Many interacting factors caused the Giffords assassination attempt. No single factor suffices to explain it. However, the acts and omissions of the U.S. Congress and the nation’s two major political parties are among the most significant of these interacting causes. They include the following:
1. Congressional refusal to pass campaign finance reform legislation to prevent elections from being dominated by special interests, like the National Rifle Association, and U.S. politics from being dominated by vitriolic diatribes between politicians and pundits aimed at raising special interest campaign funds and inflaming and dividing the electorate in order to win elections;
2. Congress’s legislative agenda which puts the interests of special interest campaign funders, like the National Rifle Association, ahead of the safety and welfare of their constituents, such as by allowing ordinary citizens to carry assault weapons;
3. The rigging of elections by the Democratic and Republican parties via the gerrymandering of Congressional election districts to create artificial party majorities that deny voters a real choice of candidates and lead to the re-election of major party incumbents backed by special interest campaign financiers;
4. Democratic and Republican-inspired state election laws that prevent third parties and their candidates from contesting the monopoly of elections they have attained through gerrymandering election districts and campaign finance laws;
5. Congressional refusal to raise adequate tax revenues to fund essential services, Congressional expenditures on costly and counter-productive foreign wars, and Congressional deregulation and bailout of insolvent banks and financial institutions. These irresponsible actions have caused huge federal, state and local budget deficits, and resulted in cutbacks in essential services for mental health services and substance abuse assistance to troubled individuals like the gunman who shot Giffords and 20 other people using an assault weapon. . . .
The Giffords assassination attempt is significant primarily because Congressional dereliction of duty to protect the public, and the rigging of elections by the two major parties whose representatives dominate Congress, has resulted in an assassination attempt on the life of a member of Congress. Previously, the members of Congress themselves have been to avoid the dire consequences of Congressional failure to protect the American people from life-threatening risks.
Even though poll after poll has demonstrated that the American people hold both major parties and the large majority of their Congressional representatives in utter contempt, these politicians have been able to escape from the consequences of the turmoil in which they have placed the country. Unfortunately, the much respected and beloved Representative Giffords became a target for the hatred that has been engendered in the country towards a government that has done far too much for special interests and far too little for mainstream Americans.
Even in the face of this despicable attack, there was virtually no hue and cry within Congress to accept Congressional responsibility for failing to pass laws that remove corrupting and inflammatory influences from U.S. electoral processes, re-empower voters to exercise their sovereignty in U.S. electoral processes, and provide assistance to despondent and troubled individuals before they engage in violent rampages using weapons that can kill dozens of people within seconds.
I have little confidence that Congress or the two major parties are capable or motivated to reform themselves or modify their lock-hold over the electorate and U.S. electoral and legislative processes. As I have written before, the only way I know of to prevent Congress from completely destroying the country is to empower voters at the grassroots to take over electoral and legislative processes using the collective action power of the Internet and web technologies like the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS).
When this system is fully developed and deployed on the Re-Inventing Democracy website, it will enable U.S. voters to protect themselves from the political and financial predators who now stalk the land. It will empower them to get control of political parties and all electoral processes related to legislative agenda setting and candidate nomination, so they can decide who will run for office, who gets elected, and what policies will be enacted into law.
A quick overview of IVCS is available on Facebook.
I have written about IVCS in the following:
2012: The Game Changing Implications of the Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS), Re-Inventing Democracy, November 19, 2010.
How Voters Can Unrig the 2012 Elections with Transpartisan Voting Blocs and Electoral Coalitions, Re-Inventing Democracy, November 11, 2010.
The “Missing Mandate” in the 2010 Election Results: Let This Be the Last Time, Re-Inventing Democracy, November 4, 2010.
Third Party Rising?, Re-Inventing Democracy, October 15, 2010.
2012: How U.S. Voters Can Wrest Control of Congress from Special Interests, Re-Inventing Democracy, September 12, 2010.




13 Comments

Very Interesting. I agree, Congress has shirked it’s duties in every catagory. They no longer represent the people, but the corporations.
Thanks, Nancy. Great review of the political factors underlying the Tucson violence.
Tonight, John Boehner rejected Peter King’s bill which would make it illegal for anyone to carry a gun within a thousand feet of a member of Congress. You’d think that bill would get bi-partisan support, especially since it would not prohibit carrying arms within a thousand feet of candidates who challenge such incumbents in elections.
Boehner is acting true to form. He and a majority of his colleagues can be expected to dance to the tune of the NRA at the expense of the safety of the American people.
What I hope is that Representative Giffords makes a full recovery and takes on the special interests and Congressional representatives who allowed the shooter to get his hands on the assault weapon and 30 shot magazine of ammunition he loaded into it before he went on his rampage.
If Congress starts to see its oxen getting gored by blow back from ill-fated Congressional policies, momentum may start building up inside Congress to push back against special interests that jeopardize the lives of members of Congress, along with those of mainstream Americans.
But in the larger scheme of things, as you know, I remain convinced that only the electorate can reform governmental institutions like Congress, using technologies like the Interactive Voter Choice System, because Congress and the two-party system have little incentive to reform themselves.
Rec’d, Nancy. Could we add Congress’s abysmally feeble attempts to pass any meaningful laws limiting the Citizens United ruling?
We target organizations like the NRA because we oppose what they stand for. They are, however, organizations of individuals that have a common objective, much as unions and the Sierra Club represent the values of individuals. It is one thing to be opposed to corporate political interests. It is quite another to oppose groups that are largely indivuals. That opposition could turn about and bite us in a vulnerable spot.
Special interest organizations of individuals like the NRA that use their campaign contributions to buy the votes of Congressional representatives can be just as harmful to the public as corporate special interests that also buy votes through campaign contributions.
When special interest organizations, whether the NRA or corporations, skew elections by giving their candidates unfair financial advantages over candidates without such advantages, they erode popular sovereignty and replace the voice of the people with the voice of special interests in determining what laws get enacted.
In the case of the NRA, the overwhelming financial advantages it bestows on candidates and elected representatives whose campaigns it funds, who agree to champion NRA legislative goals even when they harm their constituents, has basically engaged in legalized bribery that has subverted popular sovereignty, and bought legislation that renders defenseless Americans vulnerable to instant death through assault weapons.
There is no way that this can be justified. Nor is there any way that we can claim we have a democratic government when our elected representatives do the bidding of organizations and corporations that get them elected by contributing inordinate amounts of money to their campaigns that prevent candidates without similar funds from competing on a level playing field.
Regrettably, we must recognize that Congressional representatives who are legally bribed by corporate special interests to pass laws that favor corporate interests over the welfare of their constituents are NOT going to pass any meaningful laws limiting the Citizens United ruling or any legislation or court decisions that decrease their ability to raise unlimited campaign funds.
The only good news is that the Interactive Voter Choice System
when fully developed Interactive Voter Choice System will enable the U.S. electorate to seize control of elections from special interests and political parties aligned with special interests and run and their own candidates to enact their own legislative agendas into law. No laws need to be changed or passed in order for IVCS to empower voters across the political spectrum to get control of government by building winning voting blocs and electoral coalitions.
Hurray for a great post.
My understanding is one of the key components of the re-inventing democracy campaign is an amendment to the Constitution to end corporate personhood. People need to go to http://www.movetoamed.org and sign the petition. They are very close to 100,000 signatures.
And meanwhile people need to get active in local and state campaigns to enact IRV, STV and other forms of proportional representation. After living in New Zealand for 8 years, I can can give lots of examples how getting more people to vote drastically reduces (but doesn’t eliminate) corporate interference. And guess what? When people are given the option of voting for candidates that reflect their interest, they vote!
The US, the UK and Canada are the only 3 industrialized countries that don’t have proportional representation. In fact I published an article about this yesterday at http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Case-for-Proportional-by-Dr-Stuart-Jeanne-B-110113-429.html
Thanks for the compliment!
Actually, if you read the home page of the Re-Inventing Democracy website, you will see that it enables voters to get control of elections by creating voting blocs and electoral coalitions that make corporate campaign contributions irrelevant.
These contributions become irrelevant when it is the voters who put candidates on the ballot and set the legislative agendas they enact once they are elected to office. It will no longer be necessary to raise $4 billion dollars and more every election cycle when voters already know what the candidates agendas are because THEY have put the candidates on the ballot to enact THEIR policy priorities into law.
Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) sounds alluring, but Internet systems for public voting can be hacked. A review of the high-tech exploits of computer and Internet hackers in attacks on complex, secure government, military and corporate systems will reveal the on-going “arms race” between hackers and computer operations security experts.
There reportedly is no safer method, both for accurate counts and accurate recounts, than properly designed paper ballots with the vote count witnessed by a representative from each of the political parties. In Canada, it is reported that as many as five political parties each has its own representative to watch the vote count. This may seem less efficient and more costly that Internet voting, but that is the price for greater transparency and accountability.
Complete reliance on this safer method reportedly could have prevented the loss by Al Gore in the State of Florida in the 2000 U.S. presidential election contest against George W. Bush.
U.S. Presidential Election 2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000
Gore Won Florida
http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181
Corporate personhood is a “legal fiction” that was created to serve a legitimate need, to make corporations subject to the rule of the law of the land in the simplest manner. Alternatively, a separate code could have been written for corporations and other entities that were not individual human beings. Unfortunately, the concept was applied uniformly, homogeneously, and monolithically. As with most things in public policy, there were unintended consequences.
If corporate personhood is completely abolished, then what entity or code will replace it? Who or what will be sued in a court of law? What or what entity will pay income taxes and other taxes. What or what will own private property? Who or what will own patents from corporate research and development?
Possibly another type of person could be created instead of another code of laws. For example “human biological persons” could be distinguished from “fiat social persons”, and these two types of person could be treated differently in the law code, according to the needs of public policy.
The Interactive Voter Choice System (IVCS) is not an Internet system for public voting.
It enables voters to take action BEFORE elections to create voting blocs and electoral coalitions around shared policy priorities that can run winning candidates in primary and general elections.
IVCS, however, does not involve voting in actual elections.
IVCS as a web technolgy per se is unrelated to efforts to alter the legal status of corporations. However, it does create a framework within which voters across the political spectrum can create voting blocs and electoral coalitions around shared policy agendas that might seek to alter the legal status of corporations.