"New Ideas and New Process" Speech at Primary Watch Party

Hello everyone! Thank you for coming! I especially want to thank Tom Marsh, the Independent Party candidate for Governor, for being here. Good to see you, Tom!

The primaries are over. The multi-millionaires have bought their prizes, and they have joined Tom Marsh and me on the ballot in November in the races for Governor and U.S. Senate. Linda McMahon alone spent more than $300 dollars per vote! But now, the campaign begins in earnest.

Tonight my campaign begins an exciting new phase. I’ve talked about many issues over the last year, and presented over 30 detailed position statements and solutions on my website, in debates and forums, in interviews and speeches, and on my monthly TV show. Now my campaign is going to focus on building a new political process, a new way to re-engage the voters who have been disgusted with politics, and who have lost faith in our democracy.
These last weeks we have seen the most relentless and prolific negative advertising I have ever seen. Commercial after commercial that insult our intelligence, and focus on some narrow, fabricated negative issue to attack an opponent. Aren’t you tired of being treated like an idiot that can be bought with millions of dollars of advertising? We want real conversation, not just showmanship! I want to help create a process that will elevate the level of discussion, and increase participation and accountablity, and I want your help. Tonight, I want to talk about a new type of campaign.

A few weeks ago I attended an event during Social Web Week in New Haven. I met some amazing people, who are passionate about rebuilding our democracy, and our democratic process. I’m delighted to say that they’ve agreed to help me build and champion a process to elevate the level of social discourse and increase involvement using social media. This may sound corny, but we want to create something new, using a social web, that will give everyone a voice and a chance to participate in the dialogue; something that will live on beyond this election, something that candidates in the future will ignore at their peril. Here’s what we want from our candidates: Answer the question that you are asked, honestly and completely, instead of sidestepping it or answering a different question. Stop rolling out attack ads that focus on some narrow and distorted issue, and instead have a civil conversation with the voters and the other candidates about ideas and how to solve our problems. We have the tools to do this, and I want to demonstrate how to do it with my campaign.

This will be the most transparent and inclusive campaign in history. Everyone will know where I will be, and what I am doing, in advance, and everyone will be invited to be there. And much more than that, I am asking everyone to be a full participant in the conversation. In person at events, online with unedited posts on my blog, through open conversations on twitter every week, I want everyone to talk to me, for as long as they’d like. I am asking everyone to re-engage in the political process. We will develop better ideas through inclusion! And we can build a new social web for civic engagement that will live on beyond November, to change the status quo, and in the long term, repair the lack of representation and true give and take in politics. It will be a model for politicians, so that, perhaps, they might become the public servants that represent us in a way that our founding fathers intended.

This campaign isn’t about me. This is about reversing the degradation of our political process, and rebuilding our democracy. You know what the negative, superficial advertising does. It drives down voter turnout and suppresses participation. The other candidates know this, and they’re doing it on purpose. Well, I am the ANTI-APATHY candidate. This is what you can expect from my campaign: Listening and dialogue, positive and constructive brainstorming, honesty, and open participation. I invite the other candidates to join me in this. And I ask you, the people, to help. The country needs you, our democracy needs you. Apathy is not allowed. Vote to raise the level of civic discourse by getting involved! And, there are a lot of people in this room tonight that will show you how to start. Find one, and introduce yourself.

Thank you for listening! And I will stick around to talk with any of you for as long as you’d like.

John's reaction to Dodd's Regulatory Bill

John's reaction to the latest version of Chris Dodd's Financial Regulatory Reform Bill:

It does do some good things, and is an improvement upon the November version (see "Too Big to Fail" on my website). However, it does not go nearly far enough. We should reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act, to separate most commercial and investment banking activities. And, after causing huge damage to our economy, and requiring huge amounts of taxpayer-funded bailouts, it's time to break up huge institutions like Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs into, say, five smaller (but still extremely large) institutions. Mr. Dodd says that "No legislation will stop the next crisis from coming." I do not agree. Stronger action to prevent entities from being "Too Big to Fail" can do the job. I would vote for Mr. Dodd's bill, but I would also fight hard for much stronger protections for us, the people.

Too Big to Fail: Chris Dodd's proposed regulatory bill falls short

You can read a discussion about Chris Dodd's proposed regulatory bill (announced yesterday) here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec09/banks_11-11.html

I believe that the proposal would do some good things (create better oversight of some banking functions), but that it consolidates too much oversight into one agency (imagine the still powerful banking lobby being able to target just one agency!), and that some parallel oversight should be left with the FDIC. Here's a statement from Simon Johnson, MIT Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: "Well, the key is, obviously, you want a tough regulator going forward. You want an institution or a set of institutions that aren't going to be captured by the banks."

PROPOSAL FAILS TO PROPERLY ADDRESS "TOO BIG TO FAIL"

But this is not the biggest weakness of the proposal; the most important thing that new regulatory legislation should do is prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail". This is the biggest reason for our current economic disaster. Again from Simon Johnson, MIT Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics: "there's a little progress on this issue in the Dodd bill." and "But, really, that issue, what we do with these massive banks that, if they fail, they bring down the system, is not being addressed enough, either in this bill or in the Frank bill, and definitely front and center of the administration's original proposal."

It's very disappointing that during this relatively narrow window of opportunity to pass real regulatory reform, Chris Dodd has produced a 1,100 page bill that does not solve the biggest problem of all. From Joe Nocera, NY Times financial expert: "So, you know, if you have one Goldman Sachs, maybe you should have five Goldman Sachs, or five Morgan Stanleys that are smaller in size. These are issues that this Congress just does not want to tackle."

Our senators should listen to experts and create a regulatory agency that has the power to prevent banks from becoming "too big to fail", and prevent a repeat of what has happened. How can someone craft an 1,100 page bill and not include this?