Kudos to Bernie Sanders for once again hitting the nail on the head. Charging that conflicts of interest may have tainted Fed decisions in dispensing bank bailouts, Sanders has called for specific language addressing such conflicts, to be included in the regulatory bill that is currently under consideration by the Senate.
From the Feds on down through state and local government, conflicts of interest have become so interwoven with the process that it is next to impossible to tease them all out. Selectmen and planners may have active interests in real estate development. Governors take contributions from corporations and appoint judges and regulatory overseers who know from whence their marching orders come. Senators, congressmen and presidents do the same. Though much posturing is made in the law about avoiding conflicts of interest, definitions are vague, and relatively little provision has been made for monitoring and truly meaningful penalties.
The end result is a Supreme Court that has the temerity to bestow personhood on corporations, giving them carte blanche to execute the acquisition of our democracy.
It has to stop.
to hear your comments, Sue, about the other half of the latest developments — where (just as we sadly saw with his lack-of-stance on health care reform) Bernie has apparently decided to cave to WH pressure and watered down significantly the bill’s mandate to genuinely provide oversight and accountability. See http://firedoglake.com/2010/05… and http://fdlaction.firedoglake.c… for more, and please let us know how you interpret Bernie’s stance in light of his most recent actions.
Bernie has to live and function in the Senate
what he does to gain supporters and votes is not the same as his “stance”
what you call “caving” is no such thing; I hate it too but – as you may have noticed – progressives are not a majority, so they have to do the best they can
to diss Bernie is a joke and waste of time
if you can get elected to the f___ing U.S. Senate, perhaps you can do better; until then, lighten up
to the Economist, which in turn links to a New York Times piece. Together, they give a broader picture of the political machinations surrounding the issues raised by thingwarbler.
This wasn’t exactly the point of my diary, but it is of course a legitimate topic for discussion.
Please, check out my update to my diary on May 7, “People who don’t like free markets control the markets!”
What you call “caving” is no such thing; I hate it too but – as you may have noticed – progressives are not a majority, so they have to do the best they can.