Mediaboss Marketing

Aneesh Sompalli

Martinsburg

America was founded on a promise of democratic representation, a system where one person receives one vote, and people have the power to choose their leaders.

But over the past decade, weve seen that process co-opted by special interests and dark money groups trying to subvert our democracy, twisting it to their advantage while everyday Americans are left behind. The U.S. Senate needs to put a stop to this blatant corruption by passing the For the People Act, a landmark package of anti-corruption and reforms that will return power back to the hands of its rightful owners the American people.

Currently our electoral system favors those with the most spending power. The more money an individual, corporation, or special interest group has, the more theyre able to amplify their voice. From the deceptive attack ads that pollute our airwaves during election season to the deep-pocketed lobbyists that roam our halls of power, its hard not to see the negative impact of dark money on our democracy. All the while, everyday Americans are seeing their right to vote eroded as their voices are drowned out by the deluge.

No one should be able to buy their way into power, plain and simple. The For the People Act would put an end to dark money, closing the loopholes that special interest groups currently leverage to spend unlimited amounts of money in our electoral process without ever disclosing a single donor. This will, in turn, help to crack down on political corruption on both sides of the aisle, restoring trust and transparency in our government.

The For the People Act would also strengthen and protect our right to vote, making sure that all eligible Americans can make their voices heard without the diluting effect of dark money and by ensuring unimpeded access to the ballot box. This is especially important for West Virginians, many of whom rely on early voting programs to cast their vote ahead of Election Day.

This isnt a political issue its a matter of preserving our very democracy. How can our country claim to be a beacon of democratic ideals when weve let our own system crumble under the pressure of special interests, corruption and dark money?

Theres nothing democratic about a system that allows those with the most money to gain the most influence. We need to protect our democracy from these pernicious forces and pass the For the People Act. And its clear that the American people agree 83%, including nearly three-fourths of Republicans, support the For the People Acts sensible reforms.

With popular opinion and common decency on their side, its time for the U.S. Senate to act and pass the For the People Act immediately. We cant allow special interests and dark money groups to corrupt our electoral process any longer.

Here is the original post:
For the People Act needed to save democracy - Martinsburg Journal

A quote from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on May 5: One hundred percent of my focus is on standing up to this (Biden) administration. What we have in the United States Senate is total unity from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz in opposition to what the new Biden administration is trying to do to this country.

Then-Majority Leader McConnell said this in 2010 about then-President Barack Obama: The single most important thing we (Republicans) want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. What was President Obama trying to do to this country?

Minority Leader McConnell has directly connected Susan Collins to Ted Cruz, and to the notion that there can be no option other than rejectionist Republicanism. Its too late to reject Susan Collins this time, but we must remember: This is not our parents Republican Party.

I am frightened for our United States.

Richard DanaCape Elizabeth

Invalid username/password.

Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.

Previous

Next

Read more here:
Letter to the editor: McConnell maintains focus on undercutting democracy - pressherald.com

Breadcrumb Trail Links

When does a crisis response become a permanent shift in democratic culture?

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Skip-the-democracy, anyone? Uber edicts?

Life will not be the same after the pandemic. Companies will do more meetings via video call than in person, saving tens of thousands of dollars for corporations and putting thousands of low-paid hospitality staff permanently out of work. Restaurant workers might face the same predicament. What will happen to those Korean barbecue places, which have you cook their food in their restaurants, when all sorts of services will deliver their food for you to cook at home?

Will our democracy be the same?

We have lived a year in which parliamentary democracy and judicial review have been almost entirely usurped by decrees. Much of that has been by the cabinet, using its regulatory powers under various public health and quarantine laws. Other decrees have been made by public health officials themselves, who are not elected.

These measures have largely not been debated in the legislatures, even ex post, let alone ex ante. Very few measures have been passed by statute, let alone been subject to the usual committee hearings and review.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Will our democracy be the same?

It took almost a year before any of the measures were tested in court for their constitutionality.

Fair enough, emergencies are emergencies and all governments are permitted to move quickly when needed. Democracy can be slow; indeed, it is meant to be slow enough to permit dissenting views to be heard, for debates to be had, for a consensus to develop.

After a year though, when does an emergency mentality shift simply into a change of mentality altogether? When does a crisis response become a permanent shift in democratic culture?

The peoples will has not been thwarted, at least according to survey data. Pandemic restrictions have proved massively popular. There is a considerable constituency which desires more severe and longer measures. It would appear that, in numerical terms, the stricter constituency is larger than those arguing against the lockdowns.

Governments accustomed to imposing their will by fiat, enjoying enormous public support in doing so, may not be so keen to go back to the messiness of parliamentary government. Much more congenial to be a pharaoh than a first minister. At least for the pharaoh.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Indeed, in Ontario, a member of the government caucus, Roman Baber, wrote an open letter expressing his disagreement with government policy. His view was certainly in the minority, but was hardly out of the mainstream of global pandemic debate. He was tossed out of caucus by Premier Doug Ford. I doubt Ontarios premier-cum-pharaoh will pay any political price for that; if anything it was the popular move. But will our political system pay a price, when the governing party does not have room for a modest range of views?

Courts always lag behind legislatures in acting as a check or balance to the exercise of government power. But a year is a long time for fundamental freedoms to be restricted without sufficient review. That is not so much a court problem as a democratic culture problem. Courts can only deal with cases brought to them by aggrieved parties. Canadians, by and large, are not aggrieved.

British Columbia abolished religious freedom last November, and that case was heard in March. The government prevailed on restricting religious liberty, but was told it could no longer ban outdoor protests. This week, a coalition of evangelical churches is challenging Manitobas restrictions in court. Thats about it on the court front.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Much more congenial to be a pharaoh than a first minister

Canadas charter does not offer absolute protection of fundamental freedoms. Section 1 makes those rights subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Reasonable limits? A healthy democratic culture permits a discussion about that. Shutting down alternative views in the name of the science at least until the science changes means that reason has been subjugated to politics more often than we would like to admit. That is what the Charter is supposed to prevent.

Prescribed by law? Does extended government by decree meet that standard? It likely does meet a minimal legal standard. But the political culture witness the federal government exempting itself from presenting any budget to Parliament in 2020 is moving away from prescription of law to the proclivities of the powerful.

Demonstrably justified? The constitutional standard requires that abrogating fundamental freedoms must not only be justified, but demonstrably so. Its not enough to simply say that saving lives is the overriding concern. It must be demonstrated. In a court action, that means to the satisfaction of the judges. More broadly, in a healthy democracy those making the decrees ought to demonstrate to the citizenry that emergency suppression of rights is required, and is being done in the least burdensome manner possible.

A free and democratic society? The charter presumes that Canada is such. It has been much less so during the pandemic, for understandable reasons. But will it remain free and democratic afterward?

National Post

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter, NP Platformed the cure for cancel culture.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read more from the original source:
Raymond J. de Souza: Will we still be skipping the democracy post-pandemic? - National Post

People wait to have their name called at the vaccination center in the western Athens suburb of Peristeri, on Thursday. [Dimitris Kapantais/InTime News]

It is very gratifying that many younger people are quickly seeking to secure an appointment to get vaccinated against Covid-19, taking advantage of the launch of the process for younger ages.

Fortunately, there are many citizens who are not convinced by main opposition leader Alexis Tsipras efforts to take advantage of the pandemic to score political points, alleging that the government is trying to unload excess doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine because a large part of the population is afraid of it. Hopefully, the turnout that is now being observed will continue and allow the country and its people to quickly reach the much-coveted protection offered by herd immunity.

On the other hand, any optimistic predictions are risky, as the data we have do not allow for premature triumphant celebrations. We must not overlook the fact that, in Greece, only 60-65% of the elderly those who are most at risk have been vaccinated, and that is the main reason why the daily loss of life from the coronavirus remains high. The percentage of health workers who refuse to be vaccinated in this country is also unacceptably high, setting the worst possible example.

The widespread fear and reluctance of large sections of the population to get vaccinated is evident not only from the various appalling claims circulating on the internet, but also from the questions posed in television and radio broadcasts. It is clear that most of those who ask questions are desperately trying to find excuses not to be vaccinated, without of course openly admitting it.

Therefore, we do not know what percentage of citizens will eventually be vaccinated, so it remains unknown if and when we will reach herd immunity. It is quite telling that, in the United States, the vaccination campaign has slowed down lately, because it has now reached the wall of anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists and Trumpists who are more than a few. Unfortunately, we have many of their kind here as well

The conclusion is that, for the time being, the mass turnout for inoculation concerns sensible and prudent citizens who realize that in this way they will protect themselves and the country, while strengthening the operation of the economy in all sectors. And here is where the issue of democracy comes in. Not in the sense of voluntary attendance for vaccination, as is now the case in Greece and worldwide, or as it is used by all sorts of deniers as an argument, with the help of many social justice warriors of the extreme and the essentially irrational politically correct.

The real question for democracy today, in relation to Covid-19, is why should we allow a minority to endanger the lives of the majority of citizens, their quality of life and the countrys economic development, in the name of some beliefs which have nothing to do with scientific data. Does a democratic state have a duty to defend its citizens with certain mandatory provisions (including Covid-19 vaccination), especially in exceptional circumstances, or not?

Here is the original post:
Democracy and vaccinations - Kathimerini English Edition

Media, Law & Policy

Roy Gutterman

Roy Gutterman, associate professor of newspaper and online journalism and director of the Tully Center for Free Speech in the Newhouse School, wrote an op-ed for Syracuse.com: Assaults on press freedom, here and abroad, endanger democracy. Gutterman is an expert on communications law and the First Amendment.

Gutterman writes that in 1991, a group of international journalists and press freedom activists joined together to write the Declaration of Windhoek on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press, which outlined principles of press freedom for media, governments and citizens across the globe. Gutterman says that the declaration came at a time where emerging democracies were in need of free press ideals, as America was setting the standard. The document is celebrated each year on UNESCOs World Press Freedom Day, May 3.

Now, 30 years later, Gutterman says that these issues regarding freedom of the press are now hitting much closer to home, not only in seemingly far-off places. As much as our First Amendment is a symbol and statement to the world about the constitutional and legal protection afforded to the press and speech,anti-press political rhetoric overthe past few years sought to minimize the protections and diminish the role of the institutional press, Gutterman writes.

Part of Guttermans mission in leading the Tully Center for Free Speech is to uphold the work of journalists who risk their lives in the name of free speech. Gutterman says that this week the Tully Center will give an award to Igor Rudnikov, a Russian journalist who survived an assassination attempt and was jailed for over a year for running a newspaper that was critical of Russian leadership. It is people like Rudnikov, Gutterman writes, that uphold the original principles of the Windhoek Declaration and are dedicated to telling the truth.

To read his essay in its entirety, visit Syracuse.com.

Syracuse University media relations team members work regularly with the campus community to secure placements of op-eds. Anyone interested in writing an op-ed should first review the Universitys op-ed guidelines and emailmedia@syr.edu.

Continued here:
'Assaults on Press Freedom, Here and Abroad, Endanger Democracy' - Syracuse University News