Security on the Internet is strong enough that billions of dollars of financial transactions happen there daily. If we can securely log in to our bank online, why not create a system where we can log in and vote often on local, state, and national legislation?

Both of these methods would be at least as secure as voting with, say, a Diebold machine with black-box computer code that could very easily be (and perhaps already has been) manipulated to create a different outcome than the one the citizens actually voted for.

The real reason, of course, is because the people who Chomsky calls the “owners of our society”, i.e. the business and corporate interests, don’t actually want the “ignorant herd” to have a say in politics. Properly brainwashed into thinking that a real choice is being every four years, fine. But decision-making on a day to day basis? No, impossible! Are you crazy? Imagine what might happen! All of those things that poll after poll show a majority of Americans are in favor of might actually be enacted into law! Real universal health care, not some watered-down version that was rubber stamped by the insurance companies and healthcare industry. An increase in spending for social programs like education. A decrease in military spending. A more equitable tax system. Legalization of marijuana and the massive decrease in the jail and prison population that would follow. Imagine!

The stakes are high for everyone. The ruling elite must keep real political power out of the hands of the people at all costs. For the last several decades, they have succeeded quite well, primarily by destroying the unions and nipping in the bud any other nascent movement that is actually attempting to organize the electorate. Think of this context as you listen to what the leaders of both political parties are saying about the current Occupy Wall Street protests. Deep down, they are terrified of the people having real political power, because they know their hold on power would end if real change were to come about.

Even most educated people today have so fully bought the propaganda manufactured by the elite that they don’t trust the “masses” (which is to say, themselves), preferring instead to be ruled by the corporate interests who hold the puppet strings of both political parties. This is the question that I put to people these days when arguing in favor of direct democracy: would you rather have important political decisions made by one of these so-called ignorant citizens with a high school education, or by a politician who is bought and paid for by the business elite? For my part, I would trust my seven-year-old more with these decisions than I trusted the people who were holding George W. Bush’s puppet strings. The real important questions are not very difficult to figure out. Anyone with a moral sense can make the right call, whether they’ve got an 8^th-grade education or a doctorate.

Critics of direct democracy often point to California’s referendum process as evidence that DD doesn’t work.  This is not what we have in mind when we advocate for direct democracy.  As former Senator Mike Gravel, a longtime direct democracy supporter says: “Legislating by referendum is not direct democracy, but rather a device used by a representative government to submit a measure to the electorate for an up-or-down vote. As a result, politicians control the process, which they continually limit or corrupt.” 1 The idea is to take politicians out of the process as much as possible, to limit corruption and strengthen democracy.  California’s system is just the sterile offspring of direct democracy and corrupt politics, and thus shouldn’t be held up as a pure example of either.

Of course these are not new questions. The elite vs. masses argument was taken up by the writers of our Constitution, for one. Imagine if our democracy had been inclusive and direct from the beginning, with African-Americans and women having the vote from the beginning, and some sort of direct democracy instituted? Can we doubt that the world we live in today would be more equitable? One need only look at the only real-world example of a nation that has functioning direct democracy from the local to the national level to get an idea of what kind of world we might be living in: Switzerland, with one of the best standards of living in the world and which hasn’t been involved in a war for hundreds of years. Imagine.

If you know any documentary producers or have any other fundraising ideas, don’t hesitate to drop me a line. karneyhatch@gmail.com or 818-585-5838

Tao of the Palouse

The banking industry is sending out mixed signals at the moment.  Just last month, several large banks including Bank of America and Chase were trying to convince people to stay with overdraft “protection” ahead of the rule change that goes into affect this summer that will make it so consumers have to opt in rather than having to ask to opt out of these evil programs.

And yes, I do mean evil.  I think Bank of America’s move, yesterday, March 9, 2010, proves that they’re admitting that this program was evil as well: in the biggest single move since I started “Overdrawn!” almost four years ago, B of A said that it is ending overdraft fees on debit cards!

Now there are a gang of consumer advocates nationwide who are holding their breath to see what’s next on two big questions: First, how will the banks replace this income?  I’m hoping that they go back to the old method of charging everyone $5 or so to have a checking account - this is the most democratic way of assuring that everyone from low income consumers to wealthier folks all pay the same amount.

Second, will the other big banks follow suit?  I don’t see how other big players like Chase and Wells Fargo can ignore this, so it seems likely that checking accounts are in for some major re-working in the next few months.  Again, I just hope that paying for them ends up being more equitably distributed between all consumers, rather than having the bulk of them being paid for by lower-income account holders.

Naturally I thought, why not do this in California?  So I called the State Treasurer’s office in Sacramento and talked for over an hour with Mark Hariri, Director of Cash Management, to get a handle on the situation.  As it turns out, about 80% of the State of California’s money is also handled by Bank of America.

Which is odd, because the two largest pension funds in the state, CalPERS and CalSTRS, representing public employees and teachers, respectively, filed to be the lead plaintiffs in  shareholder lawsuits against B of A in March of 2009.

They’d better get in line.  According to this article in Slate’s The Big Money site, there are currently over 5,000 federal cases that name B of A as a party.

The Securities and Exchange Commission seems to think that California’s pension funds have a case.  Just a few weeks ago the SEC filed its own case against B of A, “charging it with failing to disclose extraordinary losses at Merrill Lynch & Co before shareholders voted on a merger of the companies”, - Reuters.

Also last November, the capital’s own Sacramento Municipal Utility District sued B of A, along with Chase and UBS and forty four other firms, in a price fixing and kickback scheme.

I could go on.

The point is, why is the State of California banking with these guys while their two largest pension funds, a public utility, and numerous citizens of the state are suing them?  Why not take that business away from B of A and put it where it belongs, in banks and credit unions that are based in California?

According to Mr. Hariri, the doors are open to any bank that wants to join the State’s Centralized Treasury System, the members of which (except Chase, which joined last fall) are listed on the Treasurer’s website.  Many banks look into it, Hariri says, but then change their minds when they see they can’t compete with the bigger banks’ low rates and fees.  You read that right.  These low rates and fees are worthwhile when you consider California’s huge float and it’s multi-trillion dollar economy.

Of course the smaller banks can’t match these fees because of the massive economies of scale that Bank of America can bring to bear.  So just as Wal-Mart drives local businesses out of business wherever they open up shop, B of A is keeping these smaller banks from getting their share of the pie by throwing their weight around.

To all this I say, wouldn’t it be worth it to pay a few extra cents per check if that money is going to a local bank or credit union, rather than to B of A?

I’m hoping to find a legislator in Sacramento who agrees with me.

A woman on Facebook , Carol Merrill, said it best: when you switch to a little bank, it’s like going to Cheers.  Everybody knows your name.

Click here to check out the Move Your Money website, and don’t forget to watch the excellent video on their front page.

“We appreciate that the Fed chose to implement the strongest overdraft reform rule it was considering, namely requiring banks and credit unions to ask new and existing customers before charging overdraft fees on debit card transactions. But this improvement is undermined by the Fed’s failure to propose or enact necessary safeguards against a host of unfair practices.”

11/6/09 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Karney Hatch, karneyhatch@gmail. com

“Overdrawn!” Screening on Capitol Hill

Ralph Nader to head panel of experts at Q & A

WASHINGTON, D.C. - - “Overdrawn!”, a documentary on predatory lending focused on overdraft fees, will screen in the Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2220, at 5:30 PM on November 19. The film will be introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), whose Overdraft Protection Act in the House was recently given new momentum by the introduction of similar legislation in the Senate sponsored by Senators Dodd, Schumer, Brown and Reed. A question and answer period with a panel of experts will follow the film, featuring Ralph Nader, Ed Mzierwinski of USPIRG, and Lauren Saunders of the National Consumer Law Center.

“Overdrawn!” follows director Karney Hatch as he tries to get to the bottom of the overdraft fee racket. The film features interviews with Ralph Nader, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Eric Halperin from the Center for Responsible Lending, a loan shark, and a former VP from Bank of America. The documentary also examines the larger questions of corporate domination of government and society with author and filmmaker Joel Bakan (“The Corporation”). In addition, the film explores the consumer revolt raging against the banks in Britain, including an interview with Mike Dailly, 2007 Scottish Solicitor of the Year, who is one of the primary leaders of the fight against the banks. The film’s happy ending is Hatch having his overdraft fees refunded by Wells Fargo after taking the bank to small claims court.

Word has been spreading about “Overdrawn!” since its first screening in Portland in 2007. In March of 2008 a condensed version of the film ran on Current TV, the cable channel co-owned by Al Gore, under the title “How to Beat the Bank”. In May of that year, Carolyn Bigda wrote a column for the Chicago Tribune, and in June of 2008 NPR’s All Things Considered discussed the film during a piece on bank fees. Film Threat said in their review that “the documentary sets itself apart from most of its peers by actually offering solutions rather than just exposing problems.”

An hour long “educational cut” of the film is being distributed to universities and libraries by Filmaker’s Library in New York under the title “Rip Off: Banks Exploiting Consumers”; distribution is still being sought for “Overdrawn!” itself, though DVDs are for sale on Amazon.com.

The trailer for the film is available on the website: www.overdrawnmovie.net

Happy Birthday to me!

I’m definitely going to score one of her T-shirts as well.

Americans For Fairness in Lending is a group working for financial justice across the lending landscape, from Tax Refund Anticipation Loans to mortgages (and of course overdraft fees).  I encourage everyone to sign up and maybe send a  few pesos their way.  Once you’ve registered with them, go ahead and write to your congressperson to encourage them to implement the Credit Card Act a few months earlier.  They say it best here.