoral. A corporation's officers can be sued by

stockholders for choosing a purely ethical course of action over any short

term financial gain. And if money is the equivalent of free speech, as the

Supreme Court ruled, then the assumption of equality under the law is a lie.

The corporation may put its "$peech" into the support of a political agenda

which neither its employees, nor its stockholders, nor its consumers agree

with or benefit from. A real person has but one voice; the corporation's

dollars equal the power of millions of individual citizens.

Originally, corporations were formed for a fixed period of time and for a

specific purpose (presumably in the public good) and were designed for

eventual dissolution by the "sovereign" - which in this case would be the

people. But corporations can't be dissolved by the people now - I know because the people have tried - and failed. The legislators who purport to represent us cannot win without their support - and it is very clear that the corporation and not the people, is sovereign.

So a corporation is a "person" enjoying limited liability (which is the

original legal purpose of incorporation) for its actions, a "person" that

cannot be jailed, or condemned to death, and which does not necessarily have

to die in the normal course of things.

Money is so dominant in today's elections that I have considered dropping

out of the voter rolls altogether. Why participate in a fraud? To vote is to

collaborate with the disingenuous illusion, to pretend that what we have now

is representative, or democratic, or a republic - and that can't be proven.

We vote in the service of an insidious chimera. But I do vote, out of desperation, or stubbornness, or habit.

Now I will drop the bomb. Money - which now is accorded the tribute due a

sainted heifer - should be excluded from the public debate and from

political campaigns. Yes, excluded. The public airwaves legally belong to

the people, and requiring those who benefit from the use of them to cover

campaigns and poltical issues as the news that they are, without

compensation, is perfectly reasonable. It would also take much of the ugly

animosity out of the process, resulting in a more civilized society.

Additionally, the abolition of the fairness doctrine has done great violence

to our civic discourse; it has robbed us of the right to be fully informed and to challenge the assumptions we are constantly handed by a biased

establishment.

Once again, those who run the media never openly acknowledge that their use of the public airwaves is, in law, conditional. Why would they? They control the debate, and if they admitted limitations they would limit their hegemony. The public might begin to make unprofitable demands of them in exchange for their fabulously profitable use of our common property. For the big media, political campaigns are primarily a money-making opportunity - with ever bigger bucks required for any candidate or party to bring their views into the public debate. A fair and free airing of issues, interviews with lesser-known candidates of modest means, and fair coverage of impoverished third parties, would seriously cut into their profits.

The system unapologetically favors those who can afford to puchase public

exposure. Meanwhile, the media giants feel free to foist their own political

agenda on all of us, without regard to balance, and with no interest in

impartially airing alternative points of view. They do not speak to the fact

that the American people own the American airwaves, and, since the media are the main source of information for most people, most people are purposely kept unaware of their proprietary rights.

In order to restore anything like a democratic republic, the richest people

in the world would have to be deprived of the power their riches now

purchase, rendering the wealthy politically equal to the rest of us. Is it

outrageous to demand that we should be equal agents in a nation founded on the proposition that we were all "created equal?"

In theory, it's simple, but money can buy anything - and does. The most

profitable markets in the world are illegal, immoral, or at least

questionable: illicit drugs; weapons; oil; and what is euphemistically

called "human traffic." It follows that the richest people in the world are involved in them. Those who achieve dominion through wealth will pay

any price to keep their supremacy in the all-important field of opinion

management - and to silence any questioning of their ascendancy.

We, the people, on the other hand, demonstrably cannot pass, and cannot

preserve, any law that runs counter to the wishes of the ruling class - an

especially pernicious reiteration of the cliche that a free press is only

guaranteed to those who own one. Repeatedly, I have watched the Big Money shout down perfectly reasonable initiatives for the public good. The

precious initiative process in California is now itself big business - pay

your million (or is it millions now?) to the right company, and they will,

with the help of underpaid signature gatherers, get it on the ballot.

Another million or five to hopelessly confuse voters on the issue, and it

will win - it's in the bag.

When one is buying time to air one's views, one need not be troubled by the

constraints of truth. Certainly the television and radio stations who are

pleased to sell you that exorbitant airtime are unlikely to arouse your

displeasure by arguing effectively with a well-heeled client's wishes! Truth

in advertising may be ultimately enforceable, but the courts are slow, and

the election season is (only by comparison!) short, and a costly advertising

blitz always trumps the small voice of reasonable people attempting to use

the initiative process to accomplish anything the wealthy minority

opposes. Whatever penalty is imposed on rich liars somehow never equals the financial benefit derived from their lies.

The fact that certain political ends were achieved through sheer perjury

never gets much attention afer the ends have been achieved.

So the initiative process, which should provide a balance to the obscene and

lavishly-funded system of undemocratic influence known as "lobbying," has

been bought, too, and serves the very same interests the paid lobbyists do.

We who have no lobbyists, no billions to invest in molding public opinion,

and few sources of unbought information, have been cheated of our say in the running of our nation.

What can we say of this corruption of self-government?

The term "filthy rich" comes to mind.

The real question is what can we do?

##############################

Art Kills. Want to Quit?

http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Trailer/8989

And remember, just because YOU survived art school, doesn't mean

your children will.