Occupy Confronts Redlands Council About 'Hypocrisy'

On March 20, Chanel Emershy addressed the Redlands City Council on behalf of Occupy Redlands. The organization has written a resolution denouncing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision -- a Supreme Court decision that prohibits limits on independent spending for political purposes by corporations and unions.

Occupiers have been working to get the resolution placed on the agenda but been unsuccessful so far. Below is a copy of Emershy's message to the council.

I am here with Occupy Redland to speak to the resolution you just heard. Over the last three months we have spoken with various council members about the resolution. We have been given three reasons why our resolution will not be considered by the city council.

What have we been told by the City Council?

The council doesn’t like to waste time on symbolic resolutions.

1. The City Council has passed at least 1 symbolic action this month.  They have passed the “highly symbolic” signing of a letter for Republican State Assemblyman Mike Morrell.  This letter supported a State-level Budget bill, which would amend the state constitution and require 3 days be given to the public before a bill is voted upon.

It should also be noted, that a precedent has been set. Current councilmember, former-mayor of Redlands Jon Harrison signed the US Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement in 2007.

2. The council feels like Citizens United decision and the concept of Corporate Personhood are national issues, and the City only focuses on Redlands-specific issues.

As previously mentioned, the council just endorsed a letter of support to amend the California constitution.  A state-level issue.

US Mayors for Climate Protection, is a National initiatives.

3. They feel like the resolution has no effect on Redlands.

Corporate personhood and the citizens united affect every single person in this country whether they like it or not.  Now advertising is free speech and lying in advertising is free speech.

Example: In Vermont a dairy farming corporation won a case where they argued that a requirement to label dairy products that included bovine growth hormone violated their 1^st amendment rights.  The Nike Corporation has all but admitted to lying in advertising and public relations campaigns, and when challenged on the grounds intentional deception in commercial statements, Nike argued that their free speech rights supersede this state law, and they won.

We would argue strongly for employing the precautionary approach.  What if a corporation starts advertising in Redlands with intentional deceit?  What if corporations amass so much wealth that they donate to campaigns nation-wide and succeed in controlling the beholden politicians, thus becoming de facto, legislators in this country?

As you can see, we believe that your positions are hypocritical. Again, we request for our resolution to be put on the next council meeting agenda for a vote.