ruling - Represent Consumers

President aims to take the money and run

Here’s what President Obama wants you to believe about his relationship to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling and the toxic torrent of corporate cash polluting our politics: “it’s complicated.”

In their ruling, the justices determined that corporations had a free speech right to anonymously contribute as much as they wanted to third-party political action groups that worked in support of candidates, as long as those PACs had no formal connection to the candidate.

On the one hand, the president blasted the court’s ruling less than a week after it was issued, with the justices seated right in front of him, in his January 2010 State of the Union speech, for opening “the floodgates for special interests – including foreign companies – to spend without limit in our elections.”

On the other hand, his campaign decided two years later to “level the playing field” with Republicans and encourage Super PAC support for the president, by allowing cabinet members and senior White House officials to cooperate with a Super PAC that supports their boss.

On yet another hand, the president insisted he would support a constitutional amendment to undo Citizens United.

And on yet still another hand, when the president had the opportunity to actually do something to shed some sunlight on the secretive stash of corporate donations unleashed by Citizens United, by issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to reveal all their political spending, he balked.

When you follow the president’s actions, rather than listen to his words, it’s not complicated at all.

The president and his Democratic Party colleagues are determined to “take the money and run.”

For nearly a year, President Obama had floated the idea of issuing an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose all their political contributions – including contributions to PACs and organizations like the US Chamber of Commerce – when they submit a bid.

The biggest contractors, for the most part, are defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, which smother the politicians in contributions to keep the weapons contracts flowing. In the 2012 cycle, Lockheed’s PAC has spent more than $2 million in contributions that we know of, 59 percent to Republicans and 41 percent to Democrats.

Its contributions go beyond an attempt to win a single weapons contract. What they and the other contractors have been able to do is to purchase the country’s entire debate over defense spending, so that few of our representatives ever raise a peep about whether the expensive defense systems are necessary.

Republicans howled at the President Obama’s proposal, accusing him of attempting to politicize the bidding process. President Obama wanted to know who had made the contributions, the Republicans charged, so he could award bids to the highest-contributing bidders.

While President Obama stewed, the Republicans passed measures in May 2011 to block [m1] an executive order if it was issued.

The venerable Public Citizen organization made a suggestion that would sidestep the Republicans’ stated objection.

Why not, Public Citizen said, limit the disclosure requirement to the winning bidder?

But the president backed off – either because he didn’t want a fight with Republicans or because his fundraisers reminded him he had a tough campaign ahead and the little people they dote on with their solicitation emails weren’t going to be able to foot the bill.

On the most critical issue facing our political system, the president of the United States is incapable of leveling with the American people.

President Obama may want to do the right thing, but he is trapped in a system controlled by big money that is bigger than he is.

The first step to fight back against that system won’t come from Washington. It will come from building a grassroots movement to undo Citizens United. Read more about it, and our proposed constitutional amendment, which is easy to understand and will withstand any legal challenge, here.

Citizens United / Congress / Martin Column - 04/13/2012

The Supreme Court Shot the Sheriff

"Corporations are people." Two years ago, that's what five justices of the United States Supreme Court gaveled into our Constitution, ruling in the now-infamous Citizens United case that spending money is a form of "freedom of speech" and that when corporations put up money to elect people, they are just exercising their First Amendment rights.

Two months ago, the Montana Supreme Court said wait a minute. It upheld a state law, enacted by Montana voters through the initiative process in 1912, that bars corporations from trying to influence elections. The justices of the Montana Supreme Court argued that the Montana law is different than the federal law that the US Supreme Court threw out, relying on what they described as an especially disturbing history of corporate corruption in Montana government.

When it comes to constitutional law, you can't get closer to the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral than this, as I recently explained.

That's a better analogy than you think.

The campaign finance laws, designed over decades to slow down the accretion of political power by special interests, were like a lazy sheriff in a western gold rush town - barely able to keep up with the legal and illegal maneuverings of outlaw corporateers, while average citizens became increasingly like bystanders in their own democracy.

Then the Supreme Court rode into town and shot the sheriff.

Now we are back to the Wild West, with corporate gunslingers targeting anyone - officials and civilians – who are in the way of their profits and prerogatives. Corporate money, often disguised and hidden behind a fortress of deception, has charged through the Republican presidential primaries, not to mention an untold number of state elections throughout the country. The full fury of this greed-driven onslaught will become apparent in the fall, as Wall Street and the .01 percenters weigh in not just to defeat President Obama (who has not cooperated enough) but any number of other candidates on ballots nationwide, not to mention initiatives put on the ballot by real, live citizens detouring corrupt legislators by taking matters into their own hands.

You can already sense defeat among government officials trying to figure out what defenses, if any, are left against the corporate hordes - the CEOs in their sky-high boardrooms quietly counting dollars and deciding which politicians have earned their financial support (or can be bought); the lobbyists with unlimited expense accounts to wine, dine and drive the quid pro quo; the vast underground of consulting firms and PR flacks that follow corporate orders.

No one could have imagined that Montana, with a population barely larger than a big city, would rise to challenge the United States Supreme Court. The Montana court ruling is an inspiring attempt to evade the deathly embrace of Citizens United and, at the same time, inescapably a courageous challenge to the ideologues now re-writing the nation's laws. It can be found here (PDF).

"Western Tradition Partnership" – the shadowy entity that was caught violating Montana's anti-corrupt practices act – immediately challenged the Montana decision, and last Friday, United States Supreme Court Justice William Kennedy (chief author of the Citizens United decision) issued an order blocking the Montana court ruling from taking effect until the court decides what to do with the appeal.

At least two of the Supreme Court justices who disagreed with their colleagues in Citizens United are hoping the Court will reconsider that ruling. In Friday's order, Justices Ginsberg and Breyer stated:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” .... [The appeal] will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

Observers of the Court think that's a lost cause. Renowned constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky believes that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the Montana Supreme Court by the same five to four majority in Citizens United. Still, Citizens United's impact on America's democracy has already been catastrophic, and support for proposals like ours to amend the Constitution has spread across the United States and transcends partisan labels. At the same time, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are under fire for their close ties to conservative pro-business organizations, further undermining confidence in the impartiality of the nation's highest court. I would not underestimate the power of public opinion to affect the outcome of this showdown – if not now, then in the not too distant future of our country.

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 02/21/2012

There Oughta Be A Law…. But There Won’t Be Unless We Change the Constitution

Are you one of those people who are constantly saying “there oughta be a law”? I am - which is probably why I ended up a consumer advocate.

Some pretty lofty assumptions about democracy are built into that quaint phrase, if you think about it. For one, it assumes that law is a good way to resolve disputes (as compared, say, to fists or guns). Also, that everybody will obey the law. Perhaps most obvious, when someone says, “there oughta be a law,” they’re asserting our right as Americans to make things better for ourselves by getting the legislative branch to address an issue of public importance.

Indeed, the "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is built into the First Amendment - the same amendment that five members of the United States Supreme Court pretty much erased from the Constitution in the Citizens United case two years ago.

By now, everyone understands that by giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as humans, and then ruling that spending money to influence elections is a form of “free speech,” the Supreme Court in Citizens United unleashed a tsunami of corporate money that will drown out the voices of 99% percent of Americans in favor of the 1% who have the wealth to determine who wins elections. “Free” speech can’t compete with hundreds of millions of dollars of paid propaganda.

What’s not been much discussed is how the Supreme Court decision actually conflicts with the rest of the First Amendment: it has negated our right to petition government for a redress of grievances.

Consider another Supreme Court-imposed debacle: in 2011, the high court ruled that consumers who sue big companies in class actions can be thrown out of court and forced to go into “arbitration” – a system in which the company hires private “judges” to determine whether the company broke the law. The Federal Arbitration Act specifically says that arbitration doesn’t apply if the arbitration clause violates a state’s consumer protection law. But the Supreme Court refused to recognize that exception. The case is Concepcion v AT&T Mobility. In that lawsuit, consumers challenged AT&T for adding extra charges to the purchase of a cell phone that the company had advertised as “free.” The decision – another enormous victory for big corporations – strips American consumers of their right to hold a company accountable for rip-offs big or small.

Unlike the Court’s ruling in Citizens United, which interpreted the US Constitution, Congress could easily amend the Federal Arbitration Act to reverse the Concepcion decision. But will it? Forget about the House of Representatives: it’s controlled by corporate Republicans who are owned by the cell phone companies. (The House was close to passing a bill that would have allowed telemarketers and debt collectors to call consumers’ cell phones with recorded messages. A huge public outcry delayed the legislation.)

But in the Democrat controlled US Senate, a bill to override the Supreme Court’s arbitration ruling has only fifteen cosponsors.

In California, we are lucky to have the ballot initiative, which allows us to take matters into our own hands when state legislators are too beholden to special interests to deal with important issues. Using the initiative process, California voters passed Proposition 103 to restrain price gouging by auto, home and business insurance companies. My colleagues at Consumer Watchdog are now proposing an initiative to put health insurance premiums under Proposition 103’s controls. But even the people’s initiative process has been corrupted by corporate money. And attempts to ban corporate interference in ballot initiative campaigns ran smack into, once again, a decision by the United States Supreme Court.

Indeed, you don’t have to be an astute observer of politics to know that corporate money has long corrupted politics. Our report, “Sold Out: How Wall Street and Washington Betrayed America” (PDF), published in March 2009, got right to the bottom line in its title. Between 1998 and 2008, Wall Street invested $5 billion in Washington, a combination of money for lobbying and campaign contributions that won deregulation and other policy decisions that enabled the financial industry to do as it pleased. The ensuing orgy of unbridled speculation came to a halt in 2008 when the financial industry threatened to shut down the system unless they got trillions of dollars in loans, tax breaks and other taxpayer bailouts.

Laws regulating corporate spending in elections and lobbying were intended to limit the damage to democracy. Some, including me, would argue that they didn’t work anyhow. But Citizens United has eliminated any chance of righting the imbalance of political power between corporations and human beings short of changing the United States Constitution itself. We’re proposing exactly that: a 28^th Amendment to the Constitution that reads “The protections of the First Amendment that apply to the spending of money on lobbying and elections, whether by contributions, expenditures or otherwise, shall extend only to human beings.” Join us right now.

Citizens United / Harvey Column - 02/06/2012

Is There a Secret White House Memo on Corporate Control of our Country?

An internal White House memo in 2010, just before the Supreme Court’s outrageous decision in Citizens United, suggested President Obama address the influence of money in politics. Other items crowded his agenda instead, but this election year President Obama would be wise to take up the citizen call for a 28^th Constitutional Amendment to end the corruption caused by the Court’s corporate personhood decision.

First, some important background on the 2010 memo. It used to be that a history of a presidential administration would await the president’s departure, but in recent years mid-term profiles have become the norm. Bob Woodward chronicled the Bush White House with four books, and Ron Suskind’s “Confidence Men,” published last year, captured President Obama’s errors in strategy and communications. Both authors had access to sources close to the top of the White House. But this week’s New Yorker takes the genre to a new level. Ryan Lizza’s “The Obama Memos” is a fascinating analysis of the Obama presidency that relies greatly on White House memos that Lizza somehow obtained. One of them, the transition team’s memo to the president-elect in 2008 on the economy, is available in its entirety for download on the New Yorker site.

It was another memo, excerpted in a sidebar, that really got my attention. It was from the President’s political advisers, in late December 2009 according to Lizza, and listed “ideas on how on how try and recapture some of the anti-Washington spirit of his 2008 campaign” in the President’s 2010 State of the Union address. One of the suggestions in the memo anticipated the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

Campaign Finance reform: By the time of the SOTU [State of the Union], the Citizens United case will have been handed down and at the time of the decision will likely make an announcement on our response/plans. We could use the SOTU opportunity to push the ball forward on whatever proposal we put forward, calling on Congress to act by a ‘date certain’ or further fleshing out our proposals.

The Court handed down its decision on January 21, just a week before the State of the Union speech. Of course, no one expected the decision to cement into American Constitutional law the proposition that corporations have the same First Amendment rights as human beings and that spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech. So when the advisers referred to the White House's “response/plans,” it was not clear what kind of decision they were expecting, or what they thought they could do about it.

We now know that the only thing that can be done about Citizens United is for the American people to join together to overrule it, by passing the 28^th Amendment to the Constitution, such as the one we have proposed.

Meanwhile, the President had something to say about corporate money in politics at the end of his State of the Union speech on January 27, 2010, and it stirred quite a controversy. He began by noting that a byproduct of the 2008 financial collapse was the public’s loss of confidence in government of, by and for the people:

We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.

Then, with members of the Supreme Court seated right in front of him, he slammed the Court’s ruling in Citizens United:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.

It was a powerful moment, to be sure, though hardly the assault on the Court that it was subsequently described as, at least in some quarters.

What happened next created the evening’s drama. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, who had voted in favor of the Court’s ruling, took it upon himself to provide some instant analysis. Cameras caught Alito angrily mouthing the words “not true” in response to Obama’s critique. The New York Times recalled the moment recently.

Whatever the President or anyone else thought that night about the week-old decision, it has since opened the floodgates of corporate money while individual Americans – I’m referring to the human beings who cast ballots, not so-called "corporate citizens" – have become bystanders. Decades-old laws limiting the influence of big money in politics have fallen, with few exceptions – one of which I wrote about last week.

It’ll likely be a few years before we get to read the memos that his political team is forwarding President Obama this year. But focus on Citizens United and the power of corporations to determine the outcome of supposedly “free” elections in what is proudly hailed as the world’s greatest democracy is certainly consistent with the themes of government accountability and the ninety nine percent vs. the one percent that are dominating public discourse and even the debates between the pro-corporate Republican presidential candidates. Obama would find a welcoming, bipartisan audience for the 28^th Amendment. Let’s see how far he’s prepared to go.

Citizens United / D.C. Disconnect / Harvey Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Supreme Court - 01/30/2012

Fight Back Against Citizens United

On the second anniversary of Citizens United, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people, there’s bad news and good news.

The bad news: we’re seeing the full impact of the ruling, with the creation of PACs --- political action committees -- with innocuous Mom and apple pie-sounding names, like Make Us Great Again and Winning Our Future, funded by unlimited anonymous corporate contributions.

The good news is that the ruling has galvanized a grassroots backlash: if you’re mad as hell and want to join the fight to rid our democracy of toxic big money, there’s an explosion of grassroots opposition for you to plug into today, or whenever you’re ready.

First, a little history. Corporate political contributions have been stirring outrage for more than 100 years, since they helped elect Teddy Roosevelt in 1904. Once elected, the savvy Roosevelt got in front of a movement to outlaw those contributions, resulting in passage of the Tillman Act.

But the corporations didn’t just slink away in defeat; they developed ever more creative ways to skirt the law and influence elections.

In Citizens United, eight Supreme Court justices ruled in 2010 that while corporations couldn’t contribute to individual candidates they could give to political action committees that do not, supposedly, have formal ties to a particular candidate.

In their ruling, the justices took a flawed, too narrow view of the way in which money corrupts politics. First, they said that since the PACs aren’t linked to individual candidates, the contributions couldn’t be used to bribe the candidates, or extract a quid pro quo.

The court ignored the well-known fact that the monster PACs do establish informal but strong ties to individual candidates.

In addition, the court misstates the more insidious way massive corporate cash corrupts our government. As Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig points out, large corporate contributions ensure that only those candidates, regardless of party, who can collect those contributions, and espouse a corporate-friendly political agenda, stand any chance.

This creates a political system that thwarts goals of left and right.

If we don’t reverse Citizens United and confront corporate power, we can expect more corporate bailouts with no questions asked, and fewer consumer, environmental, employee and investor protections. We can expect more tax breaks for the 1 percent and more austerity for the 99 percent.

At WheresOurMoney, my colleague Harvey Rosenfield has proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United that is easily understood and will withstand any legal challenge. You can read more about it here. There’s a great video with background and ideas about fighting Citizens United here.

You can find groups taking a variety of actions against Citizens United across the country here and here.

Action / Citizens United / Martin Column - 01/21/2012

9 For the 99 – Restoring the Real Economy

Remember how aggressively our leaders have talked about tackling unemployment and the housing crisis?

Remember all the strong action to make good on their promises?

Me neither.

Remember how all our leaders criticized each other for taking money from Wall Street and other powerful corporate interests?

Remember all the potent steps they took to rid our democracy of corporate money?

Me neither.

You’ve probably heard of Herman Cain’s 9-9-9-tax plan, the scheme he says will get the economy going. Do you think it will work?

Here’s our proposal to restore the real economy. Unlike the solutions proposed by our leaders, these proposals focus on the problems faced every day by most people, not bankers.

We’ll be offering it at OccupyLA in the next couple of days to complement their work.

Support 28A, constitutional amendment overturning U.S. Supreme Court “Citizens United” ruling to stop the flood of toxic corporate cash poisoning our democracy
Prosecute Wall Street crime, not Wall Street protestors
Give citizens same right to borrow taxpayer money from the Fed at the same low interest rates that Wall Street got in the bailout
Cap bank fees and interest rates
Offer real foreclosure relief: Require banks to provide principal reduction for underwater mortgages, including allowing judges to reduce home mortgage principal in bankruptcy court to encourage mortgage modifications
Repeal unnecessary tax loopholes and other corporate subsidies (overseas tax breaks, local & state tax bribes for moving jobs from one community to another, make corporations pay taxes) and transfer savings to taxpayers and small businesses in the form of tax cuts.
Repeal corporate-backed NAFTA-style trade deals, which export U.S. jobs overseas, reduce wages of American workers to that of laborers in foreign countries and weaken environmental regulation.
Restore traditional separations between federally guaranteed consumer banking from other, riskier, financial business.
Reform student debt, stop predatory practices.

For more information, check out http://www.wheresourmoney.org

On Facebook https://www.facebook.com/wheresourmoney

Twitter http://twitter.com/ - !/WheresOurMoney

Support 28A http://www.wheresourmoney.org/campaign-2011/

Action / Citizens United / Congress / Foreclosure / Martin Column / Supreme Court - 10/20/2011

High Court's Low Opinion of Foreclosure Practices

Apparently the Massachusetts Supreme Court neglected to read the bipartisan memo reminding politicians and judges to refrain from doing anything that might upset the banks.

Most judges have shown extraordinary deference to bankers, even amid growing evidence that those bankers haven’t been following the law in pursuing foreclosures.

That may be beginning to change, in the wake of a Massachusetts ruling against banks in a closely watched foreclosure case.

Right now the decision only has force in Massachusetts. But as other cases challenging foreclosures make their way through the courts across the country, other judges are likely to be guided by it. In addition, the ruling will also provide guidance for lawyers posing legal challenges to other mortgages scrambled in the securitization process.

The Obama administration has consistently downplayed evidence of rampant fraud and sloppiness in the way banks split up, packaged and sold off mortgages to investors in the heat of the housing bubble.

Almost all subprime mortgages as well as millions of conventional mortgages originated before the meltdown were securitized and sold to investors. Securitized mortgages account for more than half of the $14.2 trillion in the total outstanding U.S. mortgage debt.

Bankers have tried to dismiss these problems with what’s known as the securitization process as a matter of mixed-up paperwork that can be straightened out.

But the highest level court to examine the issue thus far took the issue much more seriously. Last week the Massachusetts Supreme Court invalidated what had become a common practice – banks seeking to foreclose on properties without properly holding ownership of the promissory note and mortgage as part of the securitization. The court focused heavily on the use of the power of sale contained in mortgages; the same power exists in the vast majority of California deeds of trust.

Ruling in a closely watched case, the high court rejected arguments by U.S. Bancorp and Wells Fargo & Co. that they didn’t have to prove their authority to foreclose. The banks had argued that evidence that they intended to transfer ownership was enough to establish their standing to foreclose.

The ruling makes dense but fascinating reading, with some passages coming through loud and clear even if you’re not steeped in real estate law.

The justices stressed they weren’t creating any new interpretation of law. “The legal principles and requirements we set forth are well established in our case law and our statutes,” wrote Justice Ralph D. Gants. “All that has changed is the (banks) apparent failure to abide by those principles and requirements in the rush to sell mortgage-backed securities.”

Banks have argued that their “pooling and servicing agreements” allowed them to transfer mortgages to securitized trusts “in blank” without specifying whom the new owner would be.

But the justices ruled in U.S. Bank v. Ibanez that the “foreclosing party must hold the mortgage at the time of the notice and sale in order accurately to identify itself as the present holder and in order to have the authority to foreclose under the power of sale...”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Robert Cordy wrote: “There is no dispute that the mortgagors (borrowers) had defaulted on their obligations.”

But that’s not the legal standard. “Before commencing such an action...the holder of an assigned mortgage needs to take care to ensure that his legal paperwork is in order,” Cordy stated.

The ruling could lead to an increase in complicated and expensive litigation, if those whose homes have already been foreclosed on sue to challenge the financial institutions’ authority to conduct the foreclosures. Investors may also sue, contending that the banks didn’t properly document the ownership trail on the mortgages contained in a particular investment pool.

Can banks go back in and straighten out their securitization mess? So far the banks are downplaying the significance of the ruling. But untangling the paperwork may not be so easy. Many of the entities that created the securitized pools have gone bankrupt or dissolved into other businesses. At the very least, it could pose a costly and complicated process for the bankers, one that would entail taking a hard look at the details of the deals that led to the country’s financial collapse.

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 01/11/2011

The Republican Who Tackled Foreclosures

President Obama isn’t the first politician to have to stare a massive foreclosure crisis in the face.

The last time foreclosures loomed so large in the economy and the national consciousness was during the Great Depression, when farmers and homeowners were losing their land in massive numbers.

Several states passed laws including moratoriums on foreclosure. Not because the banks couldn’t prove they owned the farms, or because they screwed up the paperwork. The moratoriums were implemented in recognition that the country was in an economic emergency and that having so many people lose their homes was bad for the country.

Minnesota passed such a law in 1933. After a judge allowed a couple to postpone foreclosure, the building and loan association that owned the mortgagee challenged the law. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that law was a violation of the Contracts Clause of the Constitution. But in its landmark ruling in Home Building v. Blaisdell, the high court upheld the law. By a 5 to 4 vote the court ruled that the contracts clause wasn’t absolute and it didn’t outweigh the rights of the states to protect the vital interests of its citizens. In dissent, Associate Justice George Sutherland warned that the ruling would be just the beginning of further erosion of the contracts clause.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, an appointee of President Herbert Hoover, wrote the majority opinion. Hughes wasn’t some ivory-tower judge but a seasoned and fascinating Republican politician who had served as two-term governor of New York, with a record for establishing a public service commission, as well as pushing through labor law and insurance reform. He ran unsuccessfully for president against Woodrow Wilson before serving his first stint on the Supreme Court before running for president. After a stretch as secretary of state under President Calvin Coolidge, he was in and out of private life before President Hoover appointed him chief justice in 1930.

Though liberals gave him a hard time in his confirmation hearing, he often provided a swing vote in favor of the New Deal on a highly contentious court. But Hughes also repeatedly tangled with Roosevelt, voting against the constitutionality of the National Recovery Administration and opposing FDR’s court-packing scheme.

What do we get from this excursion into history? There’s some comfort in knowing the country has grappled with these tough times and issues before and survived. But it’s hard to encounter a figure like Hughes and not wish that some of his courage and unpredictability could rub off on our current crop of leaders, who seem so timid and tame by comparison, and who seem to have forgotten that protecting the vital interests of citizens isn’t just a matter of bailing out banks and tax cuts for the rich and hoping some of the booty will trickle down to the rest of us.

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 10/13/2010