The journey of a million miles begins with a single step, someone once said. While it's a long road ahead for this constitutional amendment, hopefully this is a sincere effort from the legislators involved to dissolve the shackles that bind them to their big donors. We can piss and moan all we want about Citizens United, but how willing are we to actually do anything about it - say, hold a coffee klatch with our neighbors and try to get them behind the idea? Bring it up at a meeting of our local municipality? Take a petition around the neighborhood? Call our elected officials asking for them to support this?

If you really want to make a difference, it's a good time to get involved:

On Wednesday, a group of members of Congress, local and state lawmakers, and activist groups met in a Capitol Visitor Center hearing room to do something unusual for its loftiness: they announced and signed a “declaration for democracy,” pledging their support to an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed unlimited spending by corporations and unions on elections.

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), himself the author of such an amendment, was one of the first lawmakers to speak:

The U.S. Constitution has served us very well, but when the Supreme Court says, for purposes of the First Amendment, that corporations are people, that writing checks from the company’s bank account is constitutionally-protected speech and that attempts by the federal government and states to impose reasonable restrictions on campaign ads are unconstitutional, our democracy is in grave danger. There comes a time when an issue is so important that the only way to address it is by constitutional amendment."

Sanders was joined by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Udall (D-NM), as well as Democratic Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Keith Ellison (Minn.), Rush Holt (N.J.), John Sarbanes (Md.), Betty Sutton (Ohio), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Ted Deutch (Fla.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Peter Welch (Vt.), and David Cicilline (R.I.). Many have introduced constitutional amendments of their own; all signed on to the declaration and expressed their support for the movement.

Each member echoed Sanders, especially focusing on the momentum building across the country for such an amendment. Hawaii, New Mexico, and this week, Vermont, have all passed resolutions in their state legislatures calling on Congress to overturn Citizens United. They’re joined by over 147 cities nationwide that have passed resolutions. The summit highlighted the Resolutions Week initiative spearheaded by Public Citizen and other organizations, aimed at passing local resolutions the week of June 11.

[...] “We have developing here a grassroots movement,” Udall said.

The members noted that passing this 28th amendment requires commitment from citizens and activist groups:

“With this vehicle, we are going to organize America and all Americans are central to that success,” said Ellison. “We need people to take personal responsibility…this has to be a mass action.”

You'd think Sen. Chuck Schumer would know the answer by now: Because they want those breaks. Because they think they deserve it, and anyone who says no to them is un-American. Kicking the unemployed, cutting social programs? Fine with big business and their Republican handmaidens. But touching oil company subsidies is a very bad thing!

ConocoPhillips, one of the world’s largest and most profitable oil companies, yesterday said it’s “un-American” to take away taxpayer subsidies from the oil industry. This wasn’t a verbal slip; the comment was put in a press release.

Congressional Democrats weren’t pleased, and at a Senate Finance Committee hearing featuring executives from all of the major oil companies, Dems sought an apology. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) repeatedly pressed ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva on this point, but there were no regrets from the oil man.

SCHUMER: I want to ask you a specific question, do you think anyone who advocates cutting these subsidies is un-American? Yes or no, sir. That one we deserve a yes or no answer on, it was your release that said “un-American.” Yes or no?

MULVA: Senator, maybe you can hear me out on this because it’s a very important question.

SCHUMER: Do you apologize for it?

MULVA: Make no mistake, were these proposals enacted … they would place U.S. oil companies like our company …

SCHUMER: Sir, I have limited time. I know your view. Do you consider it American to have another view? Yes or no?

MULVA: Senator, I believe policies under consideration are going to have a very adverse impact with respect to energy policy.

SCHUMER: There are many people who disagree with that.

We all know by now it has nothing to do with facts, and everything to do with the right of multinational corporations to rape and pillage -- which is why they hate it when they're confronted with the facts:

Trying to counter Republican claims that ending some tax breaks for the five largest oil companies would ultimately hurt consumers, Democrats are now armed with a Congressional Research Service report that predicts a negligible impact on the price of gasoline if the changes are carried out. .

The document, sent to Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, said that with the cost of oil over $100 per barrel, “prices are well in excess of costs, and a small increase in taxes would be less likely to reduce oil output, and hence increase petroleum product (gasoline) prices.”

In a review of the five specific tax changes being advocated by Democrats, the research service also said that tightening the tax code would make a very small dent in the huge revenues of the industry and that the price of oil hinged on many other, larger considerations.

It doesn't matter if your actions are extreme, like the continuing policies of the Republican caucus. It's more important to chastise any public official who accurately uses the term. And that's the strange situation we find ourselves in with the handmaidens of the national media. On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, Sen. Chuck Schumer is put under the microscope for calling a spade a spade. Tsk!

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, said he doesn't regret reporters overhearing him telling Democratic colleagues that Republican budget cuts should be painted as "extreme."

Schumer and Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., sparred on just where the Tea Party political movement stood in relationship to the American people, in an exclusive political debate on "This Week."

Schumer stood by the remarks he made when he was apparently unaware his microphone was open to reporters.

"I have no problem with reporters hearing that," Schumer told anchor Christiane Amanpour. "I said a few hours before [the call] on the floor of the Senate. I've said it on this show. The Tea Party is the group standing in the way. They are extreme," he insisted.

"Any group that says you don't cut oil subsidies to companies making billions and billions of dollars – subsidies that were passed when the price of oil was $17 to encourage production, and now the price is over one-hundred [dollars], and at the same time says: cut student aid to help qualified students go to college. Yeah, I believe they're extreme."

Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, insisted the Tea Party was part of the mainstream of American political culture. "Millions of Americans participate in the tea parties, tens of millions of Americans support and believe what they're saying, and they are right, fundamentally," he said.

Well, we already know Alabama ranks near the bottom in education, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that Jeff Sessions can't count!

"Maybe they don't understand all the realities of Washington politics," Sessions ceded, "but, fundamentally, they know this country is on a path to fiscal disaster," he said, chopping the air with his hand for emphasis.

"This Democratic leadership proposes nothing but to attack the people who are trying to get this country on the right course," Sessions said.

Amanpour asked if he thought there would be a government shutdown.

"I hope not," Sessions said. "I doubt there will be shutdown."

On that conference call earlier in the week, Schumer said, "I always use the word extreme, that is what the caucus instructed me to do the other week -- extreme cuts and all these riders. And, uh, Boehner's in a box. But if he supports the Tea Party there's going to inevitably [be] a shutdown."

DOWNLOADS: (632)

PLAYS: (560)

Embed

Well, if you were only to listen to Beltway media Villagers like Suzanne Gamboa at the AP, you'd think that President Obama had magically swept immigration reform off the national agenda by simply pointing out that getting it passed would be tough -- one day before Democrats unveiled their "framework" for comprehensive immigration reform.

As Bob Menendez explains to John King in the video above, the proposal includes lots of Republican ideas, mostly as a standing invitation to Republicans to actually participate in the process rather than resorting to the reflexive opposition that's come to characterize their behavior in the past year. Whether they will or not is going to be up to them -- though Democrats will be capable of at least proceeding with the debate without them.

And at this point -- considering that it took over a year to pass health-care reform -- that's probably the best Dems can hope for. But there's no doubt it's past time to begin the national discussion. Immigration reform is far from dead.

Here's a PDF of the Democrats' framework. And as you can see, it has a lot of good ideas in it -- and one amazingly, gobsmackingly bad one.

Adam Luna at America's Voice offers a preview of the pros and cons of the framework provided so far:

The pros:

1. The framework describes a plan to immediately register undocumented immigrants and establishes a temporary immigration status so that they can work legally, pay taxes, travel abroad, and no longer live in fear of deportation. Eligible immigrants and temporary protected status (TPS) holders will be considered for the first step of the legalization program, an interim “Lawful Prospective Immigrant” (LPI) status, as soon as the program is up and running. After eight years, these immigrants can apply for green cards and get on a path to full U.S. citizenship.

2. DREAM Act is included.

3. AgJOBS is included.

4. Permanent partners immigration provisions included.

5. On family-based immigration: family immigration backlog would be cleared in eight years. Spouses and children of Legal Permanent Residents are moved to “immediate relative” immigration category, reducing their waiting period to enter the U.S. now and in the future

6. Increased labor protections and remedies, as well as a commission to determine future employment-based visa numbers based on labor market needs.

On the other hand, the framework also includes some provisions that many advocates for comprehensive immigration reform are not going to like, particularly in the enforcement sections. Senator Menendez said as much at yesterday’s press conference. Some of the “zero tolerance” language governing future deportation rules raises red flags, given our past experience with immigration laws like those passed in 1996. Legal experts are dissecting the outline now, and we look forward to their review of the detention and deportation provisions in the coming days.

But without question the worst idea in the plan is the proposal to create a biometric National ID system in which everyone in the country would be required to carry a card containing their personal histories embedded inside:

Democratic leaders have proposed requiring every worker in the nation to carry a national identification card with biometric information, such as a fingerprint, within the next six years, according to a draft of the measure.

The proposal is one of the biggest differences between the newest immigration reform proposal and legislation crafted by late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The national ID program would be titled the Believe System, an acronym for Biometric Enrollment, Locally stored Information and Electronic Verification of Employment.

It would require all workers across the nation to carry a card with a digital encryption key that would have to match work authorization databases.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (937)

PLAYS: (3123)

Embed

One of the common wingnut accusations about Democratic hypocrisy because they opposed Mike (who was then suddenly called Miguel) Estrada is that Democrats refused to give give him a fair hearing. On This Week today, Chuck Schumer responds:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Schumer, how do you respond to this charge of hypocrisy and double standards? You led the charge against Miguel Estrada when he was trying to -- when he was nominated for the appeals court. There were internal memos among Democrats, citing as one possible reason the fact that he would be an Hispanic elevated to the appeals court. Are you using a different standard for Judge Sotomayor than you used for Mr. Estrada?

SCHUMER: Absolutely not, and let me explain why. First, Estrada was never a judge, so we had no way to judge what his record would be in the best way to judge it, cases that we had ruled on. And so when we asked him questions, he said absolutely nothing. He said, I cannot answer this question, I cannot answer that question. In fact, Judge Sotomayor has answered more questions on hearings already, because of her two confirmation hearings, than Estrada said. So we had totally nothing to do on with Estrada.

What we said about Miguel Estrada is, if he talked a little bit about his judicial philosophy, we could give him a fair hearing. He absolutely refused. He had no record as a judge. The two standards are like night and day.

Continue reading »

Think Progress:

This morning on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Chuck Schumer asked Majority Leader Bill Frist a simple question: SEN. SCHUMER: Isn’t it correct that on March 8, 2000, my colleague [Sen. Frist] voted to uphold the filibuster of Judge Richard Paez?

Download | play -WMP-(the servers are a little slow right now-sorry for the wait)

Here was Frist’s response:

The president, the um, in response, uh, the Paez nomination - we’ll come back and discuss this further. … Actually I’d like to, and it really brings to what I believe - a point - and it really brings to, oddly, a point, what is the issue. The issue is we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have, um, obstructed, not one nominee, but two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, in a routine way.

When Frist voted to filibuster Paez’s nomination it had been pending for four years. It’s hard to believe he couldn’t get all the info he needed or ask all the questions he had during that time. Make no mistake about it: Bill Frist was trying to kill the Paez nomination. A press release issued the following day by former Sen. Bob Smith, who organized the filibuster effort, read “Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judges.” All the details about Frist’s hypocrisy here.