When the Message Is Controlled Despite the Messenger

If you're convinced it's possible to win populist concessions with billionaire money, this post will be as much a waste of your time as all of your activism on behalf of 501(c)(4) organizations has been and will continue to be.

Overt brainwashing is done through advertising campaigns and distracting slogans. Covert brainwashing involves purchasing silence from some critics and co-opting the messages of others. We've all seen movies that depict these transactions as direct negotiations between the person who wants to expose corruption (e.g. Frank Serpico) and the people who want to keep the corruption concealed (e.g. the NYPD). Invariably, the reporter/private investigator/district attorney faces a moral crisis when s/he is bribed/threatened/blackmailed by the amoral powers that be. One purpose of such films is to give the audience faith in the integrity of individual human beings (from Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith to Julia Roberts' Erin Brockovich) who refuse to be persuaded/bullied/frustrated into silence.

But sometimes the integrity and dedication of the truth teller simply doesn't matter, as in the case of Phil Donahue.

In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Donahue was one of few media pundits who tried to explain why the pending war was unjustifiable. He was right, and he had the integrity to stick to his position. But that didn't matter because the network that aired his show (MSNBC) belonged to the RCA holding company, which was owned by General Electric, which stood to profit immensely from the war in Iraq and therefore wanted conflict regardless of whether Saddam Hussein posed a threat to US security.

When it was time for MSNBC to start pushing the pro-war propaganda GE wanted, memos drifted down from GE to RCA to MSNBC. As Jeffrey St. Clair explains:

Nothing sums up this unctuous approach more brazenly than MSNBC’s firing of liberal talk show host Phil Donahue on the eve of the war. The network replaced the Donahue Show with a running segment called Countdown: Iraq, featuring the usual nightly coterie of retired generals, security flacks, and other cheerleaders for invasion. The network’s executives blamed the cancellation on sagging ratings. In fact, during its run Donahue’s show attracted more viewers than any other program on the network. The real reason for the pre-emptive strike on Donahue was spelled out in an internal memo from anxious executives at NBC. Donahue, the memo said, offered “a difficult face for NBC in a time of war. He seems to delight in presenting guests who are anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives.”

The memo warned that Donahue’s show risked tarring MSNBC as an unpatriotic network, “a home for liberal anti-war agenda at the same time that our competitors are waving the flag at every opportunity.” So, with scarcely a second thought, the honchos at MSNBC gave Donahue the boot and hoisted the battle flag.

If Donahue's story can't affirm our faith in individual integrity, it's because the silence GE executives imposed on him was never his to sell. The war profiteers never had to offer him a briefcase full or cash or threaten to break his legs. Instead, they muted him by high-jacking the network upon which he relied for dissemination of his anti-war message.

If we learn nothing else from "The Day the News Died" (as Chris Hedges refers to Donahue's firing), it should be that in our mass media culture, individual integrity isn't enough to shield us from the depredations of corrupt, concentrated wealth.

Remaining committed to one's principles may be morally laudable, but it is often logistically meaningless. Certainly Donahue's resolute opposition to the war made no difference in the outcome for Iraqi citizens or GE shareholders.

Strangely, even those who are willing to accept this critique of the corruption inherent in the capitalist marketplace are often reluctant to see how it applies to non-profit 501(c)(4)s. "How is the lesson of Donahue in the for-profit world of television," such readers may wonder, "applicable to outfits such as OurRevolution or MPACT?"

For many of us, the integrity of people like Bernie Sanders and Nina Turner is something that we must be willing to count on in order to get anywhere. Such people are like Serpico--putting their necks on the line to make the world better for all of us. We have to trust them to do what's right--and if that means letting them accept dark money from billionaires in order to advance the agendas to which they are committed, then we just need to trust that their hearts are in the right place.

But how much carbon has been kept out of the atmosphere because 350.org activists have their hearts in the right place? How many black lives have been protected from police brutality because the hearts of Black Lives Matter activists are in the right place? How many casualties have been prevented because Code Pink activists have their hearts in the right place?

Let's say that in all three cases, the integrity of those involved is 100% beyond reproach.

What has that integrity achieved? And isn't it reasonable to suspect that it hasn't achieved more because the NGO/non-profit culture in which these organizations exist is funded and shaped by the very donors who profit from corruption?

It's reasonable to suspect that PBS doesn't cover climate change more aggressively because the Koch family contributes to PBS funding. And it's equally reasonable to suppose that when Soros family hedge funds will profit from the disruption of certain economies through war, particular purse strings for Code Pink get cut.

Sanders lovers are the first to laugh at the idea that billionaires donate to the Clinton Foundation out of the goodness of their hearts, but Jeff Weaver expects us to believe that it's important for OurRevolution to accept money on precisely that premise.

This post isn't meant to suggest that the fecklessness of activist culture in America is specifically attributable to 501(c)(4)s, but such non-profits are particularly vulnerable to corruption because they are set up in such a way as to conceal donors and donations from public scrutiny. Weaver was so heavily criticized for making OurRevolution a 501(c)(4) that in September he promised to formulate "a disclosure policy so that we disclose larger contributions that we receive" even though such disclosures aren't required by law. In December, the organization "promised to disclose all donors giving more than $250," but no disclosures have been made to date. Worse yet, it's not even clear how useful such information would be, since OurRevolution could honor this promise by releasing a list of names without distinguishing between Donor A (who gave $300) and Donor B (who gave $300 million).

Most Sanders supporters trust his team so much that they're willing to let Weaver and Turner and others associated with OurRevolution raise and spend money in whatever ways they deem most effective.

But trusting in the OurRevolution team to do the right thing with dark money is like trusting Donahue to use his show to prevent the invasion of Iraq. The big money in charge of MSNBC always had control of Donahue's platform. And the big money funders of OurRevolution will always have control over that outfit's ability to realize its agenda.

It doesn't matter how much integrity Weaver and Turner have if someone else is in charge of whether they can rent meeting spaces or buy airline tickets for staffers to coordinate activities. And in dark money organizations, it's impossible for supporters to know who's in charge of the purse strings (even if we get some lame list of everyone who donated over $250).

This is why I urge Turner to distance herself from organizations such as OurRevolution and MPACT and focus on grassroots groups that are completely transparent about their fundraising procedures.

I understand that in economically distressed times (such as ours), it seems suicidal for political figures to cut themselves off from billionaire angel investors.

But the times are so economically distressed precisely because those billionaires almost invariably prove to be devils in disguise. If your 501(c)(4) is opposed to big pharma and big oil and Wall Street, then it could be almost entirely dependent on big pharma and big oil and Wall Street for funding--without anyone in the general public having a clue about it.

To understand how bonkers that is, answer this question honestly: Would you trust Jordan Chariton's coverage of Energy Transfer Partners if Chariton's expenses were covered by a 501(c)(4) funded by Kelcy Warren? Does your faith in Chariton's integrity make you think such an arrangement would have no effect on his coverage? If not, then why is your faith in Sanders and Turner so strong that they get "integrity exemptions" for associating with non-profits whose doors remain open to precisely such arrangements?

We, the grassroots, need to form something like a non-party-based citizen's union with monthly dues--an organization in which everyone agrees to chip in the same amount on a regular basis so that operatives know they will be able to cover their expenses without having to worry about stepping on the toes of bigwig donors.

Even if Turner couldn't raise as much money through such an organization as she might through a dark money outfit like OurRevolution, the enthusiasm and volunteer support that she could count on would make it much more nimble and dare I say impactful than she could ever hope for OurRevolution and MPACT to be.

The failure of the Democratic Party to understand how and why it failed voters may be the most disappointing phenomenon of 2016.

But the second-most disappointing phenomenon is the failure of luminaries such as Turner and Weaver to recognize that people-powered movements (such as the Reddit-based phonebanking done by volunteers on behalf of the Sanders campaign) are more important assets for politicians than billionaire cash. Until that lesson sinks in, professional progressive operatives appear doomed to continue servicing the donor class instead of the voters they purport to care about.

The Unblackening of Clinton Critics: Why the Voice of Larry Wilmore Had to Be Silenced

The biggest lie of the 2016 presidential election is the whopper Democrats routinely tell about their appeal to minorities.

These minorities are supposed to include the Latino population, but that's obviously not true--since Barack Obama earned the title Deporter-in-Chief by ordering the deportation of 7,000 immigrant children without so much as a court hearing on the subject. Even though some of those children came from countries savaged by Hillary Clinton's anti-democratic policies throughout Latin America, the Democrats like to pretend (without a scintilla of evidence) that America will treat Latinos at home and abroad better under Clinton than we have under Obama. (We won't.)

Minorities are also supposed to include Muslims, but it's hard for a president who uses drone strikes for extra-judicial assassinations of Muslim civilians (whether they are American citizens or not) to make the case that Democrats are as mindful of Muslim rights as they pretend to be. Clinton's unwavering commitment to interventionism should lead Muslims to expect her foreign policy to boil down to three sentences: "We went to the Muslim world. We saw the Muslim world. The Muslim world died." [Laughter.]

Minorities are also supposed to include the LGBTQ community--a community that is protected within the U.S. by laws and customs, not the presidency. Outside the U.S., if you want to torture, imprison, or execute people for their sexual orientations/identities, you'll need to make significant donations to the Clinton Foundation.

So who are these minorities that are so drawn to the Democrats? The way the Clinton media machine tells the story, there's only one minority community that really matters: the African-American community.

A central component of the DNC narrative in 2016 has been that Hillary Clinton appeals to "diverse" communities, but when Clinton was trounced by Bernie Sanders in Hawaii (the most ethnically diverse state in the country--with whites comprising less than 25% of the population), Clinton's surrogates refused to budge from their position that Sanders had no appeal in "diverse" communities. 

So when the Democrats accused Sanders of failing to appeal to diverse populations, what they really meant was that he wasn't appealing to black Americans.

But is that true?

The Clinton media machine doesn't care what's true. It doesn't care what Michelle Alexander has to say or how many people are listening to her (both inside and outside the black community).

It doesn't care what critics from the black left (such as Benjamin Dixon and others associated with Black Agenda Report) have been telling us for decades about how the Democratic Party shamelessly exploits black Americans for the political power it then uses to exploit those voters as citizens.

It certainly doesn't care if a Hindu from Hawaii (Tulsi Gabbard) wants to make a speech on Sanders' behalf at the Democratic National Convention.

But it cares a great deal about whether a black woman from Cleveland (Nina Turner) wants to do the same thing.

In fact, in Turner's case, the DNC cared enough to interfere by scrapping her speech at the last minute--because the worst sin that can be committed by corporate media in 2016 is to devote airtime to black voices that dare to be critical of Hillary Clinton (even if that criticism boils down to nothing more than supporting an alternative to her).

Accordingly, Larry Wilmore's The Nightly Show had to be canceled.

The official story from Comedy Central is that Wilmore's show was canceled because of poor ratings. Wilmore's show inherited the time slot that used to belong to The Colbert Report and is down to just over half as many viewers as the Colbert vehicle claimed.

By that logic, however, The Daily Show with Trevor Noah should also have been canceled, since Noah has retained just over half of the viewers who used to tune in to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Ratings aren't the issue. The issue is that Wilmore dares to be critical of Hillary Clinton and DNC hypocrisy while Noah dares nothing and does nothing.

When Clinton first announced her candidacy, Wilmore brilliantly compared her to Khaleesi from Game of Thrones and suggested (based on a line of dialogue from the series) that Clinton's campaign slogan should be: "Hillary for America. I will take what is mine with fire and blood. I WILL TAKE IT."

At the White House Correspondents' Dinner, Wilmore created anxiety among white liberal elites by observing: "Bernie's been hanging out with Killer Mike, or as Hillary Clinton calls him, Superpredator Mike."

If Wilmore were white, he would be able to get away with this kind of schtick because the corporate media has done everything possible to accommodate the DNC myth of the Bernie Bro. White males can make cutting comments about Clinton because their criticism fuels the argument that the only people opposed to warmongering corporatism are white, privileged misogynists.

But when Clinton is criticized by one of the people who is supposed to be part of her firewall (a black man working in corporate media, no less!), that is cause for alarm.

It's hard to say that Clinton is a friend of African-Americans when she does everything possible to prop up the school-to-prison pipeline.

It's hard to say that Clinton is a friend of African-Americans when her response to Black Lives Matter is less political (i.e. supporting reform of police departments throughout the country) than politically expedient (i.e. co-opting Black Lives Matter though a cynical manipulation of Mothers of the Movement).

It's hard to say that Clinton is a friend of African-Americans when her closest political allies include Rahm Emmanuel (who has essentially sold out Chicago's minority communities to Wall Street) and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (who advocates for the payday lending industry that exploits minorities throughout Florida).

In fact, it's so hard to say that Clinton is a friend of the African-American community that the only way the networks can manage to say it with a straight face is to ensure that NO black voices of criticism are ever heard in response.

If one such voice ever got through, then the balloon of Clinton's arrogance about her firewall might pop.

And we can't have that--so take a long walk off a short dock, Mr. Wilmore.

Stein/Turner Is a Stronger Ticket Than Sanders/Stein

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have long known about Jill Stein's offer to surrender her spot on the Green ticket to him if he would be willing to defect from the Democratic Party.

Sanders has never shown any interest in that offer--perhaps because he understands a point about sore loser laws that few Greens (apart from Texans such as myself) appreciate.

Most people understand that the Green Party doesn't have ballot access in all fifty states. In 2012, Stein was on the ballot in 37 states (and an eligible write-in candidate in 7 more). So far in 2016, the Greens have secured ballot access for Stein in 24 states and are currently working to achieve it in 23 more. It's certain that she won't be on the ballot in Oklahoma, North Carolina, or Indiana.

The good news for the Greens is that they already have ballot access in the states with the highest populations, including the big 4 of California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The bad news for Sanders supporters is that Texas is one of only a handful of states whose "sore loser" laws would disqualify Sanders from appearing as a presidential candidate for the Green Party. (In most states, sore loser laws only affect candidates running for local or state races, but Texas, regrettably, has legal precedents for denying ballot access to national candidates as well.)

As of this writing, the Greens lack ballot access in 8 sparsely populated north-central states that, added together, carry the same weight in the electoral college as Texas' 38 votes: Utah (6), Idaho (4), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Wyoming (3), Iowa (6), and Minnesota (10).

By Novemeber, the Greens will probably be on the ballot in most of those states, since they jumped through the hoops to qualify in 5 of them in 2012 (Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).

Missing out on ballot access anywhere in the country matters, of course, but for presidential candidates, it matters most in the states with the most votes in the electoral college. From any presidential candidate's perspective, it's simply more important to be on the ballot in Texas than in Wyoming.

If Bernie were at the top of the Green ticket--Texans wouldn't be able to vote for him. That matters even though Texas is a reliably Republican state because ballot access in Texas will help the Greens break through one of the most difficult barriers in American presidential politics: the 5% of the popular vote necessary to receive federal funding.

With Nina Turner as Stein's vice-presidential nominee, Texans will turn out in droves to support the Greens. Turner loves to quote one of the great slogans of Texas' own Barbara Jordan, who spent her career calling for "an America as good as its promise."

I live in Austin. Jordan is still legendary in these parts, and Turner strikes a powerful chord with Texans who were once inspired by figures such as Jordan (who is no longer with us) and Jim Hightower (who has been a vocal surrogate for Bernie).

By running a Stein/Turner ticket, the Greens are sure to get tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of votes from Texans who simply wouldn't be allowed to vote for a Sanders/Stein ticket.

Nominating Turner for VP is the smartest play the Greens can make for numerous reasons. I read earlier that Turner considers herself a reformer who intends to work within the Democratic Party, but I hope she will reconsider.

N re 2green party VP @ninaturner has officially stated ‘She is a reformer & will continue her fight WITHIN t/Democrat party' @MSNBC

— Tezlyn Figaro (@TezlynFigaro) August 1, 2016

Turner can help us all tremendously by recognizing the truth of Stein's assertion that it's hard to have a revolution within a counterrevolutionary party.

***

Update: This post became moot when Jill Stein named Ajamu Baraka as her running mate. Here's a quick video from Tim Black that plugs Baraka:

Jill Stein's VP pick, Ajamu Baraka is an EXCELLENT choice, here's why! @DrJillStein @ajamubaraka #Greenparty pic.twitter.com/HTNr8laXSW

— Tim Black ™ (@TimBartender) August 2, 2016

Nina Turner, Will You Be My Representative?

You’re obviously a busy person, Ms. Turner. For all I know, you may be preparing for the vice-presidency—so I’ll make my case as quickly as possible.

Will you please be my representative?

Understandably, since you’re from Ohio, you probably haven’t thought of being a representative from Austin, Texas. But my wife and I have a guest suite upstairs that we’ll be happy to rent to you for $1/month to help you meet the necessary residency requirements. (Since you travel full-time anyway, it’s less important to focus on amenities such as a private bath and sitting area than the fact that the zip code would do the trick for residency.) 

I know; I know. Texas probably terrifies you. With people like Ted Cruz dominating the headlines, our state looks a lot more backward than it is.

But you often go out of your way in speeches to quote the great Barbara Jordan, who passed away in Austin in 1996 and is still beloved by the community—so much so that the Home Depot where I sometimes shop is located on Barbara Jordan Boulevard. 

Jordan spoke, as you know, of an “America as good as its promise.” And when she served as the acting governor of the state for one day in 1972, she allowed Texas to become the only state in U.S. history with a black female governor. 

I swear to you the Texas of Jordan’s days hasn’t died—despite the insane appearance given off by Governors Perry and Abbott and Senators Cruz and Cornyn. 

As you probably know, the voters of Texas—especially in the Austin area—have been gerrymandered into irrelevance. Our representatives are elected despite the people and not because of the people.

We need to create a Texas as good as its promise, but our elected officials are standing in the way.

Even though I live in true-blue Austin, my current representative is Mike McCaul, who represents the interests of Houston (which is several hours away). Thanks to the criminal mapping of congressional districts, tens of thousands of Austinites go without representation in Congress because McCaul doesn’t care about our votes. He knows he can rely on oil money to keep him in office as he promotes the agenda of the surveillance state. As the second wealthiest member of Congress, McCaul is less a tool than a personification of special interests.

He’s been in office since 2004. I know it’s too late for you to challenge him in 2016, when he’ll be going up against the same Democratic opponent for the third time in a row (a candidate whom he keeps crushing so badly that the only conceivable explanation for nominating her yet again is that Democrats are less dedicated to winning than to dodging the expense of generating new campaign materials for a different candidate). If we are serious about challenging McCaul in 2018, we need someone with star power—someone who can get voters excited about standing up to the elected officials who refuse to represent them—someone like you.

We need a true Berniecrat. Please help!