Politics & Government
Occupy Redlands Pushes to Meet Rep. Jerry Lewis
The group has launched a campaign of daily emails and calls to Lewis' office. The congressman's office gave Loma Linda Patch responses to some of the group's questions. Occupy Redlands has followed with responses.
Loma Linda Patch has been following an Occupy Redlands campaign to pressure Congressman Jerry Lewis for answers to several questions. The group, which has long made a part of their mission to get corporate money out of politics, attempted to call and email the congressman's office on a daily basis. On Dec. 1, representatives for Lewis to Occupy Redlands' questions.
Below, representatives with the Redlands movement take a turn to respond.
Dear Rep. Jerry Lewis
Find out what's happening in Redlands-Loma Lindawith free, real-time updates from Patch.
As you are aware, Occupy Redlands members have been reaching out to you through letters and phone calls to your office since Nov. 22. In our letters we asked for you to come to Redlands on Dec. 17 to talk to us.
Additionally, we asked you four questions. Unfortunately, we received no response from you after numerous letters and phone calls from our members. Only after your office was contacted by local news media about our efforts did your office provide a response.
Find out what's happening in Redlands-Loma Lindawith free, real-time updates from Patch.
We, the members of Occupy Redlands, would like to take the opportunity to examine your responses and share our thoughts with you and our fellow constituents of the 41st district.
On the subject of preventing foreclosures, you tell us that you have helped lower mortgage rates and fees for refinancing. You also say that you applaud Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for announcing a moratorium on foreclosures over the holidays, but that you wouldn’t want the government to impose such an action.
It is notable that you express concern about the banks and their financial stability, but make no mention of the impact of the indictment-worthy business practices of the banks that led to the financial meltdown and mortgage crisis and the effect this had on people in your district.
It would be refreshing for you to take a strong stand by addressing the cause of the problems rather than displaying compassion for the institutions that created the foreclosure disaster.
Moreover, can you specifically tell us what assistance your office provides for your constituents who need help refinancing or avoiding foreclosure?
In reference to the misconduct of the banks, are you aware that most of the big banks and investment firms on Wall Street have settled mortgage or securities fraud lawsuits? JP Morgan Chase settled for $156 million, Goldman Sachs settled for $550 million and Bank of America settled for $8.5 billion just to name a few. Though the terms of their settlements state that none of these companies will admit to wrongdoing, these seem like extraordinary amounts for which to settle if these corporations have done nothing illegal.
Do you endorse the decision rendered by a Federal Judge on Nov. 28, blocking an SEC settlement with Citigroup for $285 million over mortgage fraud? Judge Rakoff said the SEC has a duty “to see that the truth emerges” and Wall Street firms should not view lawsuit settlements “as a cost of doing business.”
Rather than lip service or short-term solutions, we want our elected officials to root out the causes of these issues and introduce legislation that ensures Americans will not face another global economic recession because of the illicit actions of big banks and investment firms.
What have you done to pass any such legislation?
Have you advocated that the U.S. Attorney General’s office investigate the fraudulent business practices of Wall Street firms that led this country to the cusp of economic collapse and that it prosecute the CEOs and CFOs of these institutions?
We expect that you do, considering the Attorney Generals of Massachusetts, Nevada and California have all planned to investigate mortgage fraud in their respective states.
Regarding improving employment in the district and the Inland Empire, you said you have supported bills that create free trade agreements with Korea, Panama and Columbia, that reduce tax burden and paperwork for small businesses, and that help veterans find work more quickly.
The members of Occupy Redlands agree that small business owners need all the help they can get. We also agree that veterans deserve to come back to a home and to a job, not a foreclosure and unemployment.
But can you explain to us how Free Trade is going to benefit workers in the Inland Empire and how you are helping veterans find work more quickly after returning from duty?
The likely outcome of yet another free trade agreement is that jobs will be lost as they have been in the past and the ones that remain here in the U.S. undoubtedly will involve pay cuts and a loss of benefits, further eroding the quality of life of Americans. Cheaper goods in exchange for lower wages and jobs being moved out of the country is a bad deal.
On the subject of campaign finance reform, you say you are opposed to placing restrictions on campaign finance and making any changes to the legal status of corporations without extensive hearings on the potential side effects.
As to legal status, let us point out that corporations are what are known as “legal fictions” and have no legitimate claim to any constitutional rights. Furthermore, corporations are not people and are afforded no such status in the Bill of Rights, indeed they are not even mentioned. So if you were looking out for actual people, the citizens and voters, you would unequivocally support campaign finance reform in order to correct the current inequities.
Money should not be the determining factor in public elections; it should be a candidate’s qualifications and the strength of her or his ideas. Instead, the voice of the people is being undermined by the exorbitant amount of corporate money spent on elections, particularly since the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. the FEC (2010), which allowed corporations to make unlimited contributions to political campaigns.
Did you know that as recently as the 1950’s some states still outlawed any political contributions by corporations as it was considered bribery, and that people involved in this activity spent time in the state penitentiary?
The Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court decision (1976), which essentially decided that money is free speech and the Citizens United v. FEC decision (2010), which expanded the so-called First Amendment rights of corporations, should be overturned as, again, corporations are not afforded the protections and rights of citizens and are not “persons” under the Constitution.
These decisions ensure money will continue to exert unfair influence in public elections and underscore why a constitutional amendment is needed in order to eliminate the perverse concept of “corporate personhood”.
We have no argument with business making a profit by providing goods and services.
However, crony capitalism has allowed the corporate world to enrich the few at the expense of the many and to ruin the economy through irresponsible and unlawful actions.
We expect our elected officials to ensure corporations adhere to sound business practices and impose sanctions rather than reward or ignore reckless behavior. Government has a duty to represent the interests of the people and to act to protect the citizens and enforce regulations designed to protect the public instead of dismantling them.
We know that your voting record shows that you have supported at least four constitutional amendments in the past. From this record it shows that you are willing to abridge the rights of people, while you hesitate to amend the rights of “legal fictions.”
Why not support an amendment that would help end the corrupting influence corporate money has over our political process by standing up alongside Rep. Ted Deutch (Florida) and sponsoring the OCCUPIED (Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy) Constitutional Amendment that he introduced on Nov. 18th? This is an opportunity to show true leadership for the Inland Empire and this nation and an indication that you are hearing the people’s voice.
We have some follow-up questions listed below; we hope this time you will respond to us directly, though we are amenable to the media being kept informed as we wholeheartedly support transparency and a free press.
What do you think about the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act (H.R.1148 / S.1871) that is currently being discussed in Washington? I don’t know anyone, elected or not, that has ever supported insider-trading, but we want to know how you feel about this act since you are a member of Congress and this directly affects you.
Jerry, what are your thoughts on the GAO Audit Report and subsequent analysis by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders that revealed a significant number of conflicts of interest between private banks and the Federal Reserve? To give context to those who may be unaware of this report, Senator Sanders said, “Not only do these people run the banks, they run the institutions that regulate the banks.”
Are you concerned with the lack of transparency within the Fed?
Of course we can’t talk about failed disclosures without talking about the story that was published by Bloomberg News on Nov. 28 that stated that the Federal Reserve had loaned out $7.77 trillion dollars without Congressional knowledge. Not only did banks mislead investors saying that their firms were healthy, but the Federal Reserve fought to suppress this information, which only came to light as a result of the Freedom of Information Act and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
With hindsight being 20/20, would you have changed the way you voted on Dodd-Frank or for that matter TARP?
Jerry, here is what we think is a simple question, if a Bank or a Corporation is Too Big to Fail, is it not by definition Too Big to Exist?
We think it obvious to break up some of these mega-banks and monolithic institutions, so that taxpayers won’t have to bail out reckless and possibly criminal institutions in the future. You could re-introduce the Kaufman-Brown bill called the SAFE (Safe, Accountable, Fair, and Efficient) Banking Act of 2010, which was voted down. You could also support the Return to Prudent Banking Act of 2011, which has yet to make it out of committees. We have seen enough of what happens when commercial and investment banking are placed under the same roof.
We look forward to your response.
Once again, we reiterate our formal invitation for your presence in your office on December 17th so that we can continue this conversation and talk in person about these and many other serious issues. We realize that this is short notice for you, but if you can’t be there, please designate someone there as your proxy to field our questions and receive the letters that we, the constituents of the 41st district, would like to drop off.
Regards,
Occupy Redlands
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.