From Russell Simmons to Ben and Jerry: The Would-Be Sponsors of Occupy Wall Street
Mar 1, 2012 9:55 AM EST
Occupy Oreo? Revolutionary Rocky Road? Moneyed patrons plan to subsidize the fight against predatory capitalism, whether OWS likes it or not.

After months of behind-the-scenes discussion, the latest moneyed group looking to patronize Occupy Wall Streetin implicit exchange for its "blessing" and the valuable naming rights that go with itcame out publicly this week.

A crowd of about 100 gathered at the West Park Church on the Upper West Side Sunday for an open meeting dedicated to the unveiling of the newly renamed Movement Resource Group. The 501©(3) is the latest incarnation of a group of wealthy donors who have been trying to plug into OWS for months. Originally called the Business Affinity Group, then the Occupy Money Group, before settling on its current name, MRG is essentially Ben Cohen of Ben & Jerry's, whose foundation raised the bulk of the $300,000 the group has put together so far (along with ambitions of raising $1.5 million more), and a handful of rich liberal alliesalso including former Nirvana manager Danny Goldberg and famed television producer Norman Lear (who wasn't there Sunday).

The group seems to think it can purchase a piece of the occupation. Of course, it could give out the money it's raised, like any other nonprofit, but it's looking for some sort of seal of approval from the movement, and to speak for it in a sense. As it says on its just-launched website, "Due to the horizontal structure of Occupy, it is difficult for funders to connect with this nascent movement." It's volunteering to fix that perceived problem, and to provide donors with a "single point of contact." On Sunday, the group read directly from the sanitized language on its website; its version of the occupation looked like a corporate PowerPoint presentation.
Occupy NYC

An Occupy Wall Street protester at a march in Manhattan on Wednesday, John Minchillo / AP Photo

While the messages of "the 99 percent" and "economic justice" were fairly conventionalthus their broad appealthe underlying structure of the movement has always been radical. Like so many critics and would-be friends of the occupation, MRG has mistaken OWS's leaderless structure for a posture or negotiating position, rather than a principle that can't be compromised without corrupting the whole enterprise. In place of that structure, MRG aims to support "replicable" actions and clear "messaging," to use its money to help define what isand what is notpart of this movement. This would presumably be decided by a paid staff, in consultation with Cohen.

"Essentially this is a group of very wealthy people who have picked a handler to deal with Occupy Wall Street," academic administrator and veteran occupier Ravi Ahmad told The Wall Street Journal. "They've re-created what's wrong with nonprofits and philanthropy structures." (The Journal story was inaccurately titled "Occupy Groups Get Funding," suggesting that OWS has reached an arrangement with MRG, which it has not.)

The questions continued, with occupiers expressing disdain for the funding plan alternating with those looking for a piece of the pie.

The presentation began with the group's board (all white, just one woman) seated in a row of chairs facing the people in attendance. This is not the normal set-up for OWS, which operates in a circle with independent facilitators. Even before the presentation began, the group had made clear it either did not understand or did not accept horizontalism, one of OWS's very few dogmatic principles.

For an hour, the members regaled the occupiers with their bios and backgrounds: how they got rich and stories of their activist "cred." The crowd, made up largely of dedicated and longtime movement members, wanted to get to the meat of the matter: the money.

Six months after OWS began and three months after the NYPD violently "cleaned" Zuccotti Park, there are a lot of occupiers struggling to make ends meetespecially those who are new to activism and are relying on the money coming through the New York City General Assembly, which has nearly run through its remaining funds. (Occupy Wall Street, I should note, has never actively fundraised.)

The protesters are hungry. And when these latest moneymen moved in, it felt like a two-way con. The rich people were trying to buy a piece of OWS on the cheap. Desperate protesters were there to see if they could get one over on the rich guys by taking their money without sacrificing anything of value, namely their values.

In exchange for them, MRG is offering a few national grants of up to $25,000, with proposals submitted to a board made up of five rich people and five occupiers selected by those rich people. They've also set aside $100,000 for "other projects," any loose funds for "stipends" for "core activists," with MRG determining that paid "core." The biggest budget item, at $150,000 fully half of the money they've raised so far, would go to the "national office" in New York.

US Homeland Security Monitored Occupy Wall Street, Documents Show

By Oliver Tree

March 1, 2012 9:39 AM EST

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has compiled a secret dossier on the Occupy Wall Street movement, leaked e-mails reveal.

(Photo: Reuters / Lucas Jackson)<br>Supporters of Occupy Wall Street carry a sign during a &quot;national day of action&quot; protest Tuesday in New York City.


(Photo: Reuters / Lucas Jackson)
Supporters of Occupy Wall Street carry a sign during a "national day of action" protest Tuesday in New York City.

The five-page document, posted on Rolling Stone magazine's website, cites the need to monitor Occupy as a "potential security risk." It emerged days after the whistleblower site WikiLeaks, with which Rolling Stone has a partnership, released 5 million e-mails from the servers of the U.S.-based private security firm Stratfor.

On Tuesday, 10 protesters were arrested in New York in a bid to revive the movement across the United States.

According to Rolling Stone, which first reported the DHS dossier's existence, Homeland Security kept tabs on Occupy through major media outlets and also combed Occupy-related Twitter feeds for information. The dossier, titled "SPECIAL COVERAGE: Occupy Wall Street," contains a section on the movement's use of social media including an interactive map of protest sites throughout the country.

"Mass gatherings associated with public protest movements can have disruptive effects on transportation, commercial, and government services, especially when staged in major metropolitan areas," the report states.

"Large-scale demonstrations also carry the potential for violence, presenting a significant challenge for law enforcement."

On Tuesday, at least 50 Occupy protesters marched from a park outside the New York Public Library's main facility in midtown Manhattan to the headquarters of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE).

An agenda posted online by Occupy organizers called for a "day of action against corporate greed," including the "shutdown" of Pfizer, Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC), privately held Koch Industries Inc. and the secretive American Legislative Exchange Council.

Chanting "Shame on Pfizer, you're a bunch of liars," protesters denounced the company for seeking tax breaks and other benefits for large corporations.

In a statement, Pfizer later acknowledged involvement with legislative organizations but said its aim was strictly to "advance the health of all Americans," according to Reuters.

Fellow activists assembled in dozens of other U.S. cities.

"We don't want big companies to run our democracy," protester Michael Levitin told Agence France-Presse.

Fellow protester Yoni Miller, 18, who has been involved in Occupy Wall Street since it started last September, said it was "inevitable" that the movement would rise again in the run-up to this November's U.S. elections, AFP reported.

A man was arrested outside Bryant Park, adjacent to the Manhattan library, and another eight were detained after they tried to camp overnight in Zuccotti Park -- near Wall Street in lower Manhattan and site of the Occupy movement's origins. Camping in the privately owned but publicly accessible park has been banned since last November, when New York City police cleared protesters' tent encampment from the site.

The revolution will not be patronized
Ben & Jerry's (and others) get a cold shoulder when they try to donate to Occupy. Here's why
By Natasha Lennard

Ben & Jerry founders Jerry Greenfield and Ben Cohen (top) and an Occupy Wall Street protester. (Credit: AP/Toby Talbot/John Minchillo)
Topics:Occupy Wall Street

When it comes to political process, Occupy has never taken the easy route. In eschewing representative politics, the movement is partly characterized by its commitment to consensus-based horizontal decision-making models. It's arduous meetings last for hours, tempers are frayed you learn to extend the limits of your patience.

So why, then, when it comes to funding, would Occupy opt for the easy way?

In the past week, the offer of easy money came knocking. Ice cream moguls Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's, along with former Nirvana manager Danny Goldberg, want to be Occupy benefactors with an aim to raise $1.8 million for Occupy-related projects through a 501©(3) called the Movement Resource Group (MRG). As Jeff Smith, a member of the Occupy Wall Street press team, described the project in a post on the Daily Beast, "the 501©(3) is the latest incarnation of a group of wealthy donors who have been trying to plug into OWS for months."

$300,000 has already been raised, largely by Cohen's foundation. $150,000 would go to a "national office" in New York for Occupy operations. The other funds would go to national grants of up to $25,000 (proposals for these must go through a board "made up of five rich people and five occupiers selected by those rich people," as Smith put it). Other grants and stipends would support projects and "core activists," as determined by MRG.

Many Occupy supporters are deeply perturbed by the project. It's not an issue of accepting funds. Occupy has not ceded from its capitalist context: Projects, propaganda, support systems for occupiers with nothing, bail funds and so on still require money. How to procure and allocate money is, however, all important. MRG's model with a board elevating certain projects and plans above others using considerable sums of money flies in the face of the movement's horizontal and decentralized practices. An open letter to the Occupy Wall Street community from six Occupy supporters (who left the Occupy working group that spawned MRG) notes the reasons why Ben and Jerry and co.'s offer fails to cohere with the ethics of the movement:

MRG replicates the patronage model of funding rather than inviting community involvement in creating new ways to shape and support the movement. The MRG model perpetuates top down control and promotes actions and messages dictated by those who have money in our society, rather than by those who are disenfranchised by the wealthiest 1% … By anointing a paid few to speak for the 99% MRG subverts the spirit of the Occupy movement and thus may actually prevent an authentically national Occupy movement from synthesizing.

The letter closes: "We have only a few unbreakable laws within OWS, the most important of them being don't speak for us.'"

Ben Cohen told concerned occupiers, "I guess what we hope to achieve is to help the movement grow and thrive." I don't doubt his sincerity. But I doubt he realized that he didn't quite finish his sentence. Grow and thrive how? Grow and thrive on what terms and conditions? Does it not behoove Occupy to grow to develop better mutual aid practices; to thrive at working as much as possible without windfalls from ice cream magnates? Money is needed, yes, but MRG is proposing more than just money; it's offering a practical scheme. Many will argue that a practical scheme is just what Occupy needs; I couldn't disagree more. I've used this quotation more than once, but it bears repeating here: Oscar Wilde wrote that "a practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish."

Efficient, centrally organized and well-endowed nonprofits and charities work very well at completing projects and achieving goals when it comes to politics-as-usual. However, much of Occupy's resonance relies on its refusal to work within conventional political frameworks. Even Occupy groups who have focused on engaging with congressional issues such as those in Occupy SEC pushing to strengthen and uphold the Volcker Rule organized collectively and horizontally. What MRG misses is that a rejection of politics-as-usual entails a rejection of funding-as-usual too.

There are a lot of nonprofits, a lot of charitably funded political groups and projects supported by grant money. There aren't a lot of confusing assemblages of thousands of people working in solidarity to reconfigure politics and change their lives in ways that defy expectation and understanding. If Ben, Jerry and co. understood the importance of Occupy in this light, they would offer support and money in a very different way: Likely they would forgo control over it. They wouldn't be so, well, patronizing.


Natasha Lennard covers the Occupy movement for Salon. A British-born, Brooklyn-based journalist, she has been covering Occupy Wall Street since before the first sleeping bag was unrolled in Zuccotti Park. One of the first journalists arrested at an Occupy action, she has managed to enrage Andrew Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. You can follow her on Twitter (@natashalennard), and email her any Occupy updates/videos/ideas to natasha.lennard@gmail.comMore Natasha Lennard

Irish police clear Occupy camp for St Patrick's day
Occupy Wall Street protest in Ireland is cleared by police in an attempt to vacate the site for national holiday
Reuters , Thursday 8 Mar 2012

Police cleared an anti-capitalist protest camp inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement from outside Ireland's central bank on Thursday after organisers refused a request to vacate the site for the annual Saint Patrick's Day parade.

Around 100 police sealed off part of central Dublin in the early morning hours and removed 15 protesters from the Occupy Dame Street camp, which has been on the plaza in front of the Central Bank since October, police said.

Several large tents, wooden shacks and a kitchen were removed and the area was hosed down. Protesters said police began pulling apart their shacks while they were still sleeping.

"We asked them to leave when we got there...those who didn't we had to physically remove from the area," a police spokesman said.

One arrest was made for a public order offence after the camp had been cleared, he said.

The site could have caused public safety problems for the St Patrick's Day parade, which passes close to the site on 17 March, he said. A festival associated with the parade attracts large numbers of foreign tourists.

Ireland has seen relatively little protest since its economy collapsed in 2007, sparking a series of harsh austerity budgets and a humiliating bailout from the European Union and International Monetary Fund.

Occupants at the urban camp were protesting against Ireland's decision to pay off the debt of its banking institutions and called on the government to take back economic sovereignty ceded to the EU and IMF.

The camp was backed by some left-wing groups but did not enjoy much popular support.

"We're not going to go away, we're in it for the long haul," said Jim Mclean, aged 33, one of the 15 protesters. "They (the government) are embarrassed because we're highlighting issues they're not dealing with."

Police and bailiffs cleared an anti-capitalist camp from outside St Paul's cathedral in London last week in a largely peaceful action. Authorities in some North American cities have used violence to forcibly remove similar camps.
--------------------------------------------------
NB - My comment - I see those in the Occupy Movement are now labeled by the MSM as 'anti-capitalist' to alienate them from the average person. Some in Occupy might be categorized as such, but certainly a minority - most only want a just system whether capitalist, socialist or mixed.

Occupy Wall Street exposes judicial double standards

Thanks to the media spotlight, our case was dropped while other lawful protesters face jail. Where's the justice in that?

Naomi Wolf
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 7 March 2012 21.39 GMT
Article history

Avram Ludwig and Naomi Wolf (left to right), with their attorney Gideon Oliver, outside New York criminal court, 5 January 2012

I had been waiting with apprehension for our court date, Monday, at which Avram Ludwig and I would have to go on to trial. We were arrested on 18 October for standing on a sidewalk in Tribeca, though obeying the law, while informing Occupy protesters of their legal rights to walk peacefully in single file under the terms of the permit that was in force outside the Huffington Post GameChangers Awards that night. The allegations written on my summons were:

"At t/p/o [shorthand for the "time and place of the offense"] observed deft [defendant] refuse a lawful order to disburse [sic] (given by Lt Zielinski) from sidewalk that was provided for per [pedestrian] traffic at all times. Had permit issued for Huffington Post Games Changes allowing at least 5ft of unobstructed sidewalk, for pedestrians, but deft refused to comply."

As you may recall, the NYPD had misinformed the Occupy protesters that night that the permit involved at the GameChangers event allowed no access to pedestrian protest. From my nerdy research, I knew that that was wrong. No such permit exists in all of New York City law.

I had given a statement to Gideon Oliver, our attorney, pointing out that I was not able to obey the orders of the lieutenant in question to get off the street because I have such respect for the law in Manhattan that I could not comply with Lt Zielinski's command a command I knew to be in violation of the permit law in question, which I had checked on. A Kafkaesque situation, surely.

I could not be physically present; on our previous court date, on 5 January, Judge Neil Ross had given me one-time permission to fulfil a commitment I had made to lecture in Australia (joining Germaine Greer for a discussion on feminism held in the Sydney Opera House). Instead, Avram was permitted to appear on behalf of us both.

The DA declined to represent the prosecution for our cases a move that all of our lawyer friends, my lawyer and my co-defendant called "highly unusual". Avram Ludwig reported to me:

"We went to court; Judge Matthew A Sciarino presided. There were 40-50 young Occupy arrestees there, wearing T-shirts that said, "We Are the 99%" jackets that read 'Revolution' in full protest mode; as well as five or six older female protesters. Gideon Oliver and other lawyers from the New York City chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild (NLG/NYC) represented them."

"When the DA said, 'We decline involvement in this case,' even the judge looked surprised. The judge said, 'Case dismissed.'

"The other protest defendants there, who had all been arrested as we had, had had to come back for their trials. When our cases were dismissed, they were startled. They still faced trial. 'How could this be? Why?' A journalist, too, was there and his case was dismissed.

"The only possible reason for the different outcomes is that they don't want a trial that will get publicity. For other people who won't get in the news, it's a different story. A teenage high-school student who was in a crowd was told to move, but she physically couldn't. They yanked her out and threw her in the police van. People couldn't move to follow orders, so they were singled out for arrest. Those people still have to go to trial. It's pure harassment.

"It's obviously a double standard. It's all about media management."

I called Oliver, who is president of the New York chapter of the National Lawyers' Guild. He had generously represented pro bono not only us, but also together with other NLG/NYC lawyers all of the Occupy arrests in Manhattan. Did he also see a double standard, I asked, or was this a normal course of justice?

"It was obviously a political decision on the part of the DA's office to be 'hands off' on your case. But there are thousands of Occupy and other protest arrest cases in New York where that doesn't happen and it should. These people are forced to take pleas forced to plead guilty when they are not guilty and go on to trial, where they will be either acquitted or convicted."

In other words, there were people in that courtroom whose actions were no less lawful than ours, who used their protected first amendment rights as we did, yet they are facing days and days of court appearances and possibly 15 days in jail. They would also be facing thousands of dollars in legal fees, were it not that the NYC NLG is representing all Occupy cases pro bono. "In jail", Oliver told me, probably means Rikers Island a fact about which he had diplomatically not given me details before yesterday, had we been heading there as well "Which is a rough place. Not a place anybody wants to be spending time."

So, what should we, as citizens, learn from this strange turn of events, in which Avram and I were free to go, while 50 young people and a few elderly women who were in the same courtroom, represented by the same lawyer, facing the same judge, for the same "offenses", were still being prosecuted by the same DA who had stood down to see us released? "The takeaway? Twofold," Oliver said:

"Public and media scrutiny does matter. The more light we shine on these arrests the better not just in the protest context, but across the board. But we need to shine a light not just on charges from protests, such as 'disorderly conduct', but also on so-called 'quality of life' policies by the NYPD, such as stop-and-frisk programs that also police public space.

"These policies serve the interests of the 1%, and not the public and exclude the public from occupying public space and using it for protected first amendment purposes."

So, Avram and I aren't going to jail; but our fellow citizens, who simply did what we did and lawfully exercised their first amendment rights, still may do so and face the violence of a spell in Rikers. Their cases, too, deserve media scrutiny.

10 "Occupy" Candidates Running for Congress

Meet the progressive insurgents who are riding a wave of energy from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

By Josh Harkinson
| Mon Mar. 12, 2012 3:00 AM PDT

[URL="http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/03/10-occupy-candidates-congress#disqus_thread"]
[/URL]


An Occupy protest on Capitol Hill: SOBPhotography/Flickr
Unlike the tea party, the Occupy movement hasn't involved itself much in elections. But that hasn't stopped a slew of progressives and political outsiders from capitalizing on the movement's energy. Here's a rundown of 10 electable House and Senate hopefuls who, one way or another, have made Occupy part of their campaigns:
Hakeem Jeffries (New York): "Income inequality is worse now that it has been since prior to the Great Depression," the state assemblyman said during a passionate speech at an Occupy rally in Brooklyn this fall. In January, Jeffries announced that he'd run for Congress in New York's Tenth Congressional District against 15-term incumbent Ed Towns, who'd angered labor unions when he cast the deciding vote in 2005 for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Since then, Jeffries has picked up endorsements in the Brooklyn district from prominent unions such as the Communications Workers of America.
Prospects: Fair. Jeffries' success could hinge on stopping the Tenth District from being redrawn to exclude his state assembly district, where he's popular.
Lori Saldaña (California): "Lori Saldaña has leapt headlong into the Occupy movement," writes the San Diego Union-Tribune. While that may be a bit of an overstatement, the Democratic former assemblywoman certainly caters to the cause with her campaign slogan: "Fighting for America's middle class." In January, she joined a rally organized by Occupy the Courts in protest of Supreme Court rulings that give corporations the rights of people.
Prospects: Good. A recent poll ranks her as the frontrunner in the primary and just six points behind incumbent Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray. But an independent who may enter the fray could strip away some of her supporters.

Alan Grayson (Florida): Nobody running for Congress has done more to side with Occupy Wall Street than the outspoken former congressman from Orlando. In October on Real Time with Bill Maher, Grayson destroyed conservative pundit PJ O'Rourke with a fiery defense of the movement. A clip from the segment now features in an Occupy-themed video that automatically plays on the Grayson campaign's homepage. Beloved by progressives for his voting record and willingness to go on the attackhe likened Dick Cheney a blood-sucking vampire and summed up Republicans' health care plan as "die quickly"Grayson lost his reelection bid in 2010 but is attempting a comeback in Florida's new Democratic-leaning 9[SUP]th[/SUP] Congressional District.
Prospects: Excellent. He's one of only three candidates whom the DCCC has named "Majority Makers," meaning that their races are top priorities.
Norman Solomon (California): A well-known political author and activist, Solomon is a feisty underdog in a race to fill an open congressional seat that includes ultra-liberal Marin County and parts of Northern California's pot-friendly Emerald Triangle. He has visited Occupy protests in seven towns across the district, making the movement a central focus of his campaign. "From Manhattan to Marin County and beyond people are anguished, disgusted, angry, andincreasinglydetermined," Solomon wrote on his website after attending an Occupy protest in San Rafael. He pledges not to accept any donations from corporate political action committees, arguing that "corporate money is habit-forming."
Prospects: Fair. Though his campaign has landed support from celebrities such as Phil Donohue and Sean Penn, October polls put him in third place behind a slightly less-liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican.
Eric Griego (New Mexico): One of the most progressive members of the state senate, Griego gave a speech at Occupy Santa Fe this fall denouncing corporate personhood. He's also one of a handful of elected officials who signed Occupy Santa Fe's "99 Pledge," a commitment to vote for rigorous campaign finance reform.
Prospects: Good. Griego's centrist primary challenger for the vacant seat, former Albuquerque Mayor Marty Chavez, is tainted by the arraignment* of his live-in girlfriend on embezzlement charges. But another contender in the race could divide the progressive vote to Chavez's advantage.
Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts): In an interview this fall with the Daily Beast, the Harvard Law prof took credit for creating "much of the intellectual foundation" for Occupy Wall Street. (Read our profile of Warren here.) She didn't back down when Republicans tried to tie her to the movement's extremist factions: "She understands why people are so angry and why they are taking the fight to the street," her spokesperson told the Washington Post, adding that Warren will "take the fight to the United States Senate."
Prospects: Good. The latest poll shows Republican incumbent Scott Brown breaking away with 49 percent of the vote to Warren's 41 percent, but she's still within striking distance in what's expected to be a close race.
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin): In 2010, the National Journal called Baldwin the most liberal member of the House. She earned kudos in November from the Occupy crowd for sponsoring a resolution opposing any government deal that grants criminal immunity to banks. "When the conventional tools for expressing yourself...are closed and your voice is cut off," Baldwin has said of Occupy Wall Street, "what else is left but to use the possibility of standing on a soap box and screaming to anyone who will listen?"
Prospects: Excellent. She is the likely Democratic nominee to replace the retiring Sen. Herb Kohl.
Wenona Benally Baldenegro (Arizona): Two years after Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick lost her Arizona congressional seat to tea party Republican Paul Gosar, she's campaigning to retake it. But she could lose in the primary to Baldenegro, who blames her for alienating supporters with votes against the pro-union Employee Free Choice Act and for job-killing foreign trade bills. A Harvard Law grad who'd be the nation's first Native American congresswoman if elected, Baldenegro has renounced campaign donations from corporate lobbyists and supports taxing the rich and public financing for elections. In late October, she joined six other progressive House candidatesincluding Griego, Sheyman, and Saldañato hand-deliver House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) 35,000 signatures from people who "stand with the 99 percent."
Prospects: Fair. Though Kirkpatrick sports name recognition and support from the Democratic establishment, Baldenegro has the endorsement of progressive Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz). More important, the district's boundaries were redrawn last year to include Navajo strongholds that will back her.
Hansen Clarke (Michigan): Sponsoring legislation to forgive student debt has made the Detroit Congressman a hero to thousands of college kids involved with Occupy. During the movement's March 1 "Occupy Education" protests in Washington, DC, activists relayed a statement from Clarke using the famous people's mic: "Young people in America should be able to pursue higher education to achieve their dreams without worrying that this decision will devastate their financial futures."
Prospects: Good. Though he's running against another incumbent Congressman in a consolidated district, Clarke has an early cash advantage and growing list of union endorsements.
Ilya Sheyman (Illinois): A 25-year-old former national mobilization director for MoveOn.org, Sheyman has made Occupy's message of shared prosperity a key theme of his campaign. "Right now, the wealthiest 400 Americans in this country have as much wealth as the bottom 150 million," he said during a Democratic primary debate this fall. "We are seeing those at the top get wealthier and wealthier while the middle class gets squeezed. So yes, I am a supporter of Occupy Wall Street."
Prospects: Good.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:10 "Occupy" Candidates Running for Congress


Meet the progressive insurgents who are riding a wave of energy from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

This is great news. Protests and marches certainly have their place but nothing beats getting one's hands on the machinery of state. Especially in the US where there still exists a means of doing so. I often wonder why more don't do it at the local level and control the party. The Christian lobby have done this really well for their own ends. Progressives need to do this too.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:10 "Occupy" Candidates Running for Congress


Meet the progressive insurgents who are riding a wave of energy from the Occupy Wall Street movement.

This is great news. Protests and marches certainly have their place but nothing beats getting one's hands on the machinery of state. Especially in the US where there still exists a means of doing so. I often wonder why more don't do it at the local level and control the party. The Christian lobby have done this really well for their own ends. Progressives need to do this too.

In the end, there will be many more and many politicians will be forced to 'side' with OWS positions and issues. What I'd like to see [in parallel with the OWS Movement ignoring mainstream political discourse and circus] are candidates, like those mentioned above. If we are going to win this WAR we will need both guerrilla fighters and infiltrators. Our US 'system' is so rotten and corrupt I believe it is beyond reform. It can only be scrapped and a new system built to replace it; however, again, this needs to be done both from inside and outside in coordination IMHO.