#NewDealOrNoDeal, Bernie…


Political battle cry or no cry Bernie Bros and Sandernistas. I hear the chants now:

“Pay-Go is a no go; New Deal or no deal; Pay-Go is a no go; New Deal or no deal”.


This article contains a solution to the Citizens United /McCutcheon Supreme Court rulings. I’ll break down the legalese for those who are less versed in our legal system. Any desire to uphold the tenets found in the Preamble of our Constitution depends on repairing campaign finance and the next New Deal could be right around the corner, facilitated by MMT, but first, we need representatives in our government who want to do so.


I’m going to save you some time and cut to the chase.  If you understand our legal system and civics, you may get most of what I’m trying to get across out of these next two paragraphs. But be sure to catch my proposed solution at the end of this article!!! These would be the important parts to share when discussing the idea. Truth be told, we likely only need this next sentence:


US Congress must create a law naming actual living people as a protected class for purposes of invoking the Commerce Clause (Article 1 Section 8 clause 3 of our Constitution)  and Equal Protection Clause (Amendment 14), since the Supreme Court demands corporate “persons” have the civil right of free speech and these corporate persons have an unjust and threatening advantage in interstate commerce.


If necessary register politicians and their Political Action Committees in Washington DC so all donations are transacted out of the originating state, thus subject to the provisions of the Commerce Clause.


The important part of these two citations to the Constitution is quoted below where I’ll be talking about certain rules, but we’ll get there soon enough.

I’m seeing a short window of opportunity for the progressive cause that we should exploit. A somewhat recent degree in the legal field and a little legal experience opened my eyes leading me to comprehend certain root issues we face. I’m seeing that progressives have a feasible path forward to capitalize on this situation, but this opportunity has a limited window in the first part of 2019. A similar opportunity won’t present itself again until 2023, if at all. A more benevolent future could be in our own hands if we choose to claim it and do so quickly.  I’ll propose a path to take advantage of this opportunity at the end of this document.




There is a standard methodology in a legal analysis called: IRAC which stands for: Issue; Rule; Analysis, and Conclusion. It’s an analytical formula that organizes, simplifies, and avoids mistakes. I’ll use this formula to 1) Identify a root issue created by a set of facts and circumstances; 2) Consider the ruling authorities, which are our laws. Both codified (written) laws and previous court decisions are required; 3) Analyze the situation by applying these rules to this root issue, and; 4) Make conclusions to allow us to identify justice about the issue.


I’m going to attempt a similar methodology in this same order to convey a point, after which I’ll propose a way we can leverage the conclusion to give the progressive cause some heft if such a strategy is embraced. This said methodology is as follows:




Are we the public simply screwed because repairing the Citizens United verdict requires a Constitutional Amendment, or can US Congress simply create a law to correct the injustice? Who does our government represent? Are our laws meant to favor the public first, or favor the private interests of a few while depriving the public of similar access to our law? <- These elaborate on one issue.


That last question is definitive of political progressives. It epitomizes the clash between progressives and oligarchy. This oligarchy has caused damages, severely threatens more, and is a dangerously imperceptible step away from autocracy. This frustrates the spirit of our Constitution as is expressed in its Preamble.




>Amendment 1.

“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”.


>Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3, and Clause 18.

“The Congress shall have Power to…

(Clause 3) regulate Commerce among the several States”,

(Clause 18) make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution…”


>Amendment 14.

“No state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”.


>Preamble of our Constitution
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

*NOTE- The Preamble is evidence of the spirit of our laws instead of a rule. None of this writing depends on the Preamble, but it makes a necessary point.


Case law:

>Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 294 U.S. 240 (1935)

>Wickard vs Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

>Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)


These are the authorities (rules) I’ll focus on for purposes of this document. I’ll do so in the same order as above, marking each paragraph containing one of these rules with an arrow “>”.  I’m learning MMT enough to see its well-reasoned logic chain, but not yet fluent enough to describe it, in brief, the way I’ll explain a plausible cure for the Citizens United verdict using the above rules. However, I do know that progressive laws, for instance, much of the New Deal including the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 (which seems like it might contain necessary precedence for MMT) as well as the Civil Rights Act, are also premised around these same rules.




>In Citizens United the court ruled that money can be used to amplify free speech. For most of our history courts have necessarily viewed corporations as persons for procedural purposes. This is so corporations can sue or be sued; they treat a land parcel as a person in the same way. However, in Citizens United, the court took it a step further by proclaiming this corporate personhood gives these entities civil rights in the form of free speech, found in Amendment 1. Although I believe the court got it wrong, the decision does open oligarchy to the following vulnerabilities:


It isn’t being discussed that if these corporate entities are persons with civil rights, then they are an advantaged class of people in our elections and the public accommodation of fair elections isn’t enjoyed by our general public due to these corporate person’s expendable wealth being miles above the rest of us. If money is free speech, these corporate persons have a lot more of this speech than living breathing persons. The corrupting effects of this excessive money in politics have become a threat to public interest and safety.


The inverse of corporations being an advantaged class is that living breathing people are a disadvantaged class which needs protection. The consequences to the public that private interests have enjoyed including rewriting our laws in their own favor via legislative “exchange councils” demonstrates that as time goes by, more advantages are enjoyed by a continually concentrating number of private interests. This is a cascade creating an oligarchy.


This injustice is deliberate. The actions of private interests have deprived us of critical public accommodations that the corporate class enjoys; fair elections and representation in our government. Biological people need our Constitutionally guaranteed access to the due process of fair elections and equal protection of the law. Here is a well-written article describing such an unjust scheme, one concocted by James M. Buchanan.


Congress is tasked with creating a law to protect every person in our country as equally as it can. One of the tools it was given to accomplish this is the regulation of interstate commerce. This power is found in the Constitution’s very first Article. This is one of seven Articles found before the Amendments, the first half of our Constitution. These Articles are the authorities creating the structure of our government. The following link defines interstate commerce, describing how law regulates money exchanged between the states as well as into Washington DC and even Puerto Rico and other territories. This is relevant to these next points.


>The Gold Reserve Act, as well as the Civil Rights Act both, get their authority from our Constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 8.  Clause 3 in this Section is called the Commerce Clause. It provides the authority for Congress to regulate our commerce among the states, and Clause 18 demands that they do so. When the U.S. was on the gold standard, FDR’s Gold Reserve Act was Congress demanding the Federal Reserve and private gold hoarders to cash in their gold to our national treasury. Congress then regulated the value of our dollar in comparison to an ounce of gold. Congress can, and does, use Article 1 Section 8 to regulate the flow and value of cash.


>Civil Rights Act uses Congress’s duty found in Article 1 Section 8 to regulate interstate commerce in conjunction with Amendment 14’s equal protection of the law guaranteeing everyone access to the law as a means to protect a disadvantaged class, so persons of color would have equitable and impartial access to public accommodations regardless of state lines where people on one side might otherwise use state laws to disadvantage a class of people on the other side, among Civil Rights Act’s other protective goals.  


To recognize the required consistency in our laws, we can compare the Civil Rights Act to our current situation. The imperiled class of black people in certain areas was prevented from enjoying our laws’ equal protection by the predominate white class regarding the use of public accommodations. An analogy can be made to today’s biological class of persons also being imperiled by the corporate class of persons, created by the Citizens United decision, preventing the public accommodations of fair and impartial elections and representation.


>If Congress properly creates a law regulating campaign finance via interstate commerce, it would not impugn a corporation’s right to free speech making this a complete repair that could withstand court challenges. They can talk all they want, but first, our public accommodation of fair elections and campaign finance laws would protect the public interest via Amendment 14 (basically the higher the Amendment’s number the greater the authority; see Amendments 18 and 21). The FEC could regulate money as they were intended to, in order to repair equal protection of the law, so the public gets the advantages of the spirit of our laws as expressed in our Constitution’s Preamble.


The following two case laws I mentioned in the list of rules are court decisions which confirmed Congress’s ability to provide these protections via the authorities provided in Article 1 Section 8.


>The first case law, Norman vs B&O RR, tested FDR’s Gold Reserve Act proving it to be a valid law. FDR commissioned Congress to write a law requiring the Federal Reserve as well as private gold hoarders to cash in all their gold with the Treasury aside from a couple exceptions like jewelry. Gold would now be kept in places like Fort Knox. The Gold Reserve Act also changed the value of gold from previously just over $20 an ounce, up to $35 an ounce to economically “prime the pump” Congress claimed. To me creating this value in such a way seems similar to MMT demonstrating its well-deserved validity.


Here is what I view as the relevant language verbatim from that court decision for you to skim over:

. . . . . . . “The broad and comprehensive national authority over the subjects of revenue, finance, and currency is derived from the aggregate of the powers granted to the Congress, embracing the powers to lay and collect taxes, to borrow money, to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States, to coin money, regulate the value thereof and of foreign coin, and fix the standards of weights and measures, and the added express power ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution’ the other enumerated powers.” . . . . . . .


>In the 2nd case law mentioned above, the Wickard vs Filburn case, a farmer was growing his own wheat to feed his animals. Congress had written a law limiting how much wheat a farmer could produce based upon acreage, to protect fair interstate commerce. Farmer Filburn demanded that he was using the wheat only to feed his own livestock so it wasn’t even money, let alone interstate commerce. The court decided that although it wasn’t directly commerce, the effect of many farmers growing more than their allotted amount for similar purposes indeed would have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce so Congress was able to regulate the size of his crop. The court relied on regulating interstate commerce from the Commerce Clause.


This demonstrates how once it’s established that any number of private entities affect interstate commerce, Congress can regulate this commerce regardless of whether any individual transactions are interstate or not.


>The Citizens United vs FEC case law itself establishes that corporations deserve civil rights which immediately creates these two separate classes, both of which the court currently recognizes as persons: the imperiled biological people class, and the advantaged ‘corporate persons’ class.




In respect to any questions regarding the circumstances, facts, rules, and logic chain above, it is obvious that Congress can and must protect the public interest by creating a law to name actual living people as a protected class for purposes of invoking the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause, since the court found corporate persons have free speech. These corporate persons have an unjust and threatening advantage in interstate commerce.


It may be necessary for politicians and their Political Action Committees to register in Washington DC or even Puerto Rico so all donations are transacted out of the originating state, thus subject to these provisions of the Constitution.


We the public are not screwed because of the Citizens United verdict. We must demand US Congress to create a law to correct the injustice. Our laws are meant to favor our general public first before the private interests of a few. This is demonstrated by recognizing that we don’t have the free speech right to yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.


We must demand the spirit of our laws to be upheld as proclaimed in the Preamble of our Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”




We can and should recognize the above. We need to realize that we’ve been duped by the establishment who has taught that it would take a Constitutional Amendment to fix this, which would be too difficult. We must leverage this knowledge to our advantage.


FDR’s New Deal was premised and authorized on these same laws. We must do what the first political progressives did: they created a mandate by making a demand, then came to an accord with FDR agreeing to empower him with a compliant Congress. In return, he provided our public with a functional and just economy, banking structure, and other laws that protect and favor public interests first. THAT was the deal in the New Deal


Progressives made the demand and FDR agreed to the terms. We empowered him as we promised, he performed his end the deal, and progressives continued to provide him with a compliant Congress in both the House of Reps and in the Senate in every election until he died in 1945. Any successor of his who campaigned on maintaining similar progressive tenets in the Democratic Party also enjoyed our loyalty until more recent times when the Third Way Think Tank subverted what was previously our party. This can be seen in the following graphic:


We have only a few months until more candidates start to announce their intentions to run for President. These candidates will each have a platform proclaiming all the things they intend to do if we elect them; many basing their campaigns on promises of free healthcare regardless of their current desire to not provide it. It will be an illusory promise; a lie. The writing is on the wall when we hear them talk about things like Pay-Go.


Further, Democrats will attempt an illusory offer to repair Citizens United at the beginning of 2019. It has now been floated that Democrats will introduce such a bill, promising to use our own taxes to match small donations 6 to 1 in order to make the public’s will compete with corporations. This bill is currently in committee in the House of Reps titled HR1. We must recognize that this will only further flood our politics with cash. This would be another big pay raise for Congress. Politicians will still be just as beholden to donations from the oligarchy, who will simply outspend us no matter the cost, then pass these new costs onto us and we’ll pay twice.




If we demand any presidential candidate wanting our votes to use the principles above to limit the influence of money  while simultaneously demanding the use of MMT to fund necessary programs like green energy creation and a federal jobs guarantee among other repairs in the next New Deal, and request a list of 2020 congressional candidates to facilitate this, we can become empowered into the future to discover actual representation of the public interest via future elections. It will have a compounding effect with each election cycle.  We will have a new New Deal.


If we demand these achievable goals with unbroken logic chains before candidates announce their platforms, their intentions will look weak by comparison.  We must let all presidential candidates know that we will support whoever puts forth their best and most feasible proposal toward achieving this demand. We need to unite in this.

When he or she tells us who is needed in Congress to accomplish this, we must provide the necessary votes for these congressional candidates in every state. Progressives must become uniform in our understanding, our demand, and our promises. We need to do this quickly. If we miss it this spring, we’ll be waiting four more years to make a similar demand. The ecological timer of 12 years for mandatory climate change repair is ticking.


This demand repairing Citizens United would facilitate future required election results; MMT would facilitate funding any programs that are deemed necessary.


Regardless of the form it takes, the key for us in making this inflexible demand is in the simple framing of its roots: the requirement of repairing the Citizens United verdict, and the use of MMT to facilitate our goals. This would provide us, in cooperation with an actual representative government, away and the means to achieve these goals. This repair of Citizens United and MMT may be symbiotic in this way. This plan, or perhaps any feasible plan, might require these two concepts to work together.               



With objective thought,



A feasible, evidenced, understandable, short, and effective demand needs to go viral. Trend the hashtag #NewDealOrNoDeal followed by a candidate’s name. Start with W. Virginia’s State Senator Richard Ojeda, #NewDealOrNoDealOjeda, since he announced first.  

Challenge Warren to take the mantle as -> front runner<- by demanding she implement the above repair of Citizens United/McCutcheon and promise to deficit spend (MMT), which we will totally empower her or one of her contenders to do, to create a guaranteed federal jobs program that addresses green energy among others. Let this be heard. If she accepts this challenge, trend: #NewDealOrNoDealWarren and the competition is on with us setting the rules.

Her acceptance of this would be hard to beat but #NewDealOrNoDealBernie would bump it to a new level. Oregon’s US Senator Jeff Merkley or Nina Turner or Tulsi just announced any of several others would be great too. The idea is to make them compete for our unity, regardless of who currently holds the position in the hashtag.


Although anyone with appropriate notoriety could moderate successive frontrunners in this hashtag campaign, I imagine Steve Grumbine of Real Progressives would be a great choice. Someone will need to administer this demand.


This document might be a long read but I need you to understand these details so the idea can gain support. However, those first two simple paragraphs at the top of this article contain, in brief, the entire legal argument to repair Citizens United.  The second half of the equation regarding the specific issues around MMT as the funding mechanism and its targets tend to be the appetizing parts. I don’t know how we can do one without the other due to power and greed.


This kind of populist demand has worked in the past circa the 1930s when they didn’t even have social media. Similar tactics are needed now. If progressives come to this understanding and push it with a Bernie Sanders’ crowd type of support, elections could be very promising in 2020 and well into the future.


PS… thanks for the help guys!


For the record;

    If yer havin’ fun, yer learnin’ to have more fun.


Community National Issues Politics