How the corporate and banking elite buy our elections and government
Though the locales and agendas of the Occupy movement have widened, its origins in the financial district of New York City suggest a central theme: the undue influence of Wall Street corporations.
To influence Washington, corporations have to spend money. And Occupy protesters say, what better place to organize against corporate money's sway over Washington lawmakers than on K Street, home to many of Washington's lobbyists, and, as of October 7, the Occupy DC organization.
"On Wall Street, it's about banks, but those decisions on who to bail out go through here," Kelly, a 25-year-old Virginian, told OpenSecrets Blog. (He did not give his last name to avoid negative consequences from prospective employers.)
To influence Washington, corporations have to spend money. And Occupy protesters say, what better place to organize against corporate money's sway over Washington lawmakers than on K Street, home to many of Washington's lobbyists, and, as of October 7, the Occupy DC organization.
"On Wall Street, it's about banks, but those decisions on who to bail out go through here," Kelly, a 25-year-old Virginian, told OpenSecrets Blog. (He did not give his last name to avoid negative consequences from prospective employers.)
The presence of Occupy DC and Occupy K Street activists in McPherson Square, protesters insist, is meant to highlight the direct connection between Wall Street and the Capitol building.
"It's about lobbyists. They're the reason, a big reason, why these corporations can get away with so much and the rest of America suffers," Ben Thompson, an Occupier from Bethesda, Md., told OpenSecrets Blog. "The money from Wall Street flows to K Street."
That's a phrase echoed often in the Occupy ranks -- both in interviews with protesters and on signs.
That's a phrase echoed often in the Occupy ranks -- both in interviews with protesters and on signs.
Though the group has no official goals or demands, its efforts fall under the idea of "separating money from politics" according to its website.
A similar message was repeated by one of the protest's recent speakers, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, who, earlier this week, addressed a crowd inflated with press and dress clothes-wearing audience members.
Lessig emphasized corruption in our current government -- not of the bribery variety a la Rod Blagojevich, but rather in Congress' dependence on money, money that is mostly from corporations and a tiny proportion of the population.
"Forget 99 percent, we are the 99.5 percent," Lessig told the audience "Only .05 percent of America gave the max contribution of $2,500 to candidates last election."
Lessig's statistics are correct, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. Only .05 percent of the U.S. population gave the legal maximum to at least one candidate, which was $2,400 per election during the 2010 cycle.
In fact, only 0.26 percent of the U.S. population gave more than $200, the level at which public disclosure of contribution records is mandated by the Federal Elections Commission.
A similar message was repeated by one of the protest's recent speakers, Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, who, earlier this week, addressed a crowd inflated with press and dress clothes-wearing audience members.Lessig emphasized corruption in our current government -- not of the bribery variety a la Rod Blagojevich, but rather in Congress' dependence on money, money that is mostly from corporations and a tiny proportion of the population.
"Forget 99 percent, we are the 99.5 percent," Lessig told the audience "Only .05 percent of America gave the max contribution of $2,500 to candidates last election."
Lessig's statistics are correct, according to research by the Center for Responsive Politics. Only .05 percent of the U.S. population gave the legal maximum to at least one candidate, which was $2,400 per election during the 2010 cycle.
In fact, only 0.26 percent of the U.S. population gave more than $200, the level at which public disclosure of contribution records is mandated by the Federal Elections Commission.
Yet these 818,700 or so donors accounted for 67.7 percent of the total contributions to federal candidates that election cycle. Grassroots, small-dollar donors who gave $200 or less accounted for less than one-third of all the money federal candidate raised, according to the Center's research.
Lessig's speech was one of the latest mentions of campaign finance issues in the Occupy Movement.
Lessig's speech was one of the latest mentions of campaign finance issues in the Occupy Movement. As Lessig did, many Occupy movements have turned to OpenSecrets.org for money-in-politics research.
The Center's data has been cited from Occupy San Diego to Occupy Wall Street.
At a teach-in at Occupy DC in McPherson Square, the Sunlight Foundation, a transparency advocacy group that also funds the Center for Responsive Politics, examined the topic of how to "unleash the power of information on the forces of influence."
At a teach-in at Occupy DC in McPherson Square, the Sunlight Foundation, a transparency advocacy group that also funds the Center for Responsive Politics, examined the topic of how to "unleash the power of information on the forces of influence."
The Sunlight Foundation recommended using the Center's research on top lobbying firms and super PACs to track these too-often unseen sources of political influence in Washington.
The Center for Responsive Politics itself will also host a teach-in on Sunday, focusing mainly on campaign finance and how to best use OpenSecrets.org as a resource for campaign finance and money-in-politics research. That teach-in is scheduled for 3 p.m. source
The Center for Responsive Politics itself will also host a teach-in on Sunday, focusing mainly on campaign finance and how to best use OpenSecrets.org as a resource for campaign finance and money-in-politics research. That teach-in is scheduled for 3 p.m. source
