Thursday, April 28, 2011

Tribeca Film Fest Street Fair Plans to Rock The Vote

Colorful opening marks film fest’s 10th year: The Tribeca Film Festival celebrated it’s 10th year with an opening night screening and concert at North Cove in Battery Park City.

This year’s Tribeca Family Festival Street Fair will have a new, added political component, spurred on by the recent population boom in Lower Manhattan. But like the film festival itself, the event will be geared to all audiences, at least politically speaking.

Julie Menin, chair of Community Board 1, came up with the idea to host a "Rock the Vote" campaign at the street fair as a way to take advantage of the new families and singles that over the last few years have chosen to call Lower Manhattan their home. She contacted Rock the Vote’s main headquarters in Washington, D.C. and then reached out to any and every political group in the city that shared her passion to register new voters during the hugely popular event.

“It’s the first of many events we’re going to do,” said Menin. “There’s 30,000 people that have moved into Community Board 1 since 9/11 and that’s a large number of new Downtowners. Maybe they never did a change of address.”

The street fair takes place this Saturday from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Greenwich St., from Hubert to Chambers Sts. At 12 p.m. sharp on the main stage local elected officials will join Menin to kick off the event.

Menin stressed the bi-partisan aspect of the campaign. Groups such as the New York City Independence Party Organizations, Working Families Party, the Metropolitan Republican Club, the Log Cabin Republicans of NYC, Manhattan Young Democrats, the Downtown Republican Club, and the Downtown Independent Democrats are all co-sponsoring the event.

The IPNYC Manhatten Chair, Cathy Stewart, secured an invitation for the NYC Independence Party Organizations to participate this SATURDAY in a voter registration drive at the TriBeCa Film Festival. We will educate folks about IP and register voters. Cathy Stewart will also be there for the program.

If you are in the area drop by our table.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, April 22, 2011

Money and Democracy

Thanks to Democracy Is For People for this post.

Van Hollen sues FEC over Disclosure Rule
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has sued the Federal Election Commission to make public the names of big money political donors who now may remain anonymous. Van Hollen said he is aiming to close a loophole by reversing an FEC regulation requiring companies and groups to name only those donors who give at least $1,000 specifically to pay for political activities. The lawmaker says this guts disclosure requirements Congress enacted in 2002 as part of the McCain-Feingold law.

Disclosure via Executive Order
President Barack Obama has drafted an executive order that would require companies vying for government contracts to disclose information about contributions they make to groups that run political ads. This is part of a trend of federal agencies trying to increase transparency in campaign finance.

More Citizens United fallout
Corporations can openly tell employees how to vote. Here’s another sign of how the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has changed the political landscape: Corporations can openly urge their employees to vote for certain candidates. Koch Industries, led by conservative brothers David and Charles Koch, already has done this; The Nation got hold of an election packet the company distributed to employees in Washington state listing Koch-backed candidates.

Corporate political spending is on shareholders’ minds
During this annual meeting season, political spending is getting more attention from shareholders. Seventy-eight shareholder proposals focus on political spending or lobbying, up from 48 proposals during the first six months of 2010. The reason more people are focused on it? The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

Use the above link to find out more about these issues.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

A new way to choose a President


Americans Elect (AE), was previously called Unity ’12, and still earlier Unity ’08. AE plans to nominate a presidential ticket in 2012 that will bridge the vital center of American opinion.

In June 2012, Americans Elect will invite you and every registered voter in the country to go online and choose a third ticket for President and Vice President through a secure, Internet-based convention. This 21st-century ticket will give voice to the vital center of the American public and will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

America's challenges are only getting bigger as the two political parties in Washington fail to work together to find solutions. Voters across the political spectrum—Republicans, Democrats, and independents—feel left out or put off by the endless shouting match that solves nothing. We need new leaders who represent and answer to the people, not the parties, and it begins with you.

I was a member of Unity '08, so I will follow this new effort closely.

Use the above link to find out more about this effort.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, April 19, 2011

CA's Top-Two Open Primary Still Not Approved

Thanks to Ballot Access news for this Post.

Although it has been more than ten months since California voters passed Proposition 14, the “top-two open primary”, with 53.73% of the vote, the U.S. Justice Department still hasn’t approved the measure. On April 15, the Department of Justice requested more information from California.

Many years ago, the Mississippi legislature passed a bill to establish a top-two system, but the Justice Department never pre-cleared it, so it never went into practice in Mississippi. However, the Justice Department did approve Louisiana’s system in 1975.

California laws must be pre-cleared under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, because four particular California counties had very lower voter participation many decades ago, when the benchmarks were set for determining which areas are covered by Section Five. The four counties are Monterey, Kings, Yuba and Merced. None of the special elections held under California’s top-two laws have included any part of those counties, but the 2012 election will include them.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Tenn. GOP Panel Rejects Call for Closed Primaries

Thanks to Ballot Access News for this post.

The Executive Committee of the State Republican Party on Saturday voted down a proposal to require party registration to vote in Tennessee primaries.

The policy panel rejected the proposal sponsored by committee member Mark Winslow, a former executive director of the State GOP, on a voice vote.

Tennessee voters aren't registered by party, and voters often decide in which primary to participate depending on campaign developments. The law allows for challenges of people who are "not a bona fide member of a political party," though that status is not clearly defined.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, April 15, 2011

Voter Suppression

There seems to be a Republican misuse, led by State Legislatures and GOP Governors, of their power by enacting restrictive voter ID laws under a thin veil of "preventing voter fraud."

Legislation already passed in Ohio could deprive nearly 900,000 citizens, mostly seniors, low-income individuals, students, the disabled, and people of color, of their voting rights by limiting voter ID verification to one of just five types. Unfortunately, a similar law was passed in Texas, and more such laws are well on their way in 20 other states. This type of voter suppression goes against everything America stands for. The only way we can ensure all voters have a voice is for all of us to stand up and use our voices right now. This is just too important to sit quietly on the sidelines.

Since taking office in January, conservative legislators in state houses across the country have raised the specter of voter fraud to, quietly and quickly, push through a series of bills that would make it significantly more difficult for large swaths of the population to vote, including college students, rural voters, senior citizens, the disabled, and the homeless. Proposed legislation would dramatically change how the country votes ahead of the 2012 elections, requiring Americans in some states to present their birth certificate before registering to vote and show a DMV-issued photo identification at the polls. These voter ID bills would not only dampen voter turnout, depressing Hispanic turnout by as much as 10 percent, but also cost cash-strapped statehouses (and taxpayers) millions of dollars. Yet in dozens of states, Republicans have made bills restricting voting a central part of their legislative agenda by passing voter ID bills before they even begin to work on budgets. Conservatives have claimed their assault on voting rights is necessary to combat the threat of mass voter fraud. Yet the Brennan Center for Justice notes that voters are more likely to be struck by lightning than commit voter fraud, and the Bush Justice Department's five-year "War on Voter Fraud" resulted in only 86 convictions out of 196 million votes cast. As The Progress Report's Alex Seitz-Wald notes, "The only fraud in voter fraud is the allegation of fraud." Instead, like their assaults on unions, Planned Parenthood, and AARP, conservatives' anti-voter agenda is aimed at silencing the voices of those who disagree with them.

ASSAULT ON VOTING RIGHTS: After picking up more than 650 seats in state legislatures across the country last November, Republicans have moved quickly to make their anti-voter agenda into law. Kansas has already passed a bill requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. If signed by Gov. Sam Brownback (R), it would be the nation's strictest registration requirement. Similar laws in Arizona and Georgia have been invalidated by federal courts or are waiting review from the Justice Department. And in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Montana, Wisconsin, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Missouri, at least one legislative chamber has approved a photo ID bill. By the end of the year, these states could join eight others that have already passed and implemented voter ID requirements. They've been able to move so quickly with the help of the Koch-funded American Legislative Exchange Council, which has distributed "model" voter ID legislation to conservative lawmakers that bears a striking similarity to bills in at least two states. But conservatives may come to regret passing the laws they now so eagerly support. In Indiana for example, photo ID laws have forced election workers to turn nuns and college students away from the polls. And voters may not be very happy to bear the cost of implementing new voter systems. As the Brennan Center notes, "in a difficult fiscal environment, citizens may reasonably question whether there are more pressing needs on which to spend their tax dollars than photo ID rules."

THE NEXT FRONTIER: Last month, conservatives were on the verge of passing voter ID bills in at least two dozen statehouses. But in the past few weeks, progressive lawmakers and organizations have fought back, killing bills in seven states. And progressives are not just playing defense. In four states, lawmakers are moving forward on what The Progress Report's Scott Keyes has called "the next frontier in voting rights": online voter registration. Already implemented in eleven states, electronic registration is not only cost-effective but has, according to the Pew Research Center, increased "voter list accuracy, streamlined the process for government officials, and enjoyed overwhelming public support." But most importantly, online registration has a track record of raising voter turnout, especially among younger voters, compared to those who registered using "traditional methods." While conservative statehouses across the nation work to make voting more expensive and more difficult, progressives have found "a welcome reform" that will make the country's voting system more accountable, more cost-effective, and more inclusive.

FROM JIM CROW TO THE TEA PARTY: Today's battles over voting rights are just the latest episode in the rights's long campaign to restrict voting rights. For more than a century, conservatives have ginned up the threat of voter fraud to restrict the voting rights of minorities and the poor. In the Jim Crow South, historian Leon Litwack notes, "respectable" Southern whites justified their support for poll taxes and literacy taxes which disenfranchised millions of African-Americans "as a way to reform and purify the electoral process, to root out fraud and bribery." Since 1958 both the RNC and state GOP committees have engaged in more than half a dozen "voter caging" efforts supposedly designed to "prevent voter fraud" by challenging the residency, and voter eligibility, of thousands living in low-income and minority communities. Most recently, during the lead-up to the 2010 election, Tea Party volunteers challenged the eligibility of voters at the polls in an effort to stop "voter fraud" and prevent "stolen elections." And in 2006, U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias and Tom Heffelfinger lost their jobs after they ran afoul of GOP activists for refusing to prosecute voting fraud cases where little evidence existed and expressing "deep concerns" about laws curbing Native Americans ability to vote.

I remember my 94 year old aunt in FL. fighting about having to get her picture id so she could go and vote for Obama. We all need to fight this effort to prevent certain voters from voting.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

NYC Unions Aim To Block Campaign Finance Disclosure Measure

NYC's Central Labor Council is considering suing to block a little known campaign finance disclosure ballot measure passed last November, according to two union officials who attended the CLC’s political director’s meeting, the first in six months.

The ballot measure, folded deep within a lengthy, multi-pronged question created by the New York City Charter Revision Commission, would require unions and other outside interest groups to disclose every dollar spent advocating for or against candidates, from paid canvassers to campaign mailers. The little-noticed measure passed along with a slew of other unrelated proposals with 80 percent of the vote.

Union officials say potential requirements making unions disclose how much money has been spent on internal communications with their members—through union newsletters, for instance—would be particularly onerous. This could force unions to open up their books to the Campaign Finance Board to show that all union electioneering activity was, in fact, being disclosed, according to Michael McGuire, political director for the Mason Tenders.

McGuire argued that the Federal Election Commission has already found that spending on internal communications with union members does not have to be disclosed and is protected by the first amendment. McGuire said that he is sure city unions would win a prospective lawsuit to overturn any provision require disclosure of internal communications. “The New York City Campaign Finance Board is asserting that the FEC is wrong,” McGuire said. “The talk is all somewhat vague for now, but we have said from the outset that we are sure we would win this case.”

CFB spokesperson Eric Friedman said the ballot measure was a victory for transparency. “The Charter amendment approved by the voters in November is meant to provide the public with more information about money spent to influence the outcome of city elections,” Friedman said in an email. “As we prepare to draft rules to implement the new disclosure requirement, we've sought input from those who will be affected. The Board has already held one public hearing in March, and is planning another after issuing a draft of the rules.”

The FEC requires groups to report costs greater than $2,000 related to campaigns “advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” How the Campaign Finance Board defines it's own rules, especially when it comes to communications solely to union members, is likely to determine whether litigation is ultimately filed.

City union officials said there were so many elections last year, they were distracted from fighting the disclosure measure at the ballot box. But along with a few legislative issues—like passing the living wage bill—fighting the measure has now become a major priority for city unions.

The charter revision commission decided to put the measure on the ballot in response to the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited spending by outside groups and the 2009 New York City elections, which saw heavy increases in outside spending from both unions and the real estate industry.

This is one of the reasons I voted yes to the commission's ballot measures.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Independent Party of Oregon Fights for Legality



The House Rules Committee of the Oregon legislature will consider a bill to abolish the Independent Party of Oregon (IPO).

The bill bans using the word "independent" in the name of any political party, thus forcing the Independent Party to change its name by the end of the year or be disbanded.

“The free speech and free association implications of this bill are stunning, particularly when you consider that no legislator has listed their name as a sponsor,” said Party Chair, Linda Williams. “This as a transparent partisan attempt by a handful of legislators to strangle the Independent Party of Oregon in its infancy."

This is such an important issue that you need to understand what the implications are. So please use the above link to The Hankster's blog to get all the details.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Friday, April 8, 2011

Shareholders Should Get Say On Co’s Political Spending

Since the Supreme Court ruling in 2010, Citizen United v. FEC, that corporations have a “right” to spend unlimited money influencing elections, I have asked why the shareholder's did not have say in the spending. That could change in the future.

People who own stock in Home Depot will vote on whether they can have a say over the company’s political spending, the Securities and Exchange Commission has decided. The SEC sent a no-action letter to Home Depot in response to that company’s attempt to keep a shareholder resolution on corporate spending off a proxy statement. Likely other companies will keep this in mind when putting their proxy ballots together. In doing so, the SEC recognized that shareholder accountability over corporate political spending is a significant policy issue that can’t be barred from a proxy statement under the ordinary business exclusion.

The substance of the Home Depot proposal, submitted by NorthStar Asset Management Funded Pension Plan, is the following:

Shareholders recommend that the Board of Directors adopt a policy under which the proxy statement for each annual meeting will contain a proposal describing:

The company's policies on electioneering contributions, any specific expenditures for electioneering communications known to be anticipated during the forthcoming fiscal year, the total amount of such anticipated expenditures, a list of electioneering expenditures made in the prior fiscal year, and providing an advisory shareholder vote on those policies and future plans. NorthStar’s supporting statement requested that management provide an analysis as to whether Home Depot’s political spending was in line with its values and policies, and any risks it might pose to the company’s reputation, brand, or shareholder value.

This shareholder proposal was based in part on draft legislation written by the Brennan Center last year which became the Shareholder Protection Act in the 111th Congress. The SEC rejected all of Home Depot’s objections to the inclusion of this shareholder proposal on the 2011 proxy statement.

This SEC no-action letter means shareholders can assert self-help on a company-by-company basis, not just on transparency of political spending, but also on an advisory shareholder vote on such spending.

This is a big step in the right direction for giving shareholders more protections after Citizens United allowed corporations the ability to spend other people’s money in politics.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

NAN 20th Anniversary & 13th National Convention

National Action Network (NAN) is one of the leading civil rights organizations in the world and is in the forefront of social justice in the United States. As a direct outgrowth of the movement that was built and led by the Rev. Dr. Martin L. King, Jr., NAN was founded in New York City in 1991 by the Rev. Al Sharpton and a group of activists that were committed to the principles of non-violent direct action and civil disobedience. I was asked to attend the convention and was in the audience for the following Opening Panel and Special Plenary Presentation.


Politics 2011 - 2012 What Are the Issues?
Moderated By: Rev. Al Sharpton

Panelists:
Charles M. Blow - Columnist, New York Times
Harold E. Ford, Jr. - Former Congressman and NYU Professor
Kirsten John Foy - Director of Intergovernmental & Community Affairs, Office of the New York City Public Advocate
George Gresham - President, 1199 SEIU
Frederick D. Hayes, III - Senior Pastor, Friendship West Baptist Church, Dallas, TX
David Jefferson, Sr. - Senior Paster, Metropolitan Baptist Church, Newark, NJ
Roberto Ramirez - Founding Partner, MirRam Group, LLC
Jacqueline Salit - President, IndependentVoting.org
Lee A. Saunders - Secretary-Treasure, American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)

Special Plenary Presentation I:
David Axelrod - Former Senior White House Advisor to President Barack Obama

The thrust of the conversations was the need to address these issues for 2012:

1. Jobs
2. Hunger
3. Education
4. Workers Rights
5. Immigration

The statement "Who Gets to Feel Secure" could be the defining issue between which major party the voters' put into the White House.

All these issues will not be addressed until we fix the follwing:

Because so many of the primaries and other selection processes were OPEN, the independent voter gave Obama the opportunity to win the election. But today, the Republicans are trying to CLOSE their primaries so this won't happen in the future. This effort must be stopped, but only as a holding effort.

With over 38% of registered voters having not selected a party, they want to vote for candidates not parties. But in many states you can only select a party's primary ballot if you want to take part in the political process. So the need for something like the Open Primary / Top Two that was put into place in CA, with some modifications, could be a good structural political reform.

As evident with our current stalemates in Congress, just selecting a President isn't the final answer. We must prepare the foundation for a truly successful administration that will work for the people. To do this, we need to elect local, state, and Congressional candidates that will be flexible in the process of making this country work and support the President.









NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!

Michael H. Drucker
Technorati talk bubble Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us Digg! StumbleUpon