Category: News

A total of 24 states allow voters to change laws on their own by collecting signatures and putting initiatives on the ballot. It’s healthy that the entrenched political class should face some real legislative competition from initiative-toting citizens. Unfortunately, some special interests have declared war on the initiative process, using tactics ranging from restrictive laws to outright thuggery.

The initiative is a reform born out of the Progressive Era, when there was general agreement that powerful interests had too much influence over legislators. It was adopted by most states in the Midwest and West, including Ohio and California. It was largely rejected by Eastern states, which were dominated by political machines, and in the South, where Jim Crow legislators feared giving more power to ordinary people.

But more power to ordinary people remains unpopular in some quarters, and nothing illustrates the war on the initiative more than the reaction to Ward Connerly’s measures to ban racial quotas and preferences. The former University of California regent has convinced three liberal states — California, Washington and Michigan — to approve race-neutral government policies in public hiring, contracting and university admissions. He also prodded Florida lawmakers into passing such a law. This year his American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) aimed to make the ballot in five more states. But thanks to strong-arm tactics, the initiative has only made the ballot in Arizona, Colorado and Nebraska.

"The key to defeating the initiative is to keep it off the ballot in the first place," says Donna Stern, Midwest director for the Detroit-based By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). "That’s the only way we’re going to win." Her group’s name certainly describes the tactics that are being used to thwart Mr. Connerly.

Aggressive legal challenges have bordered on the absurd, going so far as to claim that a blank line on one petition was a "duplicate" of another blank line on another petition and thus evidence of fraud. In Missouri, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan completely rewrote the initiative’s ballot summary to portray it in a negative light. By the time courts ruled she had overstepped her authority, there wasn’t enough time to collect sufficient signatures.

Those who did circulate petitions faced bizarre obstacles. In Kansas City, a petitioner was arrested for collecting signatures outside of a public library. Officials finally allowed petitioners a table inside the library but forbade them to talk. In Nebraska, a group in favor of racial preferences ran a radio ad that warned that those who signed the "deceptive" petition "could be at risk for identity theft, robbery, and much worse."

Mr. Connerly says that it’s ironic that those who claim to believe in "people power" want to keep people from voting on his proposal: "Their tactics challenge the legitimacy of our system."

He’s not alone. Liberal columnist Anne Denogean of the Tucson Citizen opposes the Connerly initiative, but last month she wrote that BAMN "is showing a disgusting lack of respect for the democratic process and the right of all Arizonans to participate in it." She detailed how members of this organization harass petitioners and film people who sign the petition, while telling them they are backing a racist measure.

The police had to be called when BAMN blocked the entrance of a Phoenix office where circulators had to deliver their petitions. "BAMN’s tactics," she concluded, "resemble those used by anti-abortion activists to prevent women from entering abortion clinics."

But BAMN proudly posts videos on its success in scaring away voters, or convincing circulators to hand over their petitions to its shock troops. "If you give me your signatures, we’ll leave you alone," says a BAMN volunteer on one tape to someone who’s earning money by circulating several different petitions.

What about voters’ rights to sign ACRI’s petitions? BAMN organizer Monica Smith equates race-neutral laws with Jim-Crow segregation laws and slavery. She told Tuscon columnist Denogean that voters are simply being educated that ACRI is "trying to end affirmative action . . . We let them know it’s up on the KKK’s Web site." Mr. Connerly has repudiated any support from racists.

Other opponents of Mr. Connerly deplore the blocking and name-calling. Arizona State Rep. Kyrsten Sinema told me that initiatives have been used to pass ideas such as campaign finance and redistricting reform often opposed by entrenched legislators. "People have a right to sign a petition, hear the arguments and then vote," she says. Ms. Sinema thinks Arizonans can be persuaded to vote down ACRI’s measure, much as they voted down a ban on gay marriage in 2006.

The war against citizen initiatives has other fronts. This year in Michigan, taxpayer groups tried to recall House Speaker Andy Dillon after he pushed through a 12% increase in the state income tax. But petitioners collecting the necessary 8,724 signatures in his suburban Detroit district were set upon. In Redford, police union members held a rally backing Mr. Dillon and would alert blockers to the location of recall petitioners. Outsiders would then surround petitioners and potential signers, using threatening language.

Mr. Dillon denied organizing such activity. Then it was revealed two of the harassers were state employees working directly for him. Another "voter educator" hired by the state’s Democratic Party had been convicted of armed robbery. After 2,000 signatures were thrown out on technical grounds, the recall effort fell 700 signatures short.

Ever since voters in virtually every state with direct democracy passed term limits in the 1990s, state legislators have been hostile to the process. Now Montana, South Dakota, Nebraska and Colorado have all passed legislation to prohibit people from out-of-state from circulating a petition, and also to ban payment to circulators on a per-signature basis.

To his credit, Colorado’s Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed such curbs. In March, a Sixth Circuit federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled that an Ohio law barring per-signature payment violated the First Amendment. Similarly, a Ninth Circuit panel just voted unanimously to strike down Arizona’s residency law for circulators.

Some judges think the "blocking" of signature gatherers has gone too far. In 2006, Nevada Judge Sally Loehrers decreed a "civility zone" that barred opposing sides from coming within arms’ length of each other at petition signing sites. "The blockers were off the streets within two days," says Paul Jacob, the head of Citizens in Charge, which promotes the initiative process.

Last year, Mr. Jacob was charged with conspiracy to defraud the state of Oklahoma in a bizarre prosecution that claimed he brought in out-of-state signature gatherers in violation of the state’s residency requirement. Yet local public sector unions opposed to Mr. Jacob hired out-of-state outfits such as the Voter Education Project, an AFL-CIO offshoot that specializes in harassing signature drives.

Representative government will remain the enduring feature of American democracy, but the initiative process is a valuable safety valve. So long as elected officials gerrymander their districts and otherwise make it nearly impossible for voters to oust them, direct lawmaking will be popular. That’s why attempts to arbitrarily curb the initiative, or to intimidate people from exercising their right to participate, must be resisted. It’s a civil liberties issue that should unite people of good will on both the right and left.

When Mike Gravel appeared on camera during the early Democratic primary debates, Americans began asking who this blunt-speaking, wisecracking individual was and what qualified him to stand beside Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other, younger hopefuls. He soon reminded the nation that as a two-term Alaska senator (1969-1981), he released the Pentagon Papers—the government’s secret history of the Vietnam War. His was the era of dirty Nixon politics, global instability and OPEC oil shocks. A maverick to Democrats and Republicans, Gravel has been promoting his idea of a National Initiative for Democracy, which would grant the general population the right to make laws directly, for decades. Written with journalist Joe Lauria, “A Political Odyssey” is the kind of autobiography only Gravel could put forward, full of anecdotes, score settling and direct honesty.

During the Democratic primary debates, you railed against the lack of truth-telling in politics. Do you always feel you’re pushing a boulder up a hill?

It’s like pushing up a boulder with my nose. For some reason—whether it’s because I’m naturally pugnacious or just glandular—whenever I hear people say “you’re so courageous,” I think, am I really? I don’t feel courageous. What’s wrong with our country is self-evident. When I was in the Senate and ambitious like anyone else, I’d sell out a portion of myself to get elected. Yet in other quarters I was considered against conventional wisdom and totally irresponsible. The hardest part is peer pressure. You want to be liked—you don’t want to walk into a room and feel you’ve got leprosy or something’s wrong with you mentally. It’s never the difficulty of fighting for something, but you need people whose intelligence you respect to hear you, and when you’d talk you could tell they had no respect for your intellect—people who, through their silence, looked down on you.

People who weren’t born when you were a senator were shocked by your performance in the debates, too.

Well, as a young person I was dyslexic—I still am. Since I can’t read publicly very well, I became an expert at extemporaneous speaking. Generally in the Senate I’d write an outline, think it out, then speak and not even consult my notes.

You campaign featured YouTube ads that made you kind of a rock star.

The star that I became on the Internet wasn’t my work—it’s what young people did with the rock-in-the-water ad. They got a hold of my southern campaign manager and asked if they could have some time with me throwing a rock in the water. I understood immediately the significance of that image. Only after the reaction of the media did I understand the ad’s impact—it’s a metaphor for life—you throw a stone and hope you cause some ripples.

But why are certain states more reliably liberal or conservative, red or blue?

Democracy is accidental—it’s a convergence of individuals at certain points in history with events that alter people’s perceptions. One example is the accident of Abraham Lincoln at a time when it was inevitable we’d have a civil war. As a history buff, I love comparing Washington and Napoleon. They were comrades historically, but one went crazy with power while one didn’t. When Napoleon was exiled to Elba, he supposedly said, “I should have been more like Washington.” Believe me, it’s about power. It’s worse than coke or morphine.

If you hadn’t been defeated for reelection in 1980, would you have kept running—were you also addicted to the power?

I was so disgusted with government by then, I really wanted to get out. I’d been a womanizer and my marriage was in the toilet. My last term in office I was very unhappy. All my accomplishments were in the first four years—after that I suffered like an outlaw from both parties and the media. When I released and sought publication of the Pentagon Papers, I embarrassed the media. They didn’t like that.

You’re saying the media is corrupt?

It’s less corrupt—it’s corrupt at the highest level and more nuanced in the middle. A guy like Bill O’Reilly, he becomes very famous and loved within Fox News and I’m sure Rupert Murdoch goes to bed every night muttering his words. Murdoch doesn’t have to talk to him—[O’Reilly] knows what he has to do to be Murdoch’s hero and to get paid big bucks.

Do you think the Bill O’Reillys and Sean Hannitys of the media believe what they say on the air?

Look, there’s a little radar inside our heads that focuses on our enlightened self-interest and then everything points in that direction, even our spirituality. Do they believe what they say? You bet they do.

Do you think President Bush believes everything he says?

Bush isn’t intelligent enough to believe what he believes.

But you have to be moderately intelligent to run for the presidency and win, don’t you?

I don’t particularly buy that. You’ve got to be shrewd, compliant, lots of things. Sheer intelligence can be an impediment to being elected president.

Can you discuss the National Initiative? You’re famous for it and you discuss it in your book.

I believe that empowering Americans to make our laws is the solution to the shortcomings of representative government. That’s why I’ve dedicated more than half my life to this idea, which you can read about at www.nationalinitiative.us.

The former Democratic senator from Alaska discusses his presidential campaign, his role in the releasing of the Pentagon Papers and his support for NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, a grassroots group seeking to place an initiative on the ballot of the November 6th general election allowing registered New York City voters to create a new commission to investigate 9/11.

AMY GOODMAN: Former Alaska senator and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Gravel is holding a news conference in New York City today to call for a new independent investigation into 9/11. Gravel will be speaking on behalf of the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, a grassroots group seeking to place an initiative on the ballot of the November 6th general election allowing registered New York City voters to create a new commission to investigate 9/11.

The group is looking to appoint between nine and fifteen commissioners on the panel to conduct the investigation. Some of the people who have reportedly already agreed to serve as commissioners include Lori Van Auken, a 9/11 widow, one of the so-called “Jersey Girls”; Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican senator from Rhode Island; Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, a pastor in Detroit, Michigan; as well as former Democratic Senator Mike Gravel, who joins us here today.

He has published three books this year: Citizen Power: A Mandate for Change, The Kingmakers: How the Media Threatens Our Security and Our Democracy and A Political Odyssey. His book Citizen Power: A Mandate for Change has a forward by Ralph Nader. He’ll be joining us on the show later in the week.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Senator Gravel.

MIKE GRAVEL: Amy, thank you for having me. But before we launch into the mission of my appearance, I want to comment on this young man you just had on. I’ve got to tell you, the military is in for deep trouble. That this kid felt he wasn’t very educated, wasn’t good student, I mean, I’ve—he’s beautifully articulate. Let me tell you one thing. We lose—we forget history. The First World War ended because hundreds of thousands of people walked off the battlefield. If we’re going to end this war and the strength of the military-industrial complex, it’s through courageous young men like this walking away from the stupidity and the immorality of our political leaders who lead us on fools’ errands of violence and war. And so, I want to applaud what this kid is talking about and his experience. And boy, now that is Courage with a capital C. And I just wanted to articulate that for you.

AMY GOODMAN: Didn’t you lead the initiative to end the draft in Vietnam?

MIKE GRAVEL: Oh, yes. Well, I’m very proud. It’s one of my accomplishments. I forced it. I forced the end of it. And that—

AMY GOODMAN: How?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, it was a five-month filibuster that Mansfield made possible without anybody realizing it.

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Michael Mansfield.

MIKE GRAVEL: Yes, who was the Majority Leader at the time. So he bought into it, and I didn’t even realize what he was doing. He set up a two-track system on legislation. So I started in May, and then by—and, of course, you were there when Ellsberg, myself and West, at the annual meeting of the Unitarian Universalists, had a rollicking good time talking about this whole history, and you moderated it. And I can’t tell you how, as long as I live, I’ll never forget what a wonderful time we had piecing this together what happened.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, that, I was asking you about ending the draft. You’re talking about the publication of the Pentagon Papers.

MIKE GRAVEL: That’s right, but I got the Papers because I was filibustering the draft. [inaudible]

AMY GOODMAN: So you went on the floor of the Senate…

MIKE GRAVEL: And tried to filibuster. I failed it, because I was too nice to the staff, and so I had to use another device, which was to—and I was a freshman. So I was chairman of Buildings and Grounds, so I used the precedent, you won’t believe, House Un-American Activities Committee, where I could call at a moment’s notice a hearing and, as a result of that, turned around and got testimony from a Congressman Dowd from New York, Upper New York, who came and testified, and he wanted a federal—

AMY GOODMAN: You mean you called an emergency hearing—just to be clear, you called this man, what was it, out of bed? And you said, “You know that building you’ve been asking for? If you come and testify right now about why you need this building, we will commence the hearing.” That enabled you to hold the hearing.

MIKE GRAVEL: That’s right. And we held a hearing. And then, when he said—he said, “I want a federal building,” I says, “Well, I’d love to give you a federal building, but we don’t have the money, and the reason why we don’t have the money is because we’re in Southeast Asia. Now, let me tell you how we got into Southeast Asia.” And I started to read the Pentagon Papers. That’s how—and then I started sobbing after an hour of reading. I’m dyslexic, so I read terribly.

AMY GOODMAN: You had gotten those Papers from the Washington Post?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, from Ben Bagdikian, who had gotten them from Dan Ellsberg, and the Post didn’t know that Ben had an extra copy. So Ellsberg had pushed Ben, because Ellsberg was very concerned that he couldn’t get the Papers out.

AMY GOODMAN: That the Times wouldn’t publish them.

MIKE GRAVEL: That’s right, and nor would the Post any further, because of the injunction. And so, as it happened, I released the Papers about six, seven, eight hours before the Supreme Court rendered its decision, and their decision was moot, because the world had the Papers as a result of what I did that night.

AMY GOODMAN: And you ultimately had them published by Beacon Press.

MIKE GRAVEL: Right, courageous Beacon Press, not just Beacon Press. Courageous Beacon Press, because nobody would touch it. Nobody would touch it, because they were at risk. And poor Beacon Press really suffered from government harassment. And as it turned out, I and Dr. Rotberg could have been prosecuted, but then, by that time, Watergate had been exposed, and they weren’t going to charge a religion or a sitting senator. And so, Dan Ellsberg and I never served a day in jail. And the three people within the Justice Department that came after us, they all went to jail. There’s some justice someplace.

AMY GOODMAN: They were…? They were…?

MIKE GRAVEL: They were the Attorney General Mitchell, Mardian, and the other guy I keep forgetting who his name is.

AMY GOODMAN: And, of course, the Pentagon Papers were the 7,000 pages of secret history of US involvement in Vietnam that Ellsberg had taken out of a safe.

MIKE GRAVEL: Totally. It’s nothing—nothing but history, nothing but history. This stuff should have never been classified, never have been classified. And what I operated on—I’m a layperson—is just very simple: if it’s important for the Secretary of Defense to know how we got into this mess, it’s important for the American people to know how we got into this mess. And this is the same situation we have with Iraq. How did we get there?

And now, this segues us into this commission here in New York. I view this very, very serious. I don’t see the body politic having the guts to go out and make a new—a real new investigation, because the way politicians act, whether it’s Democrat or Republican, “Oh, we’ll investigate a little bit, but let’s not go too deeply, because we’ve got to cover their backside, because they’ll cover our backside,” and it’s too political in nature.

And so, with the commission that we’re talking about 9/11 here in New York City, now that’s a commission that’s going to be a real commission. And that commission now can make a true investigation as to what happened on 9/11, but not just 9/11, because the war is tied with that. And so, this will give us an opportunity to vertically go into all the backup to this data and have subpoena powers to have people testify. Now, if a person perjures themself here with the New York commission, it’s perjury, so it’s a crime. And so, maybe, maybe this will give us an opportunity to have justice, and we can begin subpoenaing the President of the United States—at that time, he’ll be the former president—and the Vice President and go on down into the boughs of the intelligence and a whole host of areas to get to the truth. We don’t know the truth.

AMY GOODMAN: And how advanced is this ballot initiative?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, it’s very serious right now, because there’s windows. When you do an initiative, there’s a window that you have to comport to. And so, they need upwards of 50,000 signatures to be real safe, and they’ve only got 10,000 signatures. And so, they’ve got about four weeks left.

AMY GOODMAN: They have to all be New Yorkers?

MIKE GRAVEL: Yes. Oh, yeah, they do. And I can’t even—I was going to try to go out and collect signatures, but legally I can’t. So I’m going to be part of a press conference, and I’ve done several initiatives myself as a sitting senator. And as you know, with my efforts with the National Initiative, I believe in this concept. What the government can’t do, the people can do through the initiative process. And so, we’ve got to get those signatures in the next forty—thirty, forty days, and it’s going to depend on people hearing my voice, hearing you, because you’ve spoken about this before and the importance of this.

And so, there’s a telephone number I want to give: (646) 537-1755. That’s (646) 537-1755. And that’s a hotline. And today, at St. Mark’s Church, that’s at Second Avenue and 10th Street—

AMY GOODMAN: Here in New York City.

MIKE GRAVEL: Here in New York City. If people will come there, we’re going to have a get-together at 7:30. It’s going to be a reception. There will be some light refreshments, and then we’ll be talking about this. Sign the guest book. Give us your address. And then what you can do is log on to our website, and that website will permit you to download a petition, and then you’ll be able to circulate the petition. But it’s key to call this phone number.

AMY GOODMAN: Mike Gravel, did you ever raise this, for example, in the debates that you were able to participate in?

MIKE GRAVEL: About the commission? Not this particular commission, because I was—keep in mind, I was shut out in September of ’07 after I had challenged the Democratic Party and Hillary, particularly, on the Lieberman 2 resolution which gave George Bush the power to invade Iran, which is still a threat that looms over our heads.

I was with Ramsey Clark over the weekend, and Ramsey joins me in feeling very, very frightened over the possibility that George Bush may go crazy again and do something significant between now and the term. Remember when Sarkozy asked him, “Well, Mr. President, you’ve did a—you know, you’ve done a fine term of office.” He said, “I’m not done yet!” Well, by “not done,” what’s he got in his mind? What more could he do?

AMY GOODMAN: Senator Gravel, when you say we don’t know the truth about 9/11, what do you mean?

MIKE GRAVEL: Government—90 percent of what the government does is held secret. It’s a whole cult. And that’s the thing that is really strangling our democracy, that we just don’t know what’s going on. And so, you need to rip off the scab and see the wound of what the government is damaging. And so, it’s a cult. And I don’t know how I can phrase it. I’ve written about the subject.

When I was—here, best example I can give you. When I was twenty-three years old, I was in a communications intelligence service. I was an agitant of the communications intelligence service, and I was a top-secret control officer. I was twenty-three years old. Now, I’m forty-two years old, I’m a United States senator, and I could not go in and take notes and read the Pentagon Papers, because they were under guard in the Senate. Now, does it get any stupider than that? And that—and I didn’t even go in. When that was—Nixon sent them to the House, sent them to the Senate, and no staff could read it or senator could read it, couldn’t even take notes. I mean, we are so steeped in this.

And when you hear—and keep this in mind, Amy, any member of the Congress could release any secret about the government’s activities right today, because the court case, the Supreme Court ruled in my case 5-4 that a senator, under—or a House member, under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution of the United States, could not be held accountable. I was talking to Congressman Moran, and he had made the statement, “Well, you know, George Bush is about to do something in Iran.” I said, “My god! Say something about it. They can’t touch you.”

AMY GOODMAN: Jim Moran of Virginia.

MIKE GRAVEL: Of Virginia, and who’s a tough hombre.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe there’s another set of Pentagon Papers around 9/11 and Iraq?

MIKE GRAVEL: There’s no question about it, but how do you get your hands on it? If some—see, not every—there’s not that many Ellsbergs around. We’ve got Sibel Edmonds and others who—what people learn, and Ellsberg knew this walking into it, he was trying to find somebody in Congress. George McGovern wouldn’t do it, Fulbright wouldn’t do it. He needed the umbrage, the legal status of a member of Congress doing it.

He didn’t know I was alive until the Times wouldn’t act or the Post wouldn’t act. Then, all of a sudden, there’s this freshman who’s out there filibustering the draft. And so he called me up, “Would you release?” “Of course, I’d release it.” And I don’t know—people say, “Oh, you’re so courageous.” I’m not courageous; this is just the way I’m made. And that’s the reason why I admire this young kid, this Chiroux, that you just had on. This is what makes a difference in society, when people step up at any level of life.

AMY GOODMAN: You ran for the Democratic nomination for president.

MIKE GRAVEL: Yes, right.

AMY GOODMAN: But then, you just lost the—

MIKE GRAVEL: Libertarian.

AMY GOODMAN: —Libertarian nomination for president to Bob Barr.

MIKE GRAVEL: Right, yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: Why did you run there?

MIKE GRAVEL: As a Libertarian? Well, very simple. The Libertarian is not a war party. The Democratic Party is a war party. The Republican Party is a war party. My god, you’ve got to look around. The Green Party is not a war party. The Libertarians are not a war party. And I fancy myself very much—when people would say, “Well, Gravel is a misfit. He was a maverick,” what does that mean? It means that I didn’t fit into the Democratic Party. Now, there’s a lot of things that I like about what they do, but there’s a lot more things that I like about what the Libertarians—I believe in freedom.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are you endorsing for president?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, I’m keeping my mouth shut. I’m going to vote, obviously, for the lesser of evils, but I’m not going to do it—

AMY GOODMAN: We’ll have Ralph Nader on next week, Independent candidate for president. What do you think of his run?

MIKE GRAVEL: Well, I like Ralph—

AMY GOODMAN: This week. We’ll have him on this week.

MIKE GRAVEL: Yeah, and I like Ralph. Ralph and I are good friends, as you can tell. He wrote the—

AMY GOODMAN: Forward to your book.

MIKE GRAVEL: He wrote the foreword to my book, but he never talked to me about running for president. He was my competitor until I got out of the race. Now I’ve got out of his way. But no, Ralph is a great, great American. There’s no question about it. His chances of becoming a president—but it’s a good place to put a protest vote if you want to put it. And so, we’ll see what happens. But we need people to articulate the alternative. I’ve not given up. I’m going to give an account of myself the rest of my life on all these issues.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you think of another Democratic candidate, Dennis Kucinich, you were on the debate floor with, introducing these articles of impeachment against President Bush?

MIKE GRAVEL: I think—and, of course, Ramsey Clark is leading that battle outside of the Congress. I think it’s important, because it sets the stage. It creates an appetite for people. But it’s not going anywhere.

And I really resent the identity politics that we have today. You know, you’ve got to have a woman be our president or a black person president. That’s fine. But I—very candidly, I was very excited when Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker, but I—reflecting on it, I don’t know of any woman in Congress, by and large, who is that much different from any male member of Congress. Oh, there are some that are courageous, but a lot of them are just normal. And Nancy Pelosi is no different than any male Speaker that I’ve seen in my career.

And so, she’s the one that took the impeachment deal off the table. That’s a tragic mistake. And I know why they did it: they’re playing politics. Now, from my point of view, impeachment is not what George Bush deserves. He deserves to be prosecuted. He and Cheney need to go to the Hague and stand in the dock like they had Milosevic and others. What they did was criminal. 4,000 Americans have died as a result of their fraud on the American people and—

AMY GOODMAN: Do you support Vincent Bugliosi, the Charles Manson prosecutor, who got him behind bars, his call for—we had him on on Friday. He’s written the book The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.

MIKE GRAVEL: Oh, there’s no question about it. In fact, I have great regrets over the fact that we never put Richard Nixon in jail. I mean, everybody around him went to jail, and he got off and rehabilitated himself. The sooner we put a president or a vice president or a secretary in jail for crimes that they commit against humanity, the sooner leaders will shape up.

AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there. Senator Mike Gravel, I want to thank you very much for being with us, former Democratic senator from Alaska who served two terms and ran for president of the United States this past year.

Former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel has been working for a national initiative process for the United States for many years. See www.nationalinitiative.us for more about this project. Gravel’s recent campaign for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination helped publicize his goal, at least among Libertarians and others who followed the party’s presidential contest this year.

Gravel’s Democracy Foundation is newly energized by the recent important Irish vote on whether Ireland should approve the Lisbon Treaty. The Lisbon Treaty would bring the European Union somewhat closer to being a national entity. It establishes the first constitution for the European Union. It makes the Charter of Fundamental Rights binding on the member states (with exceptions for Britain and Poland), and establishs the post of President of the European Council, with a term of 2.5 years. The President would be chosen by the Council.

The Treaty was set to go into effect on January 1, 2009, if all 27 member nations approved it. Of the 27 nations in the European Union, only Ireland put the treaty to a popular vote. That vote, held on June 12, resulted in a “yes” vote of 752,451, and a “no” vote of 852,415. The turnout was 53%. Some of the Irish opposition came from a feeling that the proposed Constitution is not democratic enough. The consequences of the Irish referendum are momentous. Although European Union leaders are now thinking of going ahead without Ireland, the Treaty has only been ratified so far by 18 nations, and its progress has certainly been cramped by the vote. Some Europeans are arguing that the Treaty should be put to a popular vote in all EU nations, and furthermore that the voters should be able to accept or reject separate sections.

When the United States considered a Constitution in the 1780’s, each state elected delegates to a ratifying convention in that particular state. Thus the preamble to the Constitution, which starts “We the People”, is a meaningful statement, not empty rhetoric.

For more about the Lisbon Treaty, see http://eureferendum.blogspot.com.

Like a fresh wind coming down from Alaska–the state he represented as a U.S. Senator from 1969–1981, Mike Gravel is determined to start a debate about the fundamentals of democracy in his quest for the Democratic Party’s nomination for President.

People who heard his address before the Democratic National Committee a few weeks ago and his brief statements during the first debate between the Democratic aspirants last month may be getting the idea that this is no ordinary dark horse politician.

For over a decade, given the failures of elected politicians, Mike Gravel has been engaged in some extraordinary research and consultations with leading constitutional law experts about the need to enact another check to the faltering checks and balances–namely, the National Initiative for Democracy, a proposed law that empowers the people as lawmakers.

Before you roll your eyes over what you feel is an unworkable utopian scheme, go to http://nationalinitiative.us to read the detailed constitutional justification for the sovereign right of the people to directly alter their government and make laws.

Among other legal scholars, Yale Law School Professor, Akhil Reed Amar and legal author, Alan Hirsch, have argued that the Constitution recognizes the inalienable right of the American people to amend the Constitution directly through majority vote. What the Constitution does not do is spell out the procedures for such a sovereign right.

The right of the People to alter their government flows from the Declaration of Independence, the declared views of the founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution, its Preamble ("We the People of the United States.do ordain and establish this Constitution,"), Article VII and other provisions, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Very briefly, The Democracy Amendment asserts the Power of People to make laws, creates an Electoral Trust to administer the national elections, limits the use of money in National Initiative elections to natural persons (e.g. not corporations), and enacts the National Initiative through a federal ballot, when fifty percent of the voters (equal to half of the votes cast in the most recent presidential election) deliver their votes in its favor. Voting can be through traditional and electronic modes.

The Democracy Statute establishes deliberative legislative procedures vital for lawmaking by the people, administered by the Electoral Trust, in an independent arm of the U.S. government.

Mike Gravel points out that the initiative authority to make laws now exists in 24 states and more than 200 local communities. However, the national initiative, which he envisions would have deliberate legislative procedures and would be generically independent of any curtailment by the "officialdom of government," except a judicial finding of fraud.

With the National Initiative, the people acting as lawmakers, will be able to address healthcare, education, energy, taxes, the environment, transportation, the electoral college, the Iraq war, and other neglected, delayed or distorted priorities. Legal scholar, Alan Hirsch, believes "a more direct democracy could be an important means of promoting civic maturation."

Of course these initiatives, if enacted, would still be subject to existing constitutional safeguards such as the First Amendment, equal protection, due process and the like.

No doubt, you may have many questions to be answered. If you are interested, the entire text of The Democracy Amendment and The Democracy Act are on both the above-mentioned websites.

Mr. Gravel’s political positions place him high on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Cong. Dennis Kucinich will find that he is not alone during the forthcoming debates scheduled by the Democratic Party.

Don’t expect Mike Gravel to show up in the money-raising sweepstakes. For he really believes in a government of, by and for the People.

This proposal is not exactly a magnet for Fat cat money. No candidate for President from the two major parties has ever demonstrated such a detailed position regarding the sovereign power of People to amend the Constitution and make laws.

Will soundbite debates and horserace media interviews allow for such a public deliberation over the next year? Only if the People take their sovereignty seriously and take charge of the campaign trail with their pre-election, pre-primary participation in city, town and country throughout the country.

Over 2000 years ago, the ancient Roman lawyer and orator, Marcus Cicero, defined freedom with these enduring words: "Freedom is participation in power." That could be the mantra for Mike Gravel’s 2008 Presidential campaign.

Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions

Over the last 11 months, CNN/Opinion Research Polls have found that more than 60 percent of adults nationwide oppose the war in Iraq. Yet, the war continues. This is an overt instance of the government ignoring majority opinion. Since 2001, more than 55 percent of adults nationwide have favored the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Yet, the Kyoto Protocol remains un-ratified at the federal level.

Sadly, it is not difficult to find many instances of the federal government ignoring majority opinion.

I believe the logjam in our obstinate federal bureaucracy can be broken by enacting the National Initiative for Democracy. Just as Oregon and 23 other states have an initiative system whereby the people can enact legislation by direct vote, the National Initiative proposal would provide deliberative procedures for direct lawmaking at the federal level. Under the National Initiative, if the majority decides to leave Iraq then we leave Iraq. If the majority decides to ratify the Kyoto Protocol then it shall be ratified. Direct democracy at the federal level is not a new idea. Switzerland has had it since 1874.

If the National Initiative is such a great idea then how come it hasn’t been enacted? Congress will never enact it because it dilutes congressional power. Seemingly, the only way is to enact it by direct vote. In the same way that the U. S. Constitution was established by "We the People," we the people may amend the Constitution by majority vote. One may object that the American people lack the competence for and interest in self-governance. However, I believe that our distaste for politics is due to the recognition that, at present, we are virtually powerless at the federal level. Our exercise of power is limited to electing a representative, and then we may suffer for the next two, four or six years until we can vote him or her out of office.

The National Initiative does not replace Congress. The National Initiative is complementary; it would become another check and balance on our federal government. Just like Congressional lawmaking, laws passed by the National Initiative would be subject to Supreme Court oversight.

The National Initiative was drafted by former Alaskan Sen. Mike Gravel, based on work by the People’s Lobby, and refined in the Democracy Symposium in 2002. In order to draw attention to the National Initiative proposal, Mike Gravel ran as a Democratic presidential nominee and more recently as a Libertarian nominee. He was eliminated in round four at the Libertarian convention in Denver over Memorial Day weekend.

However, the National Initiative can be enacted regardless of who our elected representatives are. If we had the National Initiative then we would not have to wait for the next election cycle to hope for change in our federal policy. Instead of candidates running on the promise of "change," they could run on the promise of oversight. The People must become the senior sovereign of our government. Until that is the case, we are continually vulnerable to exploitation by the elite minority. Vote for yourself.

Press Release, May 4, 2008
By Jim Kottmeyer

May 4, 2008
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jim Kottmeyer 314.898.2051

CLEAN ENERGY INITIATIVE SUBMITS SIGNATURES FOR 2008 BALLOT
Successful volunteer effort shows Missourians are ready for clean energy

JEFFERSON CITY, MO – Missourians for Cleaner Cheaper Energy today turned in approximately 170,000 signatures for the Clean Energy Initiative to the Secretary of State’s office.

More than 400 Missouri volunteers statewide circulated petition pages for the initiative, which would require investor-owned utilities to generate or purchase 15% of their electricity from clean energy sources, such as wind and solar power. Approximately 170,000 signatures were turned in from six US Congressional districts.

"We are pleased that so many Missourians have gathered signatures to put this clean energy measure on the ballot. Using clean, renewable energy works for everyone in Missouri, and voters will now get the chance to vote on the future of energy in Missouri," said P.J. Wilson, a spokesperson for the campaign.

Twenty-five other states have already enacted similar renewable energy standards to increase production of clean energy and promote energy independence.
Renewable energy sources are often local, such as a wind turbine on a local farm. Using smarter power sources is good for the environment and is great for the economy. Because renewable energy is local, consumer prices won’t be affected by foreign markets and risks. With the Clean Energy Initiative, Missourians will see the difference in the air, in the river, and in the local economy — but they will not see an increase in their utility bills.

Missourians for Cleaner Cheaper Energy enjoys broad-based support statewide from community, labor, business, environmental and religious organizations.

“FORTUNATE events have put me at the head of the French government, but I would consider myself incapable of governing the Swiss,” Napoleon Bonaparte told a Swiss delegation in 1802. “The more I think about your country, the more convinced I become that the disparity between its constituent parts makes it impossible to impose a common pattern on it: everything points to federalism.”

Napoleon came and went, but the Swiss disparities remained. They culminated in a religious quarrel that led to a civil war in 1847. Fortunately this turned out to be short and not very bloody. The new constitution drafted in 1848 (loosely modelled on the American one), which became the foundation of modern Switzerland, enshrined the principles of a federal system and direct democracy, and was itself ratified by referendum. …

“WHY SWITZERLAND?”, asked an excellent book by Jonathan Steinberg, an academic at Britain’s Cambridge University, first published several decades ago and since updated. It is still a good question, and not as straightforward as it appears at first sight. It can be read, among other things, as asking how Switzerland has become the way it is; whether its ancient and peculiar political and economic arrangements still make sense today; and, if they do, whether other countries might have anything to learn from them.

The answer to the first question is shrouded in history. As for the second, this survey has argued that in an interconnected world, even a small country determined to go its own way cannot escape geopolitical changes and global economic trends. This has meant that in recent years Switzerland has in many ways become less of a special case. …

IN THE early, heady days of the internet, many of its most zealous proponents expected cyberspace to transform the political landscape. Autocratic governments, they thought, would be scuppered by their inability to control the free flow of information. That could yet happen (see article). But cyber-optimists’ hopes were even higher for established democracies, where they saw the internet restoring the electorate’s civic engagement. Citizens would no longer have to rely on information spoon-fed by politicians, but be able to find out for themselves. Eventually, people would vote directly from the comfort of their own homes. The political apathy which has spread through western countries in recent decades would be reversed. Democracy would be rejuvenated, at last achieving its original meaning of “power of the people”.

Judging by the most obvious political effects of the internet, so far this has not happened. Established democratic governments have published enormous amounts of information on the internet and moved towards the electronic delivery of some services, but this does not seem to have made much of a difference to the conduct of politics.…