Meet With Your Congressperson in December…

… Tell Your Congressperson to Have Goodwill Toward Their Constituents!

In the results of the election, a lot of truths have been unearthed- the demographics and values of the United States, the power and limits of corporate money to influence elections, and the real significance of votes.

Over $629 million in Super PAC spending didn’t sway U.S. voters as significantly as expected, but in the coming months will the billions spent in corporate lobbying sway Congress?

Lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry. While it’s technically true that you and I (or any constituent really) can lobby or try to persuade their legislators, most lobbying is funded by -and promotes- corporate interests. Since 2008, Wall Street has spent over $2.2 billion on lobbying, largely in order to weaken and squirm out of financial regulation. Add in the pharmaceutical, HMO, agribusiness, business, oil & energy, and defense/militarism sectors and we’re talking nearly $4 billion spent specifically to get corporations unprecedented (and undue) influence over all those folks we just elected to office.

We need to make sure all the new and re-elected members of Congress know that we elected them to represent us, not Wall Street and its cadre of lobbyists.

Can you take just a few hours in December to make a world of difference on this issue?

You and your representatives will both be back in your hometowns and districts during the month of December. Congress takes a recess, but you can still easily set up a meeting with your Congressperson in their district. Take the time to set up a meeting, put on a nice sweater and go tell your representative that you want them to commit to not being overrun by big bank lobbyists.

Here’s how:

  1. Look up your representative: {http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/congdir.tt}
  2. Call their office and set up a meeting for when you’re both home just before the holiday break.
  3. Do some research- look up how much campaign money your representative received from different companies and look into the DC connections of lobbyists representing those companies.
  4. Write this information down in a notepad, along with other questions you’d like to ask. If you need ideas, here are some of our favorites:
  • How many lobbyists from Wall Street arrange meetings with you?
  • How many lobbyists do you plan to meet with during this term?
  • If lobbyists give lots of gifts and throw lavish parties, does it influence your vote on their issues?
  • Are some lobbyists in DC perceived as bullies? Is there any way we can help you focus on your job without all these lobbyists trying to influence you all the time?
  • Have you ever seen a scorecard that shows campaign contributions before? Do you feel comfortable with how much money you received from Wall Street and your ability to put your constituents first? (If they were in office last year, you can show them Global Exchange’s Legislative Scorecard and measure  their ‘loyalty rate’ to Wall Street’s lobby position on key bills like Dodd-Frank!)
  • What would you like to see change in DC in the realm on campaign contributions and lobbying?
  1. When you meet, dress neatly and write down the answers!
  2. Take a picture with your senator/representative and an Elect Democracy sticker if you can.
  3. Email them to Global Exchange since students around the country will be sending in answers. Together, we’ll be able to see who’s willing to make some real commitments to say NO to lobbyists next year!

Boom- you’re done! All in all, it should take less than 3 hours, but it makes a huge difference not only for your Congressperson, but in helping to create a culture where politicians become more wary of the lobbyists and campaign contributions coming from Wall Street and other industries that want to put their profits before a healthy democratic process.


TAKE ACTION: Leave a comment confirming you can meet with your Representative in December!

Foreign policy played a minor role in a presidential election that focused on jobs, jobs, jobs. But like it or not, the United States is part of a global community in turmoil, and U.S. policies often help fuel that turmoil. The peace movement, decimated during the first Obama term because so many people were unwilling to be critical of President Obama, has a challenge today to re-activate itself, and to increase its effectiveness by forming coalitions with other sectors of the progressive movement.  Over the next four years, this movement must grapple with key issues such as the Afghan war, killer drone attacks, maintaining peace with Iran, US policy vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine, and the bloated Pentagon budget.

Despite President Obama’s talk about getting out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, the U.S. military still has some 68,000 troops and almost 100,000 private contractors there, at a cost of $2 billion a week. And Obama is talking about a presence of U.S. troops, training missions, special forces operations, and bases for another decade. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Americans think this war is not worth fighting, a sentiment echoed in a recent New York Times editorial “Time to Pack Up.” It is, indeed, time to pack up. The peace movement must push for withdrawal starting now—and definitely no long-term presence! Veteran’s Day should be a time to take a hard look at the impact of war on soldiers, particularly the epidemic of soldier suicide.  We must also look at the devastating impact of war on Afghan women and children, particularly as winter sets in. Despite the billions of dollars our government has poured into development projects, Afghan children are literally freezing to death.

American drone attacks are out of control, killing thousands in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, many of them civilians. Drones are sowing widespread anti-American sentiment and setting a dangerous precedent that will come back to haunt us. Anti-drones protests have sprung up all over the United States at air forces bases where the drones are piloted, at the headquarters of drone manufacturers, at the CIA and in Congressional offices. Our job now is to coordinate those efforts, to launch a massive public education campaign to reverse pro-drone public opinion, pass city resolutions against drone use, and to call on our elected officials to start respecting the rule of law. If we strengthen our ties with people in the nations most affected, as we have begun to do on our recent CODEPINK delegation to Pakistan, and join in with those at the UN bodies who are horrified by drone proliferation, we can make progress in setting some global standards for the use of lethal drones.

Also looming ominously is a possible Israeli attack on Iran that would draw the US into a devastating regional war. Almost 60 percent of Americans oppose joining Israel in a war with Iran. We must make sure Obama and Congress hear that voice above the din of AIPAC lobbyists gunning for war, and steer clear of dragging the US into yet another Middle Eastern conflict.  Public opinion campaigns such as the “Iranians We Love You” posters on busses in Tel Aviv, and cross-cultural exchanges in Iran and the US bring humanity to a tenuous political situation.  We also must renew efforts to oppose the crippling sanctions that are impacting everyday citizens in Iran, and rippling out to spike food prices elsewhere, including Afghanistan.

Perhaps hardest of all will be to get some traction on changing US policy towards Israel/Palestine. The grassroots movement to stop unconditional financial and political support for Israel is booming, with groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and the US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation building networks across the country. Campaigns to boycott and divest from companies profiting from the Israeli occupation continue to win victories and attract global support. We’re unlikely to see the Obama administration and Congress condemning settlements, human rights abuses, or the ongoing siege of Gaza, much less cutting off the $3 billion a year that helps underwrite these abuses. But we can continue to shift public opinion and gain more allies in Congress, with an openness to reaching out to libertarians and fiscal conservatives calling for cuts in foreign aid.  In the aftermath of the election, Jewish Voice for Peace and interfaith allies have pledged to continue efforts to call for US aid to Israel to be conditioned on compliance with international law.

And then there’s the bloated Pentagon budget. At a time when the nation is looking at how best to allocate scarce resources, all eyes should be on the billions of dollars wasted on Pentagon policies and weapons that don’t make us safer. From the over 800 bases overseas to outdated Cold War weapons to monies given to repressive regimes, we need a rational look at the Pentagon budget that could free up billions for critical social and environmental programs.

Key to building a vibrant peace movement in the next four years is coalition-building, reaching out to a broad array of social justice groups to make the connections between their work and the billions drained from our economy for war. Environmentalists, women’s rights advocates, labor unions, civil rights—there are so many connections that have to be rekindled from the Bush years or started anew.

Finally, we have to provide alternatives to the worn narrative that the military interventions around the world are making us more secure. It’s time to demand alternatives like negotiations, creative diplomacy and a foreign policy gearing toward solving global problems, not perpetuating endless war. The UN declared November 10th “Malala Day” in honor of Pakistan’s 15-year-old Malala Yousefzai, who was shot in the head by the Taliban for supporting education for girls.  This tragedy awoke international commitments to ensuring girls can get to school, a relatively inexpensive goal with major returns for the advancement of women’s rights, health, prosperity, and security.  Wouldn’t it be nice to see our government prioritizing funds for school over drone warfare and endless weapons stockpiling?

“The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice,” said Martin Luther King. If we can connect these foreign policy issues with domestic needs and climate change, if we can follow the powerful examples of mass direct action movements from Chile to Egypt, and if enough people practice democracy daily rather than waiting until the next presidential election, then maybe–just maybe—we’ll be able to push the arc of Obama’s second term in the direction of peace and justice.

Medea Benjamin is the cofounder of CODEPINK and Global Exchange, and is author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.

No matter which side you butter your political bread, by now you’ve heard more than you ever wanted to about the election results and who won. But that’s just politics.

What you probably missed in the glare of the pundits flashy graphics and the incessant Wednesday morning quarterbacking were the real victories by and for people actually asserting their rights on Election Day against the powers that be. Yes, regardless of political affiliation; against the endlessly deep pockets and scare tactics of huge corporations; AND against the mighty robed ones of the Supreme Court—they prevailed. Big time. And they may have set the stage for the rest of the country to follow suit.

What does Susan B. Anthony have in common with voters in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

 If Susan B. Anthony was afraid (and surely she was), she did not let her fear of being sued, ridiculed, harassed, beaten and jailed stop her from standing up for her rights.  And while voters in these states didn’t risk their personal security, on Election day, they took a stand for their rights, and they acted is if government belongs to us. Rights—as in, unalienable self-evident rights that come by virtue of being born, that cannot be given or granted, taken away or surrendered.

In the Big Sky state of Montana, where the Governor is a Democrat, but the electorate runs fire engine-red, you may have heard that the state voted to urge or direct Congress to enact a Constitutional Amendment to overturn corporate personhood, as did Colorado. But the real story is so much richer than that.

Many states—not only Montana—  included in their early Constitutions the subordination of corporations to the will of the people, and banned corporate political expenditures in state elections.  Over the years, most of those Constitutional provisions have been deleted to pave the way for more corporate-friendly laws—but not in Montana. In early January 2012, Montana’s state supreme court, in recognition of the rights of residents to determine the outcome of their elections, struck a defiant blow to the heart of the Super-PAC-creating-unlimited-corporate-elections-spending SCOTUS Citizens United decision, by restoring their state ban on corporate elections spending. 

The federal court was quick to respond to this challenge of their supremacy by reaffirming Citizens United and striking down Montana’s Constitutional provision. And with the flick of a pen, five of the Robed Nine denied the 1 million residents of Montana their right to decide the proper role for corporations in local and state elections (take THAT democracy).

Montanans seemed to take this news personally, as a denial of their very real authority to govern corporate entities, and on Election day, reminded the learned SCOTUS who is boss in Big Sky country. By a landslide of 75% Montanans restored their rights on Election Day and sent corporations and the Supreme Court a powerful message. Initiative 166, officially called the Prohibition on Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Montana Elections Act, was endorsed by the Governor (D), the Lt. Governor (R) and the former Secretary of State (R).

As C.B. Pearson, treasurer for the I-166 group, Stand with Montanans  put it, “For nearly a century, Montana had elections free of corporate money. But now our fair elections system is compromised. With this vote, Montanans have provided much needed leadership on this important issue, much as we did 100 years ago with the passage of the Corrupt Practices Act.”

Communities stand up to Big Energy, State & Federal law to stop toxic dumping

Elsewhere in Ohio and Pennsylvania, three communities fed up with a wealthy minority scaring people to vote against their own interests challenged the entire structure of law that puts corporate interest before residents—and won.

Mansfield, Ohio’s 50,000 residents were slated to be on the receiving end of Pennsylvania’s toxic frackwater waste, a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, one of the dirtiest energy production methods in the US. 

Under the law, there wasn’t really anything that concerned residents could do to stop it from coming. The permits are approved by the State, and the dumping of PA’s unwanted fracking chemicals into “injection wells” in Ohio is legal, despite the scientific evidence that storing frack waste is causing large earthquakes….in Ohio (that’s right…Ohio).

After an initial conference call with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, and follow-up conversations with community members and the Council, the Law Director John Spon proposed a rights-based charter amendment.

Suddenly, a matter of local concern—namely the right of residents to protect their own health safety and welfare from ultra-hazardous materials—became an election issue for Big Petroleum and their PACs.

Corporate contributors poured over $300,000 into TV attack ads and glossy mailers to frighten residents into voting against their own interests, citing that the Charter Amendment Bill of Rights was a “jobs killer”. Residents didn’t believe the hype, reasoning that jobs related to injection wells are not as plentiful as promised, and dumping toxic waste into Mansfield’s industrial park seemed more likely to chase away new business.

As the Mayor put it “We don’t like out-siders telling us what to do.” Residents voted by 63% to pass the charter amendment that affirms the rights of all residents to decide if injections wells are wanted (they’re not); subordinates all corporate protections (not just personhood) to community wishes, and recognizes rights for ecosystems to be free from toxic frackwater dumping.

Elsewhere in Ohio, the town of Broadview Heights similarly passed a Community Bill of Rights charter amendment to ban any new fracking, and new injection wells or disposal of “frack-water,” “brine “tailings,” or other waste products of the fracking process.  The organizing group, Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods (MADION) took it another step further, proposing the community vote to ban injection wells, but to futher protect the rights of citizens by prohibiting all new gas and oil drilling, fracking and injection wells.

Unlike their neighbors in Mansfield, the Mayor was not in support of the rights-based effort, and the City Council threatened to pull the initiative from the ballot, thereby stripping residents of their right to even vote on the matter, which did not go down well with residents. MADION’s charter amendment garnered the support of the local newspaper, and with no funding whatsoever the Mad Mothers made their case—door to door. On election day, the rights-based initiative passed with an impressive 66% of the vote.

Going “Home Rule” to access democracy

Whatever you might say about the citizen initiative process—whereby the electorate can collect signatures to put items of concern before residents for a local or statewide vote—in states that don’t allow for it, residents are left with very few options when their elected officials abandon them.

Pennsylvania is a ‘no citizen initiative’ state.There is only one thing communities can put up for a vote there—and that is whether or not to become a “home rule” municipality (in other states it’s also called a charter city), which allows them to change how decisions are made tin their community and opens the door for local citizen initiatives that can effectively amend their town’s charter.   For the majority of Pennsylvanians who do not live under Home Rule, when residents oppose a policy, they must persuade their elected officials to enact new laws—sometimes difficult in areas where the “Good Old Boys” network runs in partnership with the “corporate boys”, turning towns into  sacrifice zones for one corporate activity to the next. Its something more communities are working toward—more community decision-making by “going” Home Rule.

In Furguson, PA—already a  Home Rule township, the activity that seeks to turn their community into a sacrifice zone  is fracking, along with hundreds of other communities dotted along the enormous Marcellus Shale  Marcellus Shale that crosses six states.

Local citizens groups Groundswell and CRAFT (Community Rights Activism for Ferguson Township) put forward a referendum to amend the Ferguson Township Home Rule Charter to add a Community Bill of Rights that would ban fracking. The initiative passed—despite being heavily opposed by the mayor, the town manager, and the town solicitor, who support fracking.  But as Groundswell put it, its not just about fracking, “these initiatives amount to a challenge to existing structural law concerning local government and a revolution in the way we deal with issues concerning communities and our environment…We’re not stopping here. A world will exist with an economy, environment and democracy that thrive together.”

All of these victories represent more than meets the eye. In these places Election Day wasn’t about RED or BLUE, nor were they about issues like  Citizens United, corporate personhood or fracking. Not to wax too poetically, but in each of these places, Americans took a deep breath of ownership of their rights that allows us all to breathe more freely.  If Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth are to be believed our rights are worth the risks, sacrifices and the bigger struggles for freedoms that lie ahead. It’s why Susan B. Anthony took her action to vote—not just for herself—but for all women.  Its why the freedom riders took white knuckle journeys through dangerous roads.

Montana surely faces a response from the U.S. Supreme court. And when it happens, we must all recognize that their struggle for rights is also our own—together we must stand not just against corporate so-called “rights” but we must stand together for our right to govern.

  •  This piece was also cross-posted on AlterNet.

—

Shannon Biggs is the Director of the Community Rights program at Global Exchange,  assisting communities confronted by corporate harms to enact binding laws that place the rights of communities and nature above the claimed legal “rights” of corporations.

Susan B. Anthony beaten and jailed by police for casting her vote

No matter which side you butter your political bread, by now you’ve heard more than you ever wanted to about the election results and who won. But that’s just politics.

What you probably missed in the glare of the pundits flashy graphics and the incessant Wednesday morning quarterbacking were the real victories by and for people actually asserting their rights on Election Day against the powers that be. Yes, regardless of political affiliation; against the endlessly deep pockets and scare tactics of huge corporations; AND against the mighty robed ones of the Supreme Court—they prevailed. Big time. And they may have set the stage for the rest of the country to follow suit.

What does Susan B. Anthony have in common with voters in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

 If Susan B. Anthony was afraid (and surely she was), she did not let her fear of being sued, ridiculed, harassed, beaten and jailed stop her from standing up for her rights.  And while voters in these states didn’t risk their personal security, on Election day, they took a stand for their rights, and they acted is if government belongs to us. Rights—as in, unalienable self-evident rights that come by virtue of being born, that cannot be given or granted, taken away or surrendered.

In the Big Sky state of Montana, where the Governor is a Democrat, but the electorate runs fire engine-red, you may have heard that the state voted to urge or direct Congress to enact a Constitutional Amendment to overturn corporate personhood, as did Colorado. But the real story is so much richer than that.

Verner Bertelsen (R) Montana’s former Secretary of State
photo credit: standwithmontanans.org

Many states—not only Montana—  included in their early Constitutions the subordination of corporations to the will of the people, and banned corporate political expenditures in state elections.  Over the years, most of those Constitutional provisions have been deleted to pave the way for more corporate-friendly laws—but not in Montana. In early January 2012, Montana’s state supreme court, in recognition of the rights of residents to determine the outcome of their elections, struck a defiant blow to the heart of the Super-PAC-creating-unlimited-corporate-elections-spending SCOTUS Citizens United decision, by restoring their state ban on corporate elections spending. 

The federal court was quick to respond to this challenge of their supremacy by reaffirming Citizens United and striking down Montana’s Constitutional provision. And with the flick of a pen, five of the Robed Nine denied the 1 million residents of Montana their right to decide the proper role for corporations in local and state elections (take THAT democracy).

Montanans seemed to take this news personally, as a denial of their very real authority to govern corporate entities, and on Election day, reminded the learned SCOTUS who is boss in Big Sky country. By a landslide of 75% Montanans restored their rights on Election Day and sent corporations and the Supreme Court a powerful message. Initiative 166, officially called the Prohibition on Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Montana Elections Act, was endorsed by the Governor (D), the Lt. Governor (R) and the former Secretary of State (R).

As C.B. Pearson, treasurer for the I-166 group, Stand with Montanans  put it, “For nearly a century, Montana had elections free of corporate money. But now our fair elections system is compromised. With this vote, Montanans have provided much needed leadership on this important issue, much as we did 100 years ago with the passage of the Corrupt Practices Act.”

Communities stand up to Big Energy, State & Federal law to stop toxic dumping

Scare tactics FAIL: Mailer sent to all residents of Mansfield, paid for by the American Petroleum Institute, as noted above the address.

Elsewhere in Ohio and Pennsylvania, three communities fed up with a wealthy minority scaring people to vote against their own interests challenged the entire structure of law that puts corporate interest before residents—and won.

Mansfield, Ohio’s 50,000 residents were slated to be on the receiving end of Pennsylvania’s toxic frackwater waste, a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, one of the dirtiest energy production methods in the US. 

Under the law, there wasn’t really anything that concerned residents could do to stop it from coming. The permits are approved by the State, and the dumping of PA’s unwanted fracking chemicals into “injection wells” in Ohio is legal, despite the scientific evidence that storing frack waste is causing large earthquakes….in Ohio (that’s right…Ohio).

Mansfield residents respond to corporate elections ads with their own message

After an initial conference call with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, and follow-up conversations with community members and the Council, the Law Director John Spon proposed a rights-based charter amendment.

Suddenly, a matter of local concern—namely the right of residents to protect their own health safety and welfare from ultra-hazardous materials—became an election issue for Big Petroleum and their PACs.

Corporate contributors poured over $300,000 into TV attack ads and glossy mailers to frighten residents into voting against their own interests, citing that the Charter Amendment Bill of Rights was a “jobs killer”. Residents didn’t believe the hype, reasoning that jobs related to injection wells are not as plentiful as promised, and dumping toxic waste into Mansfield’s industrial park seemed more likely to chase away new business.

As the Mayor put it “We don’t like out-siders telling us what to do.” Residents voted by 63% to pass the charter amendment that affirms the rights of all residents to decide if injections wells are wanted (they’re not); subordinates all corporate protections (not just personhood) to community wishes, and recognizes rights for ecosystems to be free from toxic frackwater dumping.

Elsewhere in Ohio, the town of Broadview Heights similarly passed a Community Bill of Rights charter amendment to ban any new fracking, and new injection wells or disposal of “frack-water,” “brine “tailings,” or other waste products of the fracking process.  The organizing group, Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods (MADION) took it another step further, proposing the community vote to ban injection wells, but to futher protect the rights of citizens by prohibiting all new gas and oil drilling, fracking and injection wells.

Unlike their neighbors in Mansfield, the Mayor was not in support of the rights-based effort, and the City Council threatened to pull the initiative from the ballot, thereby stripping residents of their right to even vote on the matter, which did not go down well with residents. MADION’s charter amendment garnered the support of the local newspaper, and with no funding whatsoever the Mad Mothers made their case—door to door. On election day, the rights-based initiative passed with an impressive 66% of the vote.

Going “Home Rule” to access democracy

Campaign headquarters at the home of Pam Steckler in Furguson, PA Photo credit: Groundswell/CRAFT

Whatever you might say about the citizen initiative process—whereby the electorate can collect signatures to put items of concern before residents for a local or statewide vote—in states that don’t allow for it, residents are left with very few options when their elected officials abandon them.

Pennsylvania is a ‘no citizen initiative’ state.There is only one thing communities can put up for a vote there—and that is whether or not to become a “home rule” municipality (in other states it’s also called a charter city), which allows them to change how decisions are made tin their community and opens the door for local citizen initiatives that can effectively amend their town’s charter.   For the majority of Pennsylvanians who do not live under Home Rule, when residents oppose a policy, they must persuade their elected officials to enact new laws—sometimes difficult in areas where the “Good Old Boys” network runs in partnership with the “corporate boys”, turning towns into  sacrifice zones for one corporate activity to the next. Its something more communities are working toward—more community decision-making by “going” Home Rule.

In Furguson, PA—already a  Home Rule township, the activity that seeks to turn their community into a sacrifice zone  is fracking, along with hundreds of other communities dotted along the enormous Marcellus Shale  Marcellus Shale that crosses six states.

Local citizens groups Groundswell and CRAFT (Community Rights Activism for Ferguson Township) put forward a referendum to amend the Ferguson Township Home Rule Charter to add a Community Bill of Rights that would ban fracking. The initiative passed—despite being heavily opposed by the mayor, the town manager, and the town solicitor, who support fracking.  But as Groundswell put it, its not just about fracking, “these initiatives amount to a challenge to existing structural law concerning local government and a revolution in the way we deal with issues concerning communities and our environment…We’re not stopping here. A world will exist with an economy, environment and democracy that thrive together.”

All of these victories represent more than meets the eye. In these places Election Day wasn’t about RED or BLUE, nor were they about issues like  Citizens United, corporate personhood or fracking. Not to wax too poetically, but in each of these places, Americans took a deep breath of ownership of their rights that allows us all to breathe more freely.  If Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth are to be believed our rights are worth the risks, sacrifices and the bigger struggles for freedoms that lie ahead. It’s why Susan B. Anthony took her action to vote—not just for herself—but for all women.  Its why the freedom riders took white knuckle journeys through dangerous roads.

Montana surely faces a response from the U.S. Supreme court. And when it happens, we must all recognize that their struggle for rights is also our own—together we must stand not just against corporate so-called “rights” but we must stand together for our right to govern.

  •  This piece was also cross-posted on AlterNet.

—

Shannon Biggs is the Director of the Community Rights program at Global Exchange,  assisting communities confronted by corporate harms to enact binding laws that place the rights of communities and nature above the claimed legal “rights” of corporations.

Susan B. Anthony beaten and jailed by police for casting her vote

No matter which side you butter your political bread, by now you’ve heard more than you ever wanted to about the election results and who won. But that’s just politics.

What you probably missed in the glare of the pundits flashy graphics and the incessant Wednesday morning quarterbacking were the real victories by and for people actually asserting their rights on Election Day against the powers that be. Yes, regardless of political affiliation; against the endlessly deep pockets and scare tactics of huge corporations; AND against the mighty robed ones of the Supreme Court—they prevailed. Big time. And they may have set the stage for the rest of the country to follow suit.

What does Susan B. Anthony have in common with voters in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

 If Susan B. Anthony was afraid (and surely she was), she did not let her fear of being sued, ridiculed, harassed, beaten and jailed stop her from standing up for her rights.  And while voters in these states didn’t risk their personal security, on Election day, they took a stand for their rights, and they acted is if government belongs to us. Rights—as in, unalienable self-evident rights that come by virtue of being born, that cannot be given or granted, taken away or surrendered.

In the Big Sky state of Montana, where the Governor is a Democrat, but the electorate runs fire engine-red, you may have heard that the state voted to urge or direct Congress to enact a Constitutional Amendment to overturn corporate personhood, as did Colorado. But the real story is so much richer than that.

Verner Bertelsen (R) Montana’s former Secretary of State
photo credit: standwithmontanans.org

Many states—not only Montana—  included in their early Constitutions the subordination of corporations to the will of the people, and banned corporate political expenditures in state elections.  Over the years, most of those Constitutional provisions have been deleted to pave the way for more corporate-friendly laws—but not in Montana. In early January 2012, Montana’s state supreme court, in recognition of the rights of residents to determine the outcome of their elections, struck a defiant blow to the heart of the Super-PAC-creating-unlimited-corporate-elections-spending SCOTUS Citizens United decision, by restoring their state ban on corporate elections spending. 

The federal court was quick to respond to this challenge of their supremacy by reaffirming Citizens United and striking down Montana’s Constitutional provision. And with the flick of a pen, five of the Robed Nine denied the 1 million residents of Montana their right to decide the proper role for corporations in local and state elections (take THAT democracy).

Montanans seemed to take this news personally, as a denial of their very real authority to govern corporate entities, and on Election day, reminded the learned SCOTUS who is boss in Big Sky country. By a landslide of 75% Montanans restored their rights on Election Day and sent corporations and the Supreme Court a powerful message. Initiative 166, officially called the Prohibition on Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Montana Elections Act, was endorsed by the Governor (D), the Lt. Governor (R) and the former Secretary of State (R).

As C.B. Pearson, treasurer for the I-166 group, Stand with Montanans  put it, “For nearly a century, Montana had elections free of corporate money. But now our fair elections system is compromised. With this vote, Montanans have provided much needed leadership on this important issue, much as we did 100 years ago with the passage of the Corrupt Practices Act.”

Communities stand up to Big Energy, State & Federal law to stop toxic dumping

Scare tactics FAIL: Mailer sent to all residents of Mansfield, paid for by the American Petroleum Institute, as noted above the address.

Elsewhere in Ohio and Pennsylvania, three communities fed up with a wealthy minority scaring people to vote against their own interests challenged the entire structure of law that puts corporate interest before residents—and won.

Mansfield, Ohio’s 50,000 residents were slated to be on the receiving end of Pennsylvania’s toxic frackwater waste, a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, one of the dirtiest energy production methods in the US. 

Under the law, there wasn’t really anything that concerned residents could do to stop it from coming. The permits are approved by the State, and the dumping of PA’s unwanted fracking chemicals into “injection wells” in Ohio is legal, despite the scientific evidence that storing frack waste is causing large earthquakes….in Ohio (that’s right…Ohio).

Mansfield residents respond to corporate elections ads with their own message

After an initial conference call with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, and follow-up conversations with community members and the Council, the Law Director John Spon proposed a rights-based charter amendment.

Suddenly, a matter of local concern—namely the right of residents to protect their own health safety and welfare from ultra-hazardous materials—became an election issue for Big Petroleum and their PACs.

Corporate contributors poured over $300,000 into TV attack ads and glossy mailers to frighten residents into voting against their own interests, citing that the Charter Amendment Bill of Rights was a “jobs killer”. Residents didn’t believe the hype, reasoning that jobs related to injection wells are not as plentiful as promised, and dumping toxic waste into Mansfield’s industrial park seemed more likely to chase away new business.

As the Mayor put it “We don’t like out-siders telling us what to do.” Residents voted by 63% to pass the charter amendment that affirms the rights of all residents to decide if injections wells are wanted (they’re not); subordinates all corporate protections (not just personhood) to community wishes, and recognizes rights for ecosystems to be free from toxic frackwater dumping.

Elsewhere in Ohio, the town of Broadview Heights similarly passed a Community Bill of Rights charter amendment to ban any new fracking, and new injection wells or disposal of “frack-water,” “brine “tailings,” or other waste products of the fracking process.  The organizing group, Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods (MADION) took it another step further, proposing the community vote to ban injection wells, but to futher protect the rights of citizens by prohibiting all new gas and oil drilling, fracking and injection wells.

Unlike their neighbors in Mansfield, the Mayor was not in support of the rights-based effort, and the City Council threatened to pull the initiative from the ballot, thereby stripping residents of their right to even vote on the matter, which did not go down well with residents. MADION’s charter amendment garnered the support of the local newspaper, and with no funding whatsoever the Mad Mothers made their case—door to door. On election day, the rights-based initiative passed with an impressive 66% of the vote.

Going “Home Rule” to access democracy

Campaign headquarters at the home of Pam Steckler in Furguson, PA Photo credit: Groundswell/CRAFT

Whatever you might say about the citizen initiative process—whereby the electorate can collect signatures to put items of concern before residents for a local or statewide vote—in states that don’t allow for it, residents are left with very few options when their elected officials abandon them.

Pennsylvania is a ‘no citizen initiative’ state.There is only one thing communities can put up for a vote there—and that is whether or not to become a “home rule” municipality (in other states it’s also called a charter city), which allows them to change how decisions are made tin their community and opens the door for local citizen initiatives that can effectively amend their town’s charter.   For the majority of Pennsylvanians who do not live under Home Rule, when residents oppose a policy, they must persuade their elected officials to enact new laws—sometimes difficult in areas where the “Good Old Boys” network runs in partnership with the “corporate boys”, turning towns into  sacrifice zones for one corporate activity to the next. Its something more communities are working toward—more community decision-making by “going” Home Rule.

In Furguson, PA—already a  Home Rule township, the activity that seeks to turn their community into a sacrifice zone  is fracking, along with hundreds of other communities dotted along the enormous Marcellus Shale  Marcellus Shale that crosses six states.

Local citizens groups Groundswell and CRAFT (Community Rights Activism for Ferguson Township) put forward a referendum to amend the Ferguson Township Home Rule Charter to add a Community Bill of Rights that would ban fracking. The initiative passed—despite being heavily opposed by the mayor, the town manager, and the town solicitor, who support fracking.  But as Groundswell put it, its not just about fracking, “these initiatives amount to a challenge to existing structural law concerning local government and a revolution in the way we deal with issues concerning communities and our environment…We’re not stopping here. A world will exist with an economy, environment and democracy that thrive together.”

All of these victories represent more than meets the eye. In these places Election Day wasn’t about RED or BLUE, nor were they about issues like  Citizens United, corporate personhood or fracking. Not to wax too poetically, but in each of these places, Americans took a deep breath of ownership of their rights that allows us all to breathe more freely.  If Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth are to be believed our rights are worth the risks, sacrifices and the bigger struggles for freedoms that lie ahead. It’s why Susan B. Anthony took her action to vote—not just for herself—but for all women.  Its why the freedom riders took white knuckle journeys through dangerous roads.

Montana surely faces a response from the U.S. Supreme court. And when it happens, we must all recognize that their struggle for rights is also our own—together we must stand not just against corporate so-called “rights” but we must stand together for our right to govern.

  •  This piece was also cross-posted on AlterNet.

—

Shannon Biggs is the Director of the Community Rights program at Global Exchange,  assisting communities confronted by corporate harms to enact binding laws that place the rights of communities and nature above the claimed legal “rights” of corporations.

Susan B. Anthony beaten and jailed by police for casting her vote

No matter which side you butter your political bread, by now you’ve heard more than you ever wanted to about the election results and who won. But that’s just politics.

What you probably missed in the glare of the pundits flashy graphics and the incessant Wednesday morning quarterbacking were the real victories by and for people actually asserting their rights on Election Day against the powers that be. Yes, regardless of political affiliation; against the endlessly deep pockets and scare tactics of huge corporations; AND against the mighty robed ones of the Supreme Court—they prevailed. Big time. And they may have set the stage for the rest of the country to follow suit.

What does Susan B. Anthony have in common with voters in Montana, Ohio and Pennsylvania?

 If Susan B. Anthony was afraid (and surely she was), she did not let her fear of being sued, ridiculed, harassed, beaten and jailed stop her from standing up for her rights.  And while voters in these states didn’t risk their personal security, on Election day, they took a stand for their rights, and they acted is if government belongs to us. Rights—as in, unalienable self-evident rights that come by virtue of being born, that cannot be given or granted, taken away or surrendered.

In the Big Sky state of Montana, where the Governor is a Democrat, but the electorate runs fire engine-red, you may have heard that the state voted to urge or direct Congress to enact a Constitutional Amendment to overturn corporate personhood, as did Colorado. But the real story is so much richer than that.

Verner Bertelsen (R) Montana’s former Secretary of State
photo credit: standwithmontanans.org

Many states—not only Montana—  included in their early Constitutions the subordination of corporations to the will of the people, and banned corporate political expenditures in state elections.  Over the years, most of those Constitutional provisions have been deleted to pave the way for more corporate-friendly laws—but not in Montana. In early January 2012, Montana’s state supreme court, in recognition of the rights of residents to determine the outcome of their elections, struck a defiant blow to the heart of the Super-PAC-creating-unlimited-corporate-elections-spending SCOTUS Citizens United decision, by restoring their state ban on corporate elections spending. 

The federal court was quick to respond to this challenge of their supremacy by reaffirming Citizens United and striking down Montana’s Constitutional provision. And with the flick of a pen, five of the Robed Nine denied the 1 million residents of Montana their right to decide the proper role for corporations in local and state elections (take THAT democracy).

Montanans seemed to take this news personally, as a denial of their very real authority to govern corporate entities, and on Election day, reminded the learned SCOTUS who is boss in Big Sky country. By a landslide of 75% Montanans restored their rights on Election Day and sent corporations and the Supreme Court a powerful message. Initiative 166, officially called the Prohibition on Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Montana Elections Act, was endorsed by the Governor (D), the Lt. Governor (R) and the former Secretary of State (R).

As C.B. Pearson, treasurer for the I-166 group, Stand with Montanans  put it, “For nearly a century, Montana had elections free of corporate money. But now our fair elections system is compromised. With this vote, Montanans have provided much needed leadership on this important issue, much as we did 100 years ago with the passage of the Corrupt Practices Act.”

Communities stand up to Big Energy, State & Federal law to stop toxic dumping

Scare tactics FAIL: Mailer sent to all residents of Mansfield, paid for by the American Petroleum Institute, as noted above the address.

Elsewhere in Ohio and Pennsylvania, three communities fed up with a wealthy minority scaring people to vote against their own interests challenged the entire structure of law that puts corporate interest before residents—and won.

Mansfield, Ohio’s 50,000 residents were slated to be on the receiving end of Pennsylvania’s toxic frackwater waste, a byproduct of hydraulic fracturing, one of the dirtiest energy production methods in the US. 

Under the law, there wasn’t really anything that concerned residents could do to stop it from coming. The permits are approved by the State, and the dumping of PA’s unwanted fracking chemicals into “injection wells” in Ohio is legal, despite the scientific evidence that storing frack waste is causing large earthquakes….in Ohio (that’s right…Ohio).

Mansfield residents respond to corporate elections ads with their own message

After an initial conference call with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, and follow-up conversations with community members and the Council, the Law Director John Spon proposed a rights-based charter amendment.

Suddenly, a matter of local concern—namely the right of residents to protect their own health safety and welfare from ultra-hazardous materials—became an election issue for Big Petroleum and their PACs.

Corporate contributors poured over $300,000 into TV attack ads and glossy mailers to frighten residents into voting against their own interests, citing that the Charter Amendment Bill of Rights was a “jobs killer”. Residents didn’t believe the hype, reasoning that jobs related to injection wells are not as plentiful as promised, and dumping toxic waste into Mansfield’s industrial park seemed more likely to chase away new business.

As the Mayor put it “We don’t like out-siders telling us what to do.” Residents voted by 63% to pass the charter amendment that affirms the rights of all residents to decide if injections wells are wanted (they’re not); subordinates all corporate protections (not just personhood) to community wishes, and recognizes rights for ecosystems to be free from toxic frackwater dumping.

Elsewhere in Ohio, the town of Broadview Heights similarly passed a Community Bill of Rights charter amendment to ban any new fracking, and new injection wells or disposal of “frack-water,” “brine “tailings,” or other waste products of the fracking process.  The organizing group, Mothers Against Drilling In Our Neighborhoods (MADION) took it another step further, proposing the community vote to ban injection wells, but to futher protect the rights of citizens by prohibiting all new gas and oil drilling, fracking and injection wells.

Unlike their neighbors in Mansfield, the Mayor was not in support of the rights-based effort, and the City Council threatened to pull the initiative from the ballot, thereby stripping residents of their right to even vote on the matter, which did not go down well with residents. MADION’s charter amendment garnered the support of the local newspaper, and with no funding whatsoever the Mad Mothers made their case—door to door. On election day, the rights-based initiative passed with an impressive 66% of the vote.

Going “Home Rule” to access democracy

Campaign headquarters at the home of Pam Steckler in Furguson, PA Photo credit: Groundswell/CRAFT

Whatever you might say about the citizen initiative process—whereby the electorate can collect signatures to put items of concern before residents for a local or statewide vote—in states that don’t allow for it, residents are left with very few options when their elected officials abandon them.

Pennsylvania is a ‘no citizen initiative’ state.There is only one thing communities can put up for a vote there—and that is whether or not to become a “home rule” municipality (in other states it’s also called a charter city), which allows them to change how decisions are made tin their community and opens the door for local citizen initiatives that can effectively amend their town’s charter.   For the majority of Pennsylvanians who do not live under Home Rule, when residents oppose a policy, they must persuade their elected officials to enact new laws—sometimes difficult in areas where the “Good Old Boys” network runs in partnership with the “corporate boys”, turning towns into  sacrifice zones for one corporate activity to the next. Its something more communities are working toward—more community decision-making by “going” Home Rule.

In Furguson, PA—already a  Home Rule township, the activity that seeks to turn their community into a sacrifice zone  is fracking, along with hundreds of other communities dotted along the enormous Marcellus Shale  Marcellus Shale that crosses six states.

Local citizens groups Groundswell and CRAFT (Community Rights Activism for Ferguson Township) put forward a referendum to amend the Ferguson Township Home Rule Charter to add a Community Bill of Rights that would ban fracking. The initiative passed—despite being heavily opposed by the mayor, the town manager, and the town solicitor, who support fracking.  But as Groundswell put it, its not just about fracking, “these initiatives amount to a challenge to existing structural law concerning local government and a revolution in the way we deal with issues concerning communities and our environment…We’re not stopping here. A world will exist with an economy, environment and democracy that thrive together.”

All of these victories represent more than meets the eye. In these places Election Day wasn’t about RED or BLUE, nor were they about issues like  Citizens United, corporate personhood or fracking. Not to wax too poetically, but in each of these places, Americans took a deep breath of ownership of their rights that allows us all to breathe more freely.  If Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth are to be believed our rights are worth the risks, sacrifices and the bigger struggles for freedoms that lie ahead. It’s why Susan B. Anthony took her action to vote—not just for herself—but for all women.  Its why the freedom riders took white knuckle journeys through dangerous roads.

Montana surely faces a response from the U.S. Supreme court. And when it happens, we must all recognize that their struggle for rights is also our own—together we must stand not just against corporate so-called “rights” but we must stand together for our right to govern.

  •  This piece was also cross-posted on AlterNet.

—

Shannon Biggs is the Director of the Community Rights program at Global Exchange,  assisting communities confronted by corporate harms to enact binding laws that place the rights of communities and nature above the claimed legal “rights” of corporations.

Global Exchange board member Ann Wright

The following guest post by Global Exchange board member Ann Wright originally appeared on MichaelMoore.com.

Bradley Manning was recently chosen as  Global Exchange’s Human Rights Awards People’s Choice Winner. The award will be presented at the 2012 Human Rights Awards gala on May 10th in San Francisco and will be accepted on Bradley Manning’s behalf by special guest Daniel Ellsberg.

—
The Government’s Warning to Bradley Manning and Others: “Tell on us, and we will put you behind bars for the rest of your life”

The pre-trial hearings for alleged Wikileaks whistleblower US Army PFC Bradley Manning hold some lessons for us all.

One of the issues discussed in Manning’s April 25 pre-trial hearing has relevance for all of us. If soldiers or other government employees expose on the internet or in interviews with journalists government malfeasance, should that person be charged with “aiding and abetting the enemy?” Even if a soldier has no intent to give information to an “enemy,” no “evil intent,” but the enemy could possibly have access to the interview by buying a newspaper that contains the interview, or accesses it on the internet, should the government employee be prosecuted for “aiding and abetting the enemy?”

What if the government is more fearful of its citizens than of al Qaeda and the Taliban and attempts to silence the whistleblowers in the government who alert the citizens of the wrongdoings of its government?

What if the government does not want to hold accountable those in government who are violating regulations and laws?

The prosecution in the Bradley Manning trial is arguing that soldiers should know that the “enemy” uses the internet and can easily find derogatory or negative comments from military personnel and use them to find weaknesses in military units, strategies, policies.

Does that mean that a soldier, government employee, or for that matter, anyone not even in government who talks about the monstrously high levels of post-traumatic stress in our military or talks about 18 military and veterans committing suicide a day, or anyone who identifies cost overruns in virtually every government program is subject to the charge of “aiding and abetting the enemy.”

I recently inadvertently and fortuitously ended up at a meeting with a US State Department sponsored group of young professionals from the Middle East who were brought to the United States to learn more about our country. I mentioned that I was attending the hearings for the alleged Wikileaks whistleblower Bradley Manning.

The reaction of the group was stunning. Immediately hands for questions went up—the questions began with a comment—“Without Wikileaks, I would never have learned what my own governments was doing, its complicity in secret prisons and torture, in extraordinary rendition, in cooperation in the US wars in the region. Wikileaks exposed what our politicians and elected officials are doing. Without Wikileaks, we would never have known!”

And that is what Bradley Manning’s trial is all about and what the charges against six other government employees who face espionage allegations for providing information the government classified to protect its own wrongdoings -to silence other potential government whistleblowers.

Only two persons in our government have had the courage to risk life imprisonment to leak massive amounts of government documents. Daniel Ellsberg leaked thousands of documents that revealed the sordid history of the US involvement in Vietnam and who President Nixon labeled for his actions “the most dangerous man in America.”

And now, Bradley Manning who is accused of leaking hundreds of thousands of documents that reveal war crimes in the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and questionable US diplomatic policies and duplicity with governments around the world.

The charges of “aiding and abetting the enemy” and of espionage are meant to threaten any others who might find the evidence of government criminal actions and alert the American public.

The unmistakable warning is “don’t tell on us, or we will put you behind bars for the rest of your life.”

—

About the Blogger: Global Exchange board member Ann Wright is a retired US Army Colonel who spent 29 years in the US Army and Army Reserves. She resigned from the State Department on March 19, 2003 in protest of the invasion of Iraq. Since then, she has been writing and speaking out for peace. Ann has been on delegations to Iran, was in Gaza three times in 2009, and was an organizer for the Gaza Freedom March. She was on the 2010 Gaza flotilla that was attacked by the Israeli military and on the Audacity of Hope boat which was part of the Freedom Flotilla in 2011. She lives in Honolulu.

—

Attend the 2012 Human Rights Awards gala: Global Exchange is proud to honor Bradley Manning as its 2012 Human Rights Awards People’s Choice recipient.

Find out all about this exciting awards event here and purchase tickets here.

May 10th is an evening you won’t want to miss! We’ll be shining a spotlight on 2012 Human Rights Award Honoree Annie Leonard and People’s Choice Winner PFC Bradley Manning, and this just in…Bradley Manning’s award will be accepted by special guest Daniel Ellsberg.

Daniel Ellsberg Photo Credit: www.ellsberg.net

Daniel Ellsberg is a lecturer, writer and activist on the dangers of the nuclear era, wrongful U.S. interventions and the urgent need for patriotic whistleblowing with an interesting background of his own. From Daniel Ellsberg’s website:

In 1967 Ellsberg worked on the top secret McNamara study of U.S. Decision-making in Vietnam, 1945-68, which later came to be known as the Pentagon Papers. In 1969, he photocopied the 7,000 page study and gave it to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; in 1971 he gave it to the New York Times, the Washington Post and 17 other newspapers. His trial, on twelve felony counts posing a possible sentence of 115 years, was dismissed in 1973 on grounds of governmental misconduct against him, which led to the convictions of several White House aides and figured in the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon.

Hope to see you! So, if you find yourself in the California Bay Area on May 10th, we hope you join us at the historic Green Room (401 Van Ness) in San Francisco from 6PM – 8:30PM for this fabulous Human Rights Awards Gala. Awaiting you will be drinks, passed appetizers, and the opportunity to mingle with awardees, Global Exchange staff, and other progressives.

And there’s a silent auction? Yep, for the cherry on top of this delicious evening, there will also be a silent auction featuring lots of incredible items up for auction at great prices during the awards gala. Last year’s auction included fine artwork, Fair Trade gift baskets, getaways and more. I wonder what tempting auction items there will be this year. Come out on May 10th to find out. I look forward to meeting some of you there.

That's me with a few of my personal heroes Ben & Jerry and Kevin Danaher at the 2011 Human Rights Awards

TAKE ACTION!

 

I celebrated Earth Day along with hundreds of other earth-conscious individuals at San Francisco’s Civic Center/UN Plaza. Everyone came out that day under a common idea: we live in a wondrous community of life that is planet Earth and that community deserves our awe, respect, and attention. There was an array of speakers and musical performances as well as booths and vendors featuring local non-profit organizations, green businesses, and organic food.

I participated in a panel discussion at the celebration on Sunday around the question of “co-creating our sustainable future – what are the successful tools for coalition building and collaboration both within and beyond your organization’s work?” I was joined by leaders of the non-profit environmental movement including Rolf Skar from Greenpeace, Sarah Hodgdon of the Sierra Club, and Kevin Connelly from the Earth Island Institute.

It was insightful to hear about the different work that each of us is doing to make the future of the planet and us humans that inhabit it more sustainable and less destructive. There was one common thread throughout the discussion and that was: in order to ensure a positive future for people and the planet we must figure out how to live in balance – or in ‘harmony’ – with nature. And, in doing so, we must also learn how to work in harmony with one another towards the common goal of protecting and conserving Mother Earth and the resources that our human societies depend on for survival.

I spoke about how the emerging global movement for community and nature’s rights works to build coalitions and develop collaborations with a wide variety of groups. Our present-day global economic system and indeed our structures of law have been built upon a mindset that places humans not just apart from, but actually above nature. We codify our values in our laws and so in order to change the system, we must transform the laws that govern it.

Polar bears making a point about climate change at Earth Day

We are building a movement and there is a role to play for everyone.

The idea of organizing to actually challenge our current structures of law to recognize that nature itself has inherent rights to exist, thrive, and flourish is a big one.  We must ask ourselves the following question: If Rights of Nature is to succeed as an alternative framework to our current property-based system of law, how are we going to implement it?

The movement for nature’s rights is unique in its ability to be all-inclusive because the dire need to better protect the environment and the concept of ‘rights’ is something that everyone can understand and agree upon, despite different political beliefs or affiliations. . Most people know that allowing decision-making based on money, greed or narrow self-interest to sacrifice the well being of the planet is foolish, they just can’t see how to move to a better way of doing things.

This is because our current structures of law actually facilitate the on-going exploitation of nature. Climate change, water withdrawal, and deforestation are all symptoms of the same problem; that communities do not have the right to make decisions about how to protect the environment under the current system. Instead, this right is reserved for corporations and the state.

In addition to our coalition building with communities, policy makers, indigenous allies, and climate justice allies, I also spoke about the role of small farmers in creating viable alternative systems to corporate-dominated agriculture. If large, corporate factory farms are not what we want our food system to look like then what is the alternative? The answer lies in small, community-based farmers selling, growing, and sharing their own food.  Food sovereignty is a growing issue for communities across CA (and the rest of the world) and we have been getting an increasing number of calls from places like Nevada City, and Mendocino, CA, where citizens are looking to pass a law that asserts their right to local food sovereignty without interference from government regulations and raids on small farms.

Occupy the Farm

Meanwhile on Earth Day, across the Bay in Albany, California, the Occupy Movement was taking a stand for local food sovereignty by taking over a portion of property known as the ‘Gill Tract’. It is the last remaining 10 acres of Class I agricultural soil in the urbanized East Bay. The owner of the land, UC Berkeley, plans to sell the property to Whole Foods to open a new retail store. For decades the UC has thwarted attempts by community members to transform the site for urban sustainable agriculture and hands-on education. In solidarity with Via Campesina, “Occupy the Farm” is a coalition of local residents, farmers, students, researchers, and activists that have begun planting over 15,000 seedlings at the Gill Tract. Over 300 people turned out on Sunday to help plant seeds and till the land.

The goals of “Occupy the Farm” echo the calls of communities across California and the US that there is a dire need for people to have access to uncontaminated land for farming if we are to reclaim control over how food is grown and where it comes from. That sustainable, community-based farming is the best alternative to corporate control (and poisoning) of our food systems.

The time for a new system is now and the well being of the planet, our health, and that of future generations absolutely depends on it. We are up against an enormous task to remove the power of decision-making from profit-driven corporations (and the state) and put it back in the hands of people and communities, thereby enabling us to co-create our sustainable future.

TAKE ACTION!

•    Watch this video documenting the first day of Occupy the Farm.
•    Learn more about the movement for Community and Nature’s Rights.

Javier Sicilia with Juan Mora, from DePaul University in Chicago

Javier Sicilia’s message to the audiences of four public events in Chicago, IL was clear and powerful;

“In 1994 subcomandante Marcos introduced the Zapatistas to the world, declaring Mexican President Salinas’ signing of NAFTA opened ‘the gates of hell’ for Mexico, and now Mexico is living in that hell.”

He begins every speech quoting terrifying statistics: Since 2006, there are 60,000 Mexicans dead, 20,000 Mexicans disappeared and 250,000 Mexicans displaced from their homes, all a result of a drug war launched by a deaf and dumb government. And there is no end in sight. More than 98% of homicides committed in Mexico are never resolved. He brings home the message that if anyone in the audience decided to kill someone in Mexico, there would be less than 2% chance of ever being held accountable.

The cost of the war reflected in these numbers has grown inexorably since last year when the respected poet announced to an adoring Mexican public that he was putting aside his poetry to protest the government’s complicity with organized crime and inexcusable inaction in investigating the deaths of those killed in drug war related violence.

Altar outside of the Municipal Palace in Cuernavaca Morelos, with names and pictures of drug war related victims

Javier’s son Juan Francisco was murdered along with six friends on a fateful night in March of 2011 in Temixco, Morelos. Suddenly, Javier –who had long been active in Mexico’s cultural and political life — became the voice for a movement led by people who are simply called ‘las victimas’.

He is emphatic that the statistics don’t convey the real picture. He says that the face of the person who suffered ‘one death’ or ‘one disappearance’ is one person who had a character, a personality and merits justice. One death represents a family torn apart in grief. The fact that more than 98% of the time those seeking answers from authorities get no satisfaction adds to their pain and misery. One disappeared person represents a family consumed with fear and unanswered questions. One displaced family lives in constant upheaval and suffering. In short, the statistics are overwhelming but even one is too many.

The public events were co-sponsored by the National Museum of Mexican Art, UIC (Latin American and Latino Studies Program), DePaul University and The Resurrection Project and well attended by students, activists and members of the Latino community in Chicago. In each speech Javier repeated the urgent demands of the Mexico-based Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity – the organization of victims that came together last year to declare Estámos hasta la Madre/We Are Fed Up (with the drug war) – to the Mexican and US governments. The Pacto Nacional (link in Spanish) was signed May 12, 2011 with the following demands:

  • End the drug war, a failure of tragic proportions;
  • End the easy access to high-powered weapons that facilitates weapons smuggling;
  • Crack down on those who help criminal enterprises by laundering money;
  • Defend the human security and dignity of immigrants;
  • End US support for the militarization of Mexico.

In Mexico, the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity is campaigning for approval of the Ley de Victimas this week. This law would place new responsibility on the government to investigate drug war related crimes and provides a fund for impacted families.

Carrying the voices of las victimas to the United States, Javier is widening the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity’s profile and building support for a US Peace Caravan this summer (link in Spanish). Javier and the Caravan will cross the United States in cars, buses, and RVs joined by victims of drug war related violence from Mexico, supporters, activists and journalists. The Caravan will stop at key cities along the route for public conferences, demonstrations and meetings with key local leaders.

TAKE ACTION!

  • For more information about Javier Sicilia’s speaking events in the USA, click here.
  • For more information about the US Peace Caravan, click here.