Sarasota Bank Transfer Day

The big banks thought they would start charging customers to use their debit cards. Wells Fargo and Chase were testing out a $3 monthly fee. SunTrust was charging $5. Bank of America was planning a $5 fee. Stephen Troutner from Citibank said “We have talked to customers and they have made it abundantly clear that ‘if you charge me to use my debit card, I would find that very irritating'". Mr. Troutner was right.

Customers were so irritated with this new wave of fees that many of them voted with their feet. For the month since September 29, when Bank of America made their announcement, over 650,000 joined a credit union. That's 50,000 more than joined in ALL of 2010. By November 1, all of the big banks had scrapped these planned fees. I thought this might put a crimp in plans for today's Bank Transfer Day. It did not. The same issues are still in play.

This morning following a General Assembly, Occupy Sarasota held a march around downtown. Most Sarasota downtown banks were closed today, so it comes as no surprise that nobody in the group chose to close their bank account today. For my part, I closed my Bank of America account yesterday. As we marched, I spoke with several protesters and bystanders to find out where they did their banking. Here are the answers in the order in which I received them:

• no bank, uses money orders when necessary
• Bank of the Ozarks (who knew there was a branch in Bradenton, FL),
• will be switching to Gateway Bank of Southwest Florida,
• BB&T (one of the banks that received bailout funds),
• Ukrainian Federal Credit Union (internet banking),
• as of today, will switch out of Bank of America, but not sure where
• no bank, uses cash

The marchers made it back to Five Points for a discussion of possible future directions for Occupy Sarasota. Unfortunately, I had to leave early and cannot report on whether any decisions were made.

Sources: New York Times, Credit Union National Associaiton Press Release

Bank Customer Mishaps

This Saturday is Bank Transfer Day. I have detailed why this is a great idea and how you can participate. At this point, many folks have already closed their bank accounts with little fanfare. But a few have had trouble and uploaded videotapes documenting their problems. Watch what happened so that you can plan your bank transfer accordingly.

On October 7, two women in Santa Cruz attempted to close their Bank of America accounts. The manager said that they could not be protesters and customers at the same time. She refused to close their accounts.

A group in New York City held a Citibank account close-out on October 15. There were some reports via social media outlets that Citibank was having customers arrested for closing their bank accounts. It turns out, they were arrested for trespassing. That is to say, they would not leave the premises when asked. That was probably true. But what caused a heated outcry was that once the protesters did try to leave, the bank folks would not let them! They physically barred the way, until the police arrived. I suppose you could call that a counter-protest. Video shot from outside the bank. Video shot from inside the bank. Speakout/Protest inside the bank.

Saturday is Bank Transfer Day

This Saturday, November 5, 2011, is Bank Transfer Day. KTLA news reports that Kristen Christian "was tired of paying outrageous fees to banks for a severe lack of services." So she started the Bank Transfer Day Facebook page encouraging visitors to shift their accounts from banks to credit unions. Kristen sounds like an enthusiastic Occupier, but in fact her Facebook page denies that she was inspired by or organized by Occupy Wall Street. Conversely, Occupy Wall Street wholeheartedly backs Bank Transfer Day. As do I.

I see several reasons to participate in this event.

1. The big banks have spent millions lobbying to gut bank reforms. It's bad policy to have banks with so much money that they can write laws, purchase politicians, and regulate the bank regulators. Here's some of the data collected by OpenSecrets.org.
   
   Moving your money out of these banks gives them less money to work with.
2. The 2009 bank bailout brought many troubled banks back to profitability. But the primary goals of protecting home values, preserving homeownership, and increasing bank lending were not achieved. Foreclosures continue to mount. Lending did not increase but rather continued to decline well into the recovery. Banks had the ability to do something about this, but did as little as possible. When you close your bank account, let them know this is not acceptable.
3. When the credit crisis struck in 2008, federal regulators poured tens of billions of dollars into the nation's leading financial institutions because the banks were so big that officials feared their failure would reverberate throughout the economy causing a disastrous wave of bankrupcies. Unfortunately, the biggest banks are now 20 percent larger than they were before the crisis and control a larger part of our economy than ever. When you move money out of these big banks, you make them smaller!
4. The extravagant bonus system for bank executives probably contributed to the financial crisis by encouraging high risk strategies, with taxpayers paying for losing strategies. Big banks seem especially prone to the "Lake Wobegone" effect, where all of their executives are above average and should be paid accordingly. These bonuses shake my confidence in the ability of large banks to engage in relatively safe investments.

Notice that I did not include the main reason most people are so infuriated with their bank, namely the newly-proposed-and-already-terminated $5/month debit card fee. Even though this seems excessive, I don't think it's a particularly good reason. But I do agree that politicians and regulators have been completely paralyzed when it comes to taking necessary action. Consequently, it's up to you and me to do something about it.

Here's what you can do.

1. Find out if your bank or credit card company was "too big to fail." In other words, did they receive bailout funds. If not, pat yourself on the back and stop here.
2. Open a checking, savings, and/or credit card account with a small community bank or credit union. Look for one at moveyourmoney.org
3. Over the next month, transfer your funds and recurring payments to this new account.
4. Once the new account is up and all your payments have cleared your old account, close that account and tell your bank why.

On Saturday, November 5, Occupy Sarasota is planning a Transfer Your Money March. All marchers welcome at 9:30am at Five Points Park, downtown.

Sources: KTLA news, The Washington Post, Move Your Money Project

Sarasota Rally In Solidarity w/OWS

In other parts of the country, Occupy Movement protesters suffered rain, wind, and snow, but in Sarasota, we were blessed with perfect weather yesterday. There was no police presence. All in all, about one hundred amiable folks from all walks of life lined Tamiami Trail displaying signs and waving at the cars streaming by. This was the third Sarasota rally.

I spoke with John from Sarasota. I am not showcasing him, because of his passion, his special story, or his looks. Rather because he is representative of an informed citizen who knows something is very wrong.

John is a registered Republican. He is worried about the military-industrial complex, the U.S. deficit, and the expensive wars we are fighting. He spoke to the issue of powerful individuals and corporations gaming the system and the plight of the middle class. And he is here, because he wants politicians to take notice. He also shared some stock tips.

Twitter and The News

I came to the Twitter party later than many, and I came with a bad attitude. As an outsider, I saw social media as a huge waste of both time and computing power. I really don't care what kind of mint is lying on your hotel pillow or when you are going to walk your dog. As a social media outsider, I saw it as distracting, indiscriminate, and overwhelming. Yes, I read that Egyptian revolutionaries leveraged the power of instant messages, Twitter, and Facebook to effect regime change in under three weeks. And in China, social networking has helped spread the word about environmental issues and mobilize protests against polluters. But, their media is heavily censored and so they are forced to look elsewhere for their news. And, when it comes to Twitter, I mean forced. Why would you choose to limit your message to 140 characters? The amount of information in a tweet is not worth the time spent looking at it.

That was two weeks ago. Now I think that a hefty chunk of what we used to call journalism already revolves around Twitter. My opinion changed on Tuesday, October 25, 2011, the day of the Occupy Oakland violence.

I got to my computer at around 9am, and reluctantly brought up a Twitter window. It had been about a week, since I set up my Twitter account. I had acquired 29 followers and was following 129 others. This meant that I would be deluged with hundreds of short messages, many without useful context, and a few of potential interest. I immediately noticed that there were lots of tweets about Occupy Oakland. It sounded like the police had assaulted protesters with rubber bullets, flash grenades, and gas canisters. Now mind you, it was 9am Eastern Time, but only 6am in Oakland. I spent about twenty minutes trying to verify this news via the internet. Some of the tweets pointed to videos that people had posted online, but it was dark out and hard to really make out what was going on with all the mayhem. As it dawned in Oakland, it dawned on me that I knew more about what had just happened in Oakland than most of the world, including those living in Oakland!

This was real-time news and it was not an accident. When I set up the Twitter account, Karen Brown, CEO of StardustBlue Media , advised me to follow a few major news outlets and many local Occupy Wall Street groups. By doing this, I created a specialized news community of sorts. One focused on Occupy activities around the globe. Something big under the Occupy umbrella would reverberate due to tweets and retweets echoing within my personal community news "channel".

I considered helping to break this news in my blog, OccupyMyCity. After about an hour pondering the many ethical questions that surfaced for me, I decided not to report anything, until later in the day. I was hoping that someone from the mainstream media, the City of Oakland or the Oakland Police Department would say something official. What could I verify sitting so far away in Florida. I waited a few hours without hearing anything from those in authority. I went ahead and posted on my blog, but indicated that there might be a difference of opinion about who did what when.

The tweets grew over the course of the afternoon. The Occupiers were regrouping and planning to take back the area. There were various broadcasts of what was going on around the City. I didn't watch a single mainstream news report. Instead, I relied on citizen tweets linking me to disturbing videos of their fellow citizens being attacked by police. I was appalled.

But others were watching the live feeds from the likes of ABC and CBS. Lili Loofbourow, a writer living in Oakland, wrote of her experience:

... When the ABC livefeed went down, everyone watching switched. Then the CBS feed turned into a picture of the Capitol. To sum up: the only two mainstream media live-feeds switched off at precisely the same instant—the minute before fifteen police departments working together engulfed a peaceful group of protesters in tear gas.

That crucial minute, when the media (whether by accident or in compliance with police orders) enabled the police to tear-gas peaceful American citizens untelevised...

Ms. Loofbourow is very engaging in her first-person account of how she found herself sitting with a group of adults in Occupy Oakland seriously debating policy as if their decision made a difference.

I surmise that there were news helicopters hovering, waiting for a story, and then when the story came ... a deafening silence. Ms. Loofbourow's account looks like censorship. I don't tend to harbor conspiracy theories, but, I am unnerved at the precision with which this story did not break.

Until today, I did not understand Twitter's role in the news business. Now I know that it is an excellent tool to monitor and deliver news. And in the face of censorship, it may work better than the corporate media.

Sources: The AWL

New Revenue Stream For Local Police Departments?

Entrepreneurs are bursting with ideas on how to monetize Occupy Wall Street. A New York couple is trying to trademark the phrase Occupy Wall St. with the intent of selling t-shirts and other merchandise. It's not quite as bad as it sounds. Robert Maresca says that he'd sell the trademark to Occupy Wall Street for just $1 plus expenses. Andy Borowitz captures the irony with a humorous Letter from Goldman Sachs. "... At Goldman, we recognize that the capitalist system as we know it is circling the drain – but there’s plenty of money to be made on the way down. ... ".
But my favorite are the police departments around the country. There is money to be made enforcing petty laws with large fines. Starting October 21, the Fort Myers Police Department began issuing citations to protestors for occupying Centennial Park after park hours. The first citation is $135 and the second is $250. In Tucson, Arizona, the Occupiers face a maximum $1,000 fine for violating the park closing rules. As of October 27, they had handed out over 70 citations to Occupy Tuscon protesters.  Since October 9, Cincinnati police have issued 239 citations to 91 people for violating curfew rules. So far this has amounted to almost $25,000 in fines in Cincinnati. In Des Moines, Iowa, a judge ordered those Occupiers charged with tresspassing to pay a $100 fine plus court costs, surcharges, and a $125 law enforcement initiative surcharge. How much is your city fining its Occupy protesters? In this age of budget cutting, police departments around the nation may start eyeing their local Occupiers as a cash cow.

Sources: CNN, Borowitz Report, WBBH-TV via msnbc.com, fox11az.com, Cincinnati.com, KCCI Des Moines,

1:23AM Eastern Time: Sarasota in Solidarity with Oakland

12 noon UPDATE. As reported by news outlets all over the country, the original teardown of Occupy Oakland on Tuesday was followed by an even more violent police crackdown against returning protesters. Jon Stewart made comedy based on the reaction from the Oakland Police. Then Wednesday night, Occupy Oakland protestors tore down the fences that had been erected to keep them out of Frank Ogawa Plaza. They held a general assembly of approximately 2,000 people. No police arrived on the scene. The Occupiers peacefully voted to hold a general strike on November 2nd. And late Wednesday night, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan reportedly issued a statement of concern for those who were injured and support for the Movement going forward. I am only able to find one source for this - a blog post from Aimee Allison reporting this for the San Francisco Chronicle - but it warms my heart. Even if it is entirely fabricated, this is exactly what the Mayor should say and do. There's still time.

A Tale of Two Occupied Cities

Two Occupied Cities have responded very differently to their protesters.

Occupy Albany (New York) is camped out in a park across from the Capitol and City Hall. The park is composed of City land and State land. As reported by the Times Union, on Friday evening, with pressure from Governor Cuomo, Albany's Mayor Jennings directed the Albany police chief to enforce Albany's curfew law on the City land. For his part, the Albany police chief issued this memo to his officers, "At this time I have no intention of assigning officers to monitor, watch, videotape or influence any behavior that is conducted by our citizens peacefully demonstrating in Academy Park." A State Police Civil Disturbance unit had also been called to the scene. Between the two enforcement units, NO arrests were made, despite political pressure from above.

Occupy Oakland (California) had been camped out in front of City Hall for about two weeks. According to a Mercury News report, several City officials had originally supported the protest and even joined in. This morning, hundreds of police decked out in riot gear, came to dismantle the peaceful camp. Estimates vary quite a bit, but apparently, when the police arrived, there were more police officers than protesters. The police used tear gas and bean bag bullets against the crowd. Some from the crowd threw things at the police. There will probably be a difference of opinion on who did what first.

The police let many protesters out of the area, and then arrested about eight-five people. Some were held on as much as $7500 bail. Overall, this police action was a show of force.

How will this play out over the next few days? Here's my prediction. The Oakland police have just invited an influx of Occupiers - new and returning - as well as a lot more interest from the media. The Albany police will have relatively little media coverage as well as a much more cooperative and productive relationship with the protesters.

J.P. Dobrin of San Francisco took some beautiful photos of the dismantling of Occupy Oakland.

Campaign Reform: A (Partial) Solution

It is overwhelming to review the data and analysis provided by others concerning the influence of big money in politics. The fun part is coming up with solutions. Campaign spending limits are at the top of many such discussions. But this got me to thinking about the benefits of political campaigns. Are there any? It's a bit extreme, but I would like to see a list of candidates, their resumes, a short video, and their detailed position papers rather than have to witness the mudslinging of a political campaign. Is there anyone who believes that the $3.6 billion spent for the 2010 midterm federal elections was money well spent? So, why bother putting a limit on campaign spending? Just make it illegal. End of discussion. Figuring that someone else has probably worked this out already, I perused the internet and found the Get Money Out Foundation. They are considering trying to pass the following constitutional amendment -

No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office.

Of course, that's not really the end of the discussion. It would be a giant step. But, what role would media play? We would still have free speech. If the major media could broadcast their opinions and choose which facts to report and which not to report, then we'd simply be ushering in the Era of Big Media.

Perhaps the root of the problem is simple demographics. We are a country of almost 300 million people, many of whom actually vote. It takes Big Money to win over such a Big Population. And it's a high stakes game.

Campaign Reform: The Problem

There's been a strong link between money and politics in the United States since we started holding elections. Bill Moyers gave the keynote at Public Citizen's 40th anniversary gala. He shared sentiments from 120 years ago that are currently echoing at Occupy Wall Street with uncanny precision -

During the great prairie revolt that swept the plains a century after the Constitution was ratified, the populist orator Mary Elizabeth Lease explained “Wall Street owns the country. Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The parties lie to us, and the political speakers mislead us,” because, she said, “money rules.”

That was 1890. And those agrarian populists were boiling over with anger that the corporations, banks and government were conniving to deprive everyday people of their livelihood.

Precise echoes of this sentiment are at the heart of the Occupy Movement.

Twenty-two months ago, in the Citizens United case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend as much as they want to influence elections. “The Story of Citizens United v. FEC” is an animation by Annie Leonard from The Story of Stuff. In it, she explains why elections shouldn’t be for sale to corporations.

The Citizen's United decision has unleashed a torrent of corporate political contributions. Public Citizen sends me emails every week that start off with statistics documenting the corruption that we call campaign finance. From October 29, 2010 -

• 149: Number of independent groups that have spent money to influence this year’s elections (according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports through Oct. 25)
• $176.1 million: Amount those groups have spent on the midterms
• 10: Number of groups responsible for the bulk of that spending
• 59.9 percent: The percentage of that money that comes from undisclosed sources

Here's a stunner from January 28, 2011 -

• $5.6 million: The amount House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) received in corporate-linked donations during the 2010 midterm campaign
• 40 percent: The increase in corporate donations Cantor received between 2008 and 2010
• $1.2 million: The amount Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the new head of the financial services committee, received from banking interests in the midterms. Bachus wants to undo financial reform.
• $400,000: The amount Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), new chair of the energy and commerce committee, took from energy and mining industries
• 50 percent: The increase in donations to Upton from energy and mining interests between 2008 and 2010

From 8/29/2011, the congressional super committe is already bought and paid for -

• 12: The number of lawmakers that make up the bipartisan “super committee” created under the debt ceiling deal
• $64.6 million: The amount that super committee members received in campaign contributions from special interests over the past decade
• More than 100: Number of staffers for super committee members who have moved on to lobbying shops

The Center for Responsive Politics website provides a wealth of such statistics.