• About
  • Documentary Films
  • Index
  • Nota bene
  • Protect and Serve
  • Readings

Lumpenproletariat

~ free speech

Lumpenproletariat

Tag Archives: Messina

Letters and Politics Presents White Collar Crime Expert Dr. William K. Black On Current Wells Fargo Fraud Scandal

03 Mon Oct 2016

Posted by ztnh in Free Speech, Political Economy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

banking, cross-selling, Dr. William K. Black, incentive systems, KPFA, Letters and Politics, Messina, Pacifica Radio Network, Philip Maldari, Philip Maldari (SaveKPFA), Senator Bernie Sanders, transcript, UMKC, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Wells Fargo

LUMPENPROLETARIAT—On today’s edition of free speech radio’s Letters and Politics, substitute host Philip Maldari wisely turned to Dr. William K. Black, of the heterodox University of Missouri-Kansas City, to help us unpack some of the technical details of the most recent white collar crimes perpetrated by Wells Fargo bosses. [1]

And Professor Black makes learning about this, sometimes, complex stuff interesting.  You can almost hear how baffled sub host Philip Maldari was during this interview. (Your author was, too, like most listeners, perhaps.) [2]  Many questions are raised when we, laypersons, begin to explore the world of finance and banking.  Sometimes, we must admit when we don’t understand something and ask further questions.  Chances are, others need further explanation, too.  This discussion helps us do so, to help inform our local communities of important information about the pros and cons of various banks and the services, which they sell.  [3]  Listen (and/or download) here. [4]

Messina

***

[Working draft transcript of actual radio broadcast by Messina for Lumpenproletariat and Letters and Politcs]

william_k-_blackwiki

William K. Black (b. 1951)

LETTERS AND POLITICS—[3 OCT 2016]  “This is Pacifica Radio‘s Letters and Politics.  Philip Maldari sitting in for Mitch Jeserich.  On today’s programme, we’re going to talk with William Black, professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri, former president of the Fraud Prevention Institute about Wells Fargo Bank and the fraud it perpetrated on its customers.  [theme music]

“But first the news.”

[News Headlines (read by Aileen Alfandary) omitted by scribe]  (c. 6:12)

PHILIP MALDARI:  “I’m Philip Maldari sitting in for Mitch Jeserich, who’s got a two-week vacation.  Many thanks to Mitch for his good works.  And he deserves a vacation.

“We’re gonna be talking about Wells Fargo today.  Wells Fargo is one of the five biggest banks in the United States, possibly the world.  I’ll ask my guest about that.  And it has gained headlines in the past few weeks, as a result of the disclosure that it had perpetrated a fraud on hundreds of thousands of customers by signing them up for accounts, that they had no interest in and no idea that they were getting.

“To try to understand exactly what this fraud is all about and what the repercussions will be, we’re joined by William Black.  William is professor of economics at the University of Missouri.  He’s the former president of the Fraud Prevention Institute.  William Black, welcome to Letters and Politics.”  (c. 7:11)

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Thank you.”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Now, I sort of laid out that they had perpetrated this fraud over several years.  The L.A. Times actually disclosed this story going back, all the way, to 2013.  And, somehow, it was a sleeper.  It only, really, became a huge controversy in the past few months.  Would you explain exactly what they were up to?”  (c. 7:35)

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “[chuckles]  Well, many things.  But, so, it falls in two major categories.  One, that you’ve discussed and a far larger one.  The one, that you’ve discussed, is the ones that are actual felonies.  So, these are creating two million accounts, about a million and a half, deposit-type accounts and a half million credit card accounts, where the customer had never signed on, had never agreed to create these accounts.  So, these were done secretly.

“What was going on in both of the cases, I’m going to discuss, fraud and non-fraud, was that there were impossible-to-meet sales quotas to cross-sell multiple products.  And these were extremely successful in producing record profits for Wells Fargo Bank, which, if you measure it by stock market capitalisation, is the largest bank in the world, by the way.” [5]

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Really?”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Um—”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “So, let me just ask you again.  Why would your stock go up if your cross-selling was successful at giving the appearance that you had many more accounts?”  (c. 8:55)

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “It wasn’t the appearance.  It was the reality.  So, I haven’t described the second part.  The cross-selling, in addition to the two million frauds, produced tens of millions of successful sales, that should never have occurred.  And, collectively, it produced something like 70—well, actually, more like 420 million, total, types of accounts, which Wells Fargo calls solutions.  [chuckles]”  (c. 9:28)

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Now, wait a second, four hundred and some million accounts, that the customers were unaware of?  Were the cus—”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “No, no, no, that they were aware of, but you see you’ve just talked about the fraud.  But the far bigger scandal, and the one that emulates the huge scandal in the United Kingdom, is selling people product, that they shouldn’t buy because it’s very bad for them.  And that’s where the big profits were.  And that’s not measured at two million.  That would be measured in the tens of millions.  But no one has investigated that.

“That still hasn’t become a scandal the way it has in the United Kingdom.  So, you say, correctly, that it’s taken three years to get to the point where the two million sales have become a scandal.  We’ll have to wait and see whether a whole business system designed to sell people product, that was bad for them, that they should have never bought, whether that becomes a scandal.”  (c. 10:32)

PHILIP MALDARI:  “So, how, as a customer, would I experience the bad nature of these accounts?  Would I be getting bills in the mail?  What would be happening?”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Again, it depends on, which accounts.  For the two million accounts, yes, you would often be getting a bill in the mail.  But, for many of these, the employee set up the notification, so that it would go to the employee, instead of you.  And this means that people, in addition to having to pay fees, in a number of cases, would have had their credit score harmed because you wouldn’t have paid fees, that you didn’t even know existed.

“And, so, that is a particular bad thing about the two million [fraudulent accounts].  You would have known about the other accounts.  You just wouldn’t have known that you were being scalped by someone, who was—the entire paramount business model.  This is not a little thing.  This cross-selling is the defining element of Wells Fargo.  They do it more than twice as much as any other major bank in America.  They are exceptionally successful and profitable because they push bad product on customers routinely.

“And here’s how it works.  This is not a compensation system, in which the little guys get big bonuses for doing bad things [i.e., in which low-level workers are incentivised with bonus pay], the way it was back during the [Global Financial] Crisis for loan brokers and loan officers and such. [6]  This is fear of losing your job.”

PHILIP MALDARI:  ” [delays, or holds his thought] ”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “In a number of branches, it has come out that four times a day you would be called by your supervisor to explain whether you had met your sales quote for cross-selling in the last two hours of your operation.  And, if you didn’t, you would ultimately be fired.

“Now, these are people, who are making, ballpark, $12 dollars an hour, roughly $35,000 dollars a year in entry.  We know that people, who make $40,000 dollars a year, two-thirds of them, have savings of $400 dollars or less.

“So, you would, not only be fired, you would be unemployed.  You’d be fired for cause.  And it would be exceptionally difficult to go back into the banking industry and get a job.

“So, this was a system of terrorising the largest sales staff of bankers in America.  They have, ballpark, 200,000 employees.”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “And 5,300 of them were fired.  Who were the people, that were fired?”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  ” [unintelligible; Dr. Black started speaking just as Maldari asked the following question.]

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Who were the people, that were fired?”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Yeah.  That’s an excellent question.  Now, first, all of these numbers—the two million.  This is not the full extent.  This is they only look back a few years.  And they found this two million.  But this incentive system goes back at least 15 years.”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “But—”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “And there hasn’t been a real investigation.  It’s critical to understand.  We haven’t—”  (c. 13:56)

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Wells Fargo has only admitted going back to ’07.  Right?  They haven’t agreed to go back 15 years.”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Correct.  And, on top of that, they didn’t actually go back.  Worse.  The regulators didn’t go back.  What, instead [happened] is they, the Wells Fargo management was allowed to do the usual, useless thing, which is:  You hire an accounting firm.  And guess what the accounting firms always find.  Yes, there were these terrible problems.  But, of course, nobody in senior management is in the least bit responsible for all of this.

“And, so, the deal, which by the way, they paid less than $100-per-felony fine.”

PHILIP MALDARI:  ” [delays, or holds his thought] ”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “How many folks would be willing to trade a hundred dollars to get out of a felony prosecution?”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “I believe the fine was something like $185 million. [1]  And, to most people, that sounds like real money.  But, to Wells Fargo, that is just the cost of doing business?”  (c. 15:01)

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Well, worse.  As I say, it’s $100 per felony.  Who wouldn’t pay [laughs] a hundred dollars to escape a felony prosecution.  Right?  No accountability, no admissions, no real investigation, and the fake investigation didn’t go very far back.  And, again, they’ve ignored the larger part, which is the sale of product, typically, to people who can’t afford it, a very, very bad product, that they shouldn’t have.  As I—”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Give me an example of a bad product.  I mean I’ve got a checking account.  And I have a credit card.  So, I don’t really have any other accounts than that.  So, what other accounts would there be?”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Well, they would sign you up for an additional credit card when you were already maxed out on your first two.  Is that a kindness?  That’s a catastrophe for the person.  They would sign you up for overdraft protection. [7]  That may sound nice.  But, if you don’t have enough money to pay, it’s simply another fee.

“And they have many other products.  They have, you know, well over 15 products, that they try to sell you in these kinds of things.”  (c. 16:22)

—

[SNIP]

[SNIP]  (c. 56:37)

PHILIP MALDARI:  “One last caller, Phil in San Carlos.  Phil, you’re on the air.”

MESSINA:  “Yes, I am.  How are you guys doing today?  [confirming I was on the air, and attempting to incorporate a little back and forth, instead of just, like, ‘saying your piece’ or whatever and being treated like an insect by the radio thought police]”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “We’re doing fine.”

MESSINA:  “Beautiful.  [proceeding to express myself, after having confirmed I was on the air]  I missed the last 20 minutes or so of the interview.  So, I apologise if you guys, uh, got off topic on an important topic [already and my contribution here is redundant].  But I just want to bring attention to the fact that Professor Bill Black is one of the foremost experts on fraud and criminology.  So, it’s excellent that you guys have this conversation.

“But, as a graduate of UMKC‘s Department of Economics, I hope that you will bring him on again to discuss modern monetary theory, modern money theory—”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  ” [laughs] ”

MESSINA:  “—and the job guarantee programme and, also, the fact that Dr. Kelton, Professor Black’s colleague, was the chief economist, alongside Professor Black, of Bernie Sanders.  And, for some reason, Bernie Sanders didn’t tell the American people about the job guarantee programme—”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Okay.”

MESSINA:  “—about monetary sovereignty.  I know this is off topic—”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Sure.”

MESSINA:  “—but I think your audience finds it just as compelling as your preceding conversation.”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Okay, Phil.  We, we’ve got the message.  William, do you wanna comment on that?”

DR. WILLIAM K. BLACK:  “Yeah.  So, he’s absolutely right.  This is absolutely critical to the lives of all of your listeners.  And it would be a great future topic.  And I did—this is not a plant—but I did live in San Carlos for 20 years. [laughs]”

PHILIP MALDARI:  “Well,  let me just ask you—one, one question’s just gotta go to Bank of America.  [Maldari dodged the issue…]  [8]

[SNIP] (c. 59:59)

Learn more at LETTERS AND POLITICS.

[This transcript will be expanded as time constraints, and/or demand or resources, allow.]

***

[1]  For background on the current Wells Fargo fraud scandal, see:

  • “Wells Fargo CEO to Return $41 Million in Compensation Amid Scandal”, Democracy Now!, 28 SEP 2016.
  • “Sen. Warren Calls for Wells Fargo CEO to Resign & Face Investigation Amid Growing Scandal”, Democracy Now!, 23 SEP 2016.
  • “Elizabeth Warren to Wells Fargo CEO: You Should Be Criminally Investigate”, Democracy Now!, 21 SEP 2016.
  • “Wells Fargo Fined $185 Million for Creating Phony Accounts and Credit Cards”, Democracy Now!, 9 SEP 2016.

[2] Your author was, like substitute host Philip Maldari (a SaveKPFA partisan).  And Maldari is one of the sharpest intellectuals at KPFA, although I disagree with his SaveKPFA politics.  Maldari is usually very sharp on most issues, but this current Wells Fargo fraud requires a little deeper digging, perhaps a series of broadcasts.

The complexity of white collar crime can be daunting, but the more we know about the ins and outs of banks and the pros and cons of the services, which they peddle, the better off families and communities will be, and the more likely they will be to demand better regulation of bankers and financial institutions, while still making sure that individuals and working class families have access to banking and financial resources, which can help them improve their lives.

[3]  Speaking of not understanding something, your author has long wondered why our good friends at KPFA, do not understand the monetary system, or the modern money system (MMT).  Bonnie Faulkner featured MMT and the job guarantee programme on Guns and Butter back in 2012.  But it seems the important information doesn’t cross-pollinate, or cross-inform, the other public affairs broadcasters at KPFA.  So, although Guns and Butter knows about MMT and the benefits to the American working class, other shows like Letters and Politics and UpFront and Philip Maldari’s Sunday Show.  You would think the revolutionary policy proposals from heterodox economists like Dr. William K. Black and Dr. Stephanie Kelton would have been championed by KPFA.  But, instead, we’ve had a virtual whiteout of this crucial understanding of our monetary system.

So, at the very end of this broadcast, your author managed to get on the air to bring up questions around modern money theory, the job guarantee programme, and Bernie Sanders’ occulted chief economists.

Why did Bernie Sanders not allow his experts in law and economics, Dr. William K. Black and Dr. Stephanie Kelton, to tell the American people about key policy proposals, which they have long championed, such as the job guarantee program, which could end involuntary unemployment, as we know it, reduce poverty, crime, and other social ills?

[4]  Terrestrial radio transmission, 94.1 FM (KPFA, Berkeley, CA) with online simulcast and digital archiving:  Letters and Politics, this one-hour broadcast hosted by substitute host Philip Maldari, Monday, 3 OCT 2016, 10:00 PDT.

[5]  To become the largest bank in the world (or one of the largest), Wells Fargo has had to diversify its investments, for example, as with profiting from prisons, profiting from imprisoning.

[6]  For more on compensation system incentives toward fraud, see:

  • “Lender’s Lies about Liar’s Loans and ‘Rigorous Underwriting'” by William K. Black, New Economic Perspectives, 2 FEB 2016.
  • “Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis” [an interview with William K. Black] by Joshua Holland, Bill Moyers, 17 SEP 2013.
  • “‘Pervasive’ Fraud by Our ‘Most Reputable’ Banks” by William K. Black, Huffington Post, 28 FEB 2013 (updated 30 APR 2013).
  • Prepared Testimony of William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Before a Hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Entitled “Examining Lending Discrimination Practices and Foreclosure Abuses”, 7 MAR 2012.
  • “Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans and Bear the Principal Moral Culpability” by William K. Black, New Economic Perspectives, 2 OCT 2011.
  • “Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans, Part 2” by William K. Black, Huffington Post, 10 NOV 2010 (updated 25 MAY 2011).
  • “Lenders Put the Lies in Liar’s Loans” by Wiliam K. Black, Huffington Post, 8 NOV 2010 (updated 25 MAY 2011).

[7]  Anecdotal point of information:  Your author was actually a long-time Wells Fargo customer and, being a working class family man trying to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck, constantly had to battle with Wells Fargo about overdraft protection charges.  One attempts to keep track of one’s transactions.  But weekend transactions were posted to one’s account inconsistently, among other inconsistencies, which made it difficult to plan one’s daily cost of living expenditures.  At one point, attempts to opt out of overdraft protection was made impossible.  It was clear Wells Fargo was playing games with its customers, who they could see struggled to get by from paycheck to paycheck.  So, they set up many traps, which gouge Wells Fargo customers.  For example, on at least one occasion, thinking all transactions had posted and a certain balance was available, separate weekend purchases of a bottle of water, some gas, and food, resulted in three separate $35 overdraft charges.  Ultimately, your author had to quit Wells Fargo.

For an excellent documentary film on these types of abusive practices, and their toll on working class families, see:  Maxed Out: Hard Times, Easy Credit and the Era of Predatory Lenders (2006) directed by James Scurlock.  Maxed Out is a must-see film, which features, among other experts, a then-little-known Elizabeth Warren.

[8]  Essentially, Philip Maldari, as a SaveKPFA partisan, as a Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club type of Democrat, he avoids certain issues, to the left of the Democratic Party.

Since Dr. Black did agree with your author, Messina, and did admit that the job guarantee programme is critical to the lives of free speech radio listeners, why, do we suppose, Philip Maldari didn’t ask Dr. Black anything about it?  Why would Maldari not express even the slightest hint of curiosity in this very important, but under-reported, information?  Is it obfuscation?  Is it intellectual laziness?

(My audio was cut off at the point when Maldari takes over.  But I was still on the line, until the end of the broadcast.  Usually, the producer or the host may get on the line to thank people for calling in or to ask further about anything a caller may have commented on.  The last time I called in to KPFA, Deana(sp?) Martinez got to me after the UpFront broadcast, and took a message from me to delivery to Car Brooks about MMT, the job guarantee programme, Dr. Kelton, and the Bernie Sanders campaign.  But not this time.  This time they just hung up.

(It seems they didn’t want to know about MMT or the job guarantee programme or any of the heterodox policy proposals from the University of Missouri-Kansas City or other heterodox institutions.  They just want to confine intellectuals to strict parameters, which do not upset the two-party system, or the impulse to corral progressives toward the Democratic Party and away from political alternatives.  I have respect for Philip Maldari as a longtime contributor to KPFA.  I have learned a lot from his broadcasts, like others on KPFA.  But I must question his, and his faction’s, resistance to certain controversial topics, issues, and interview subjects.  KPFA seriously needs to support heterodox economists, such as Dr. William K. Black, Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Dr. L.R. Wray, Dr. Michael Hudson, and others from heterodox institutions like the University of Missouri-Kansas City.  It is in keeping with the Pacifica Mission Statement.)

***

[3 OCT 2016]

[Last modified  10:35 PDT  4 OCT 2016]

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

Historical Archives: Third-Party Challenge to Unconstitutional Prop 14

02 Wed Mar 2016

Posted by ztnh in Democracy Deferred, Historical Archives, Presidential Election 2016

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Adrienne Lauby, Anthony Fest, KPFA, Marsha Feinland, Media Roots, Messina, Michael Rubin, nonpartisan blanket primary, Pacifica Radio Network, proportional representation, Richard Winger, The Morning Mix, Top Two primary, transcript

media rootsLUMPENPROLETARIAT—As we’ve emphasised at Lumpenproletariat previously, the problem with our electoral system, and its failure to meet the needs of working class people, is not so much a lack of politicians to vote for who are sincere or speak for working class people so much as it is the cartelisation of the USA’s political process by two corporate political parties—the Democrat and Republican parties.

Their ability to shut out political alternatives begins with shutting out alternative political parties from public discourse and, thereby, from public consciousness, and, especially, from presidential debates and ballots.  Being able to keep alternative political parties from debating the two ruling parties, which represent the American ruling class, on a national stage is the only way their flimsy political arguments remain remotely tenable to the roughly one-third of USA’s eligible voters who engage with this rigged process, as the other two-thirds consign themselves to the politics of resignation and distract themselves with entertainment (and/or infotainment), as their incomes and living standards worsen over time. [1]

A legal death-knell to political diversity in the USA seems to have been ushered in with the rash of anti-democratic Top Two Primary legislation infecting states across the nation this past decade, such as California Proposition 14 (2010). [2]  Toward a better understanding of our electoral process, we revisit an important article from the historical record published by Messina at Media Roots.org on 12 APR 2012. [3]

Lumpenproletariat

‘The Two-Party Dictatorship’ by The Simpsons

***

MEDIA ROOTS—[12 APR 2012] On Monday, KPFA Radio’s The Morning Mix spoke with representatives from California’s third-parties about their legal challenge to Proposition 14, Rubin v. Bowen, which created the new statewide ‘Top Two’ electoral system.  Under this system, the rigged de facto two-party system has now been virtually codified in California.  Given the obscene amounts of corporate funding expended by the pro-1% Democrat and Republican parties, third-party voters are now, essentially, disenfranchised under this clearly unconstitutional legislation.

“After two months of delays,” wrote RestoreVoterChoice.org prior to the hearing, “a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s new ‘Top Two’ election scheme will be heard in Alameda County Superior Court on Tuesday, 10 April [2012].

“The plaintiffs encourage supporters in the [S.F.] Bay Area to attend this important court hearing.

“The hearing is scheduled for 9:00am on April 10 in Department 16 of the court, located at 1221 Oak Street in Oakland, before Judge Lawrence John Appel. If there are last minute changes in the schedule, they will be posted here.”

Messina

***

THE MORNING MIX — “Today, we are talking to California’s third-parties about their challenge to Proposition 14.  This is the proposition that created the new statewide ‘Top Two’ electoral system.  People as different on the political spectrum as Ralph Nader and Meg Whitman oppose this system.  And we’ll be telling you why.

“We’re also going to tackle something most of us don’t think about until we, literally, have no choice—end of life issues.  Long-time hospice nurse Elaine McGee will be in and taking your calls.

“And, last week, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the Obama Administration to save the oceans before it’s too late.  We’ll talk to wildlife biologist and attorney Emily Jeffers about why the Center believes this crisis demands immediate attention and the international strategy that could lead us back from the brink.

“But we begin with the third-party challenge to California’s ‘Top Two’ law.

Adrienne Lauby (c. 9:07):  “Now, our [2012 California] Primary Election will be held on June 5th, less than two months from now.  And this year’s election will be very different than in the previous years.  Owing to Proposition 14, a ballot measure that was passed two years ago, California is scheduled to deploy a new system where all candidates for a given office will appear on one ballot.  However, representatives from several third-parties are going to court to challenge the law.”

Anthony Fest:  “Under the new system, instead of a separate primary ballot for each party, all candidates for state and congressional office will be listed on the same ballot and every voter can choose from among all those candidates.  The top two finishers in the June election, regardless of their party affiliation will then appear on the November General Election ballot, essentially, making November a run-off election.  This is due to Prop 14, the measure that passed in June of 2010.  It’s informally called the ‘Top Two’ law.

“The Green, Peace and Freedom, and Libertarian parties say the measure is unconstitutional.  Last November, they filed a suit to block it and there will be a hearing on the case tomorrow morning in Alameda County Superior Court, 1221 Oak Street in Oakland.  Joining us this morning to discuss the ‘Top Two’ law and the challenges to it are representatives of the three parties that filed suit.

“Marsha Feinland is with the Peace and Freedom Party.  She’s run for the U.S. Senate, representing Peace and Freedom and plans to do so again.  Welcome, Marsha.”

Marsha Feinland (c. 10:32):  “Good morning.”

Anthony Fest:  “Mike Rubin is with the Green Party.  And, along with Marsha, he’s also an individual plaintiff in the lawsuit.  Thanks for joining us, Mike.”

Michael Rubin:  “Thank you for having me.”

Anthony Fest:  “And with us on the phone is Richard Winger.  Richard is with the Libertarian Party.  He’s also the editor of the website Ballot Access News.  Good to have you with us, Richard.”

Richard Winger:  “Thank you very much.”

Anthony Fest:  “Now, let’s begin with Marsha.  Tell us, in nutshell, why you’re challenging this measure and what legal grounds.”

Marsha Feinland (c. 10:56):  “Well, this measure is very anti-democratic.  And we feel it doesn’t give voters a real choice.  Now, the open primary ‘Top Two’ initiative was put forward as being something that gives voters more choices.  But, actually, in November when most people vote, they’ll have very little choice because only the top-two vote getters in the primary will be able to make the ballot.  And those top two vote-getters might not be even from two different parties; they might be very, very similar.

“It’s also possible that neither of the top two vote-getters get anywhere close to a majority.  So, it’s not even both of them put together.  For instance, in the coming [California] Senate race there are 24 candidates.  So, it’s very possible for each of the top two to get a very low percentage, although that’s very doubtful, since Dianne Feinstein is one of them.  But if we’re going to have a challenge to the powers that be, we’ve got to be able to make real choices.  And we can’t do that with this election.”

Anthony Fest (c. 12:08):  “So, whether or not it’s good policy, on what grounds do you say it’s unconstitutional?”

Marsha Feinland:  “It’s unconstitutional because the parties do not get to pick their candidates.  And it’s not just the parties; it’s the voters in the parties that don’t get to pick their candidates.  In fact, we’re forced into a position in which the parties pick their candidates.  The parties are able to make endorsements in the primary instead of leaving it up to the voters.  There are supposed to be primaries in which the voters in the parties pick their candidates; those candidates go to the election.  That’s not what’s happening.”

Anthony Fest:  “Okay, let’s turn now to Mike Rubin with the Green Party.  Now, Prop 14 passed two years ago with just under 54% statewide, not an overwhelming mandate, but a majority.  And it also won a majority in all but three of the state’s 58 counties.  So, why contest the decision of the voters?  And do you think the court might be reluctant to set aside something, which the voters passed?”

Michael Rubin (c. 13:07):  “Well, it’s possible that the courts might be reluctant.  But I will tell you that the people, Proposition 14 passed because people are disgusted with the legislature, particularly the [California] State legislature.  And, unfortunately, the remedy that was proposed by Proposition 14 for the problems of the state legislature are not responsive to the actual problems in the [two-party monopolised] state legislature, which is that the state legislature is responsive to the 1% and not the 99%.

“So, Proposition 14 was presented as a false solution to the two-partisan gridlock and all that kind of stuff.  But the reality is that it’s going to do nothing about the problems in the legislature.”

Anthony Fest:  “Let’s turn now to Richard Winger.  As a Libertarian, Richard, do you concur with Marsha’s and Mike’s points or is your reasoning somewhat different?”

Richard Winger (c. 14:00):  “It’s the same.  And you asked about constitutionality.  The U.S. Supreme Court said in 1986 in a case called Munro vs. Socialist Workers Party, that was from Washington State, that there is no Constitutional distinction between a petition method to show a modicum of support worthy of getting a candidate on the November ballot versus a prior vote test.  Now, the U.S. Supreme Court had already said that petition requirements for a candidate to get on the General Election ballot cannot exceed 5%.  Applying the logic of that decision, this system is unconstitutional because it requires a candidate who wants to get on the [California] Election Ballot itself, which is November, a showing of approximately 30%.  Typically, if you look back at primaries in California and many states where all the voters could choose from all the candidates, the second-place person typically gets 30%.  That’s what you need to be in the top two, on the average.  So, that’s the basis for the claim.

“It’s about voting rights.  The Supreme Court has said every voter has a right to vote for the candidate he or she desires.”

Anthony Fest (c. 15:32):  “So, you’ll be citing that case when you make your arguments before the Superior Court down the road.”

Richard Winger:  “Yes.  And I gotta say when this topic was introduced just now the introducer mentioned the [California] November Election as a run-off.  That is not accurate.  It sounds pedantic, but it’s important.  Since the 19th century, Congress has told the states to have their Congressional and Presidential elections in November.  And, if they want to insure that the winner got 50%, they have to hold a run-off after that.  There’s two states that do that:  Georgia and Louisiana, they have it in December.

“So, by federal law, whatever California does in June is not the election because that would be illegal.”

Anthony Fest (c. 16:22):  “Now, as well as being active in the Libertarian Party you’re also Editor of Ballot Access News.  So, tell us, as someone who follows voting laws around the U.S., are their counterparts to Prop 14 in effect elsewhere in the U.S.?  And what’s the outcome then from those?”

Richard Winger:  “That’s a very good question.  Louisiana has used the system for 35 years.  And Washington State has used it for four years.

“There was just a study that came out in the California Journal of Politics and Policy called ‘The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn From Washington?’  And the author was the witness for the State of Washington, in fact, in court in a Washington state case.  He was on the state side.  But he was a political scientist.  He wrote a fair report.  The abstract says:  ‘The partisan structure of Washington’s legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system.’

“In other words, the whole reason this thing was sold to us is that, supposedly, it would make the [California] legislature behave better.  And this study says after four years it hasn’t worked.  It says:  ‘The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary.’  He’s not the only political scientist that said that.  Boris Shor and Seth Masket looked at partisanship and polarisation in state legislatures and they agreed California had the most polarised legislature, but—and the study goes back 15 years—they said Washington State had the second-most polarised legislature.  And, during most of those 15 years, Washington had, either, a ‘Top Two’ primary, or a blanket primary.”

Adrienne Lauby (c. 18:22):  “So, Marsha—this is Adrienne Lauby—when I’m up in the North Bay, which is pretty Democrat[-dominated], what I’ve seen over and over again is in the general election we’ve got a Democrat who’s gonna win and a Republican who doesn’t have a chance.  So, to me, this sounded pretty good.  You’re gonna have two Democrats who have different points of view; one may be more to the Left than the other.  And I’ll get a chance to maybe put my guy or my gal in.  What’s wrong with this thinking?”

Marsha Feinland:  “Well, you’re making the assumption that the two Democrats might have two different points of view.  In fact, if you’d looked at the primary results in the last Presidential Election, if we had had the ‘Top Two’ primary, we would’ve had Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.  And we are now finding out that they don’t have two different points of view.  So, therefore, the voters have no choice at all.  I think it’s really important to open the debate and open the process to people who can really pose an alternative.

“And when Richard said that this Proposition was sold to us I wanna emphasise sold.  The elections are pretty much sold.  They’re not really chosen.  There’s so much advertising; and there’s so much money in the elections.  And what happens with Proposition 14 and this type of primary is that there is even more money required because people need to raise the money, both, for the primary and for the general election.

“So, the appearance might be sold to you that you have two different candidates.  But, actually, you may end up with two very-the-same candidates.”

Anthony Fest (c. 19:54):  “It’s 8:20am on The KPFA Morning Mix.  We’re talking about Proposition 14, the ‘Top Two’ primary law and the upcoming court challenge to it.  I’m Anthony Fest with Adrienne Lauby.

“Let’s turn to Mike Rubin now, as we begin to wrap up this segment.  By the way, Prop 14 applies to [California] statewide office and the U.S. House and Senate seats.  It does not apply to the presidential race.  But, Mike Rubin from the Green Party, let’s go back and take a look at the history of Prop 14.  It was placed on the ballot, not by the voter petition process, but by a vote of the legislature.  The bill, that placed it on the ballot, was written by Republican [State] Senator Abel Maldonado.  It passed both houses by a better than two-to-one margin and also had the support of [then-]Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“For a measure that was promoted as taking power away from the party apparatus, it had wide support from Democrat and Republican politicians.  But what’s the motivation, do you think?  If it was all about excluding third-parties, third-parties haven’t really made much of a dent in state politics anyway, as far as winning office.  So, what’s going on behind this?”

Michael Rubin (c. 21:01):  “Well, I think there’s a couple of things to say.  One is that the fact that the [California] Legislature passed this was a pay-off to Abel Maldonado for his vote on the budget.  It was his price to pass the budget.  They needed a few Republican votes for the budget and his price was Proposition 14.  That’s the first thing to say.

“The second thing is that the purpose of Proposition 14 was not really to harm third-parties.  I don’t know that.  That’s not the primary thing.  The primary thing was, it was sold as a way of getting more quote ‘more moderate’ candidates.  That was the so-called selling point.  And it goes back to this thing about partisanship and gridlock and all that stuff.  And I think that the problem that we have in California is that we have too many ‘moderate’ candidates, not enough ‘moderate’ candidates.”

Anthony Fest (c. 22:01):  “And that should be the decision of the voters not the politicians already in office.”

Michael Rubin:  “Absolutely.”

Anthony Fest:  “Okay,  Marsha Feinland, with the Peace and Freedom Party;  Mike Rubin, with the Green Party; Richard Winger, with the Libertarian Party, thanks for joining us.

“And, Marsha, you have an announcement?”

Marsha Feinland:  “Yeah.  I think it’s really important for people to go to the court tomorrow morning at 9am at 1221 Oak Street.  But, also, the case has been continued twice.  So, it’s very important to go to the website to make sure that it’s still on schedule.  The website is RestoreVoterChoice.org.”

Anthony Fest:  “Thanks for joining us this morning.”

Michael Rubin:  “Thank you for having us.”

Richard Winger:  “Thank you.”

Marsha Feinland:  “Okay.”

AUDIO OF THE SIMPSONS VIDEO CLIP

Homer Simpson:  “America, take a good look at your beloved candidates.  They are nothing but hideous space reptiles!”

Crowd:  “[Gasps] Ahh!!  [Shrieks]”

Two-Party Candidate A:  “It’s true.  We are aliens!  But what are you going to do about it?  It’s a two-party system.  You have to vote for one of us!”

Passive Voters:  “He’s right.  It’s a two-party system.”

Assertive Voter:  “Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.”

Two-Party Candidate B:  “Go ahead.  Throw your vote away!”

Two-Party Candidates A and B:  “Ha-ha-ha, ha-ha!!”

Transcript by Felipe Messina for Media Roots

Image by Flickr user ryenski (above) and Flickr user bkrealtist (feature)

***

[1]  Also see Capitalism and the Politics of Resignation by Peter Benson and Stuart Kirsch, Current Anthropology, Vol. 51, No. 4 (August 2010), pp. 459-486, published by The University of Chicago Press.  Download for a fee, or Google for free.

[2]  Prop 14 applies to California statewide office and the U.S. House and Senate seats.  Prop 14 does not apply to the presidential race. Blanket primary elections in other states function similarly.  However, once statewide offices and congressional seats across the nation are dominated by Top Two candidates, we invariably end up with some permutation of Democrat and Republican duopoly, or two-party dictatorship, at the level of presidential elections because by then alternative political parties have been so grossly marginalised in every other sphere of electoral politics.  An alternative voting system would be one involving proportional representation.  A more accurate way to describe our current so-called two-party system is a two-party political cartel.  In such a political climate, applying a Top Two blanket primary election process to the presidential election becomes ominously feasible.

[3]  We will continue to archive past articles published at MediaRoots.org (and elsewhere) by Lumpenproletariat.org founder, Messina.

***

[Last modified 01:05 PDT  3 MAR 2016]

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...

“Keep Your Head to the Sky” by Earth, Wind & Fire

11 Thu Jun 2015

Posted by ztnh in History of Funk, History of Jazz (Black Classical), History of Rhythm & Blues, History of Soul, Mindfulness, Music

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Earth Wind & Fire, Keep Your Head to the Sky, Messina

Messina at UMKC 2013-2015LUMPENPROLETARIAT—To step right up and be a man, you need faith to understand. 

—Messina

“Keep Your Head to the Sky” by Earth, Wind & Fire

Master told me one day
I’d find peace in every way
But in search for the clue
Wrong things, I was bound to do

Keep my head to the sky
For the clouds to tell me why
As I grew, and with strength
Master kept me, as I repent; and he said

Keep your head to the sky
Keep your head to the sky

He gave me the will to be free
Purpose to live is reality
Hey, and I found myself never alone
Chances came to make me strong

To step right up and be a man
‘Cos you need faith to understand
So, we’re saying for you to hear
Keep your head in faith’s atmosphere

Keep your head to the sky (So, the clouds can tell you why)
Keep your head to the sky (Surely, the clouds are gonna tell you why)

Gave me the will to be free
Purpose to live is reality
Ooh, when I found myself never alone
‘Cos chances came, they came, to make me strong

Hey, to step right up and be a man
Ooh, you need faith to understand
Oh, so, we’re just sayin’ for you to hear
Keep your head in faith’s atmosphere

Keep your head to the sky
Keep your head to the sky (Don’t walk around with your head held down)

Keep your head to the sky
Keep your head to the sky (Surely, surely the clouds are gonna tell you why)

Keep your head to the sky
Keep your head to the sky

Keep your head to the sky

***

[En sanctuarium, Tuesday, June 9, 2015.]

[Last modified 09:45 PDT  11 JUN 2015]

Share this:

  • Tweet

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

Blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
%d bloggers like this: