Here is the complete schedule for both Friday and Saturday (I know, Friday has come and gone – but it shows how in depth this program is and what is offered by all involved).
Saturday includes a presentation by Laurence Lessig, as well as trainings by Avi Green, Pam Wilmont, and Grace Ross. There will also be breakout groups, training in citizen journalism, and more.
Will Citizens United v. FEC prove to be the turning point, and lead to an awakening of the American Electorate? For me, it was just that – the elite went too far in their attack on government of, by, and for the people for me to remain on the sidelines.
Please share widely!
I was there all day today — starting with Occupy the Courts — and then continuing with the Occupy Boston event. It was amazing. Lots of great ideas, tremendous enthusiasm for Amending the Constitution, lots of support for getting tough on corporate-sponsored Dems like Mike Capuano, plus fife and drums! This was the perfect antidote to Elizabeth Warren’s grotesque $1,000,000.00 “Money Bomb.” I highly encourage everyone to be there tomorrow morning for Larry Lessig!
Since Mike Capuano and Elizabeth Warren seem to be “bad guys” to you, who do you prefer?
I get that you prefer Marisa Defranco to Elizabeth Warren, so I guess that describing Ms. Warren’s hugely successful counterpoint to Scott Brown’s “kickoff” as “grotesque” is at least internally consistent (at least while she remains in the primary). But what’s with Mike Capuano?
Is there some stealth-candidate running against Mike Capuano that only you know about?
Hi Tom,
You don’t get it. I have said a number of times I love what Elizabeth has to say about Wall Street greed, and I do want her to be successful.
I just really believe that money is the number one issue in politics right now — and I honestly think that her failure to take a principled stand on this issue will: 1) make it very easy for Karl Rove to paint her as an out-of-touch elitist liberal, and 2) even if she does win, her campaign’s affirmation of the conventional, politics-as-usual style will undermine her ability to bring transformative change to Washington D.C.
A for Mike Capuano, again, it’s about principle. He calls himself a progressive, and he says he supports the Occupy movement — so as a constituent and a fellow progressive and a member of Occupy, I say, please Mike, don’t accept lobbying cash from a Wall Street bank. If he rejects this cash, it will set a positive example for others to follow.
Where are your comments about Scott Brown’s “failure to take a principled stand on this issue”?
Your comments here, so far, make you part of a circular firing squad that only hurts itself. I’ve done the same search kirth has, with the same results.
Forty years ago, certain purists similarly pursued the “dirty money” theory — Pentagon funding was “dirty”, the companies that received it were “dirty”, the companies that received this “dirty money” from the companies that received “dirty money” from the Pentagon were “dirty”, and so on. It made for great protest signs and street theater. In practice, it meant that nobody could work for anybody — by that standard, virtually all the money in circulation was tainted. That war was stopped, and at least some of the worst Pentagon-funded abuses were reigned in.
Money is money. Money is fungible. Don’t like Citigroup? Go after Citigroup. Don’t like Mike Capuano for accepting Citigroup funds? Go figure out how the funds have changed Mr. Capuano’s behavior — if at all.
During election seasons, we occasionally see advertising from GOP candidates here. We are encouraged to click through — each click costs the candidate a little more money, and that money is presumably wasted on each of us. GOP money is wasted on the average BMG reader. Citigroup money is wasted on Mike Capuano, and I’m frankly happy to have that money in his hands rather than some other public figure.
If you are genuinely focused on the money, then I suggest you might adjust your focus to what candidates DO with the money. Money itself is neutral, it is the love of money that is “the root of all evil”. There is a profound difference.
Requests to participate were targeted at Warren’s grassroots supporters at the rate of $5 a piece according to solicitations I received. Isn’t this exactly what you have been advocating as opposed to large contributions from the well-connected?
On a very technical level, if the “Moneybomb” is going to be called grassroots, then there should be absolute, total transparency. This “$5 a piece” notion gets thrown around and tends to lend a nice air of grassroots credibility — but everyone was really giving $5 a piece that would mean that well over 200,000 people donated to her at the same time — and I doubt that and I don’t think she’s claiming that.
But on a general level, the reason why I use the word “grotesque” is because on the one hand, we have people in this city who are arranging protests to help keep families who are facing foreclosure in their homes, and we have people in this city who are starving and in need, and then to my eyes, I see that juxtaposed against a campaign that seems to be focused on money, money, and more money. This is my opinion only, but it simply does not inspire me — if the primary tactic of a campaign is to raise money — it just makes me slightly sick.
You “want Warren to win,” but you miss no chance to criticize her for trying to raise money. You say Capuano is truly progressive, but because he takes corporate contributions, he should be ashamed.
You are smelling more and more like a concern troll. You’re using the perfect as an enemy of the good, and I think you’re doing it with deliberate intent because you don’t actually believe in the good.
Maybe I’m not expressing myself clearly — because I am not trying to be a troll — and I feel like I believe in everything good. I was simply providing a first-hand account of my personal experience of an event that another user posted about…
I don’t criticize Elizabeth Warren for raising money — I just find the concept of a “Money Bomb” to be a little disgusting. Just think about those two words right there — Money, and Bomb. A campaign that chooses to celebrate money is merely reinforcing a culture of financial capital and acquisition, and a campaign that uses the word “bomb” is showing a certain insensitivity toward all those people throughout the world who have to face real bombs. In 2012, I am looking for candidates to be different from the failed politics of the past. Instead of a Moneybomb, I have been much happier if Elizabeth asked all of her supporters to show up at a foreclosure and protest. That would have knocked my socks off and I guarantee you I would have been signing a different tune. But to have your big day be all about money? Yawn.
As for Capuano — I don’t think I ever said he should be “ashamed” — I’ve just pointed out the fact that he receives money from corporations, including some very unpopular corporations and also from some very unpopular industries — and from this I have concluded that he is in a unique position to set a better example for democracy by returning the Citigroup money in particular. He has no real challenger; he is considered a local hero; so I just would like to see him take set a positive example in the area of campaign financing.
Why are none of your criticisms ever aimed at Republicans? By none, I mean not any. Zero. Zip. Nada. I looked at your comment history, and you’ve only criticized Democrats.
What is up with that?
…is like taking candy from a baby. It’s too easy.
Highlight the ways in which the Republican party is against ordinary folk is like saying “dog bites man.”
But highlighting the ways in which the Democratic party is loyal to Wall Street and resistant to democracy is a little more like “man bites dog,” so that’s what I am interested in.
…I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if 200,000 people gave relatively small amounts on the same day, though many probably gave more than $5 and some probably came from out of state. Contributions under $200 are not required to be reported by individual donor, but I would also argue that contributions under $200 are small enough to qualify as grassroots support. She needs the money so she can win and then start to try to legislate policies to help people risking foreclosure, want, etc.
Anyway, I am glad if as a result of this post anyone attended the hugely successful Citizens United summit. This post and this thread was NOT about EW or the obnoxious title of a fund raising push – it IS about the toxic impact of the Citizens United decision on the imploding of democracy in this country.