Entrepreneur Ben Cohen Sets Ed Schultz Straight On Hillary Clinton’s Weak Amendment Idea

On The Ed Show corporate entrepreneur Ben Cohen gave a great evaluation of Hillary Clinton’s weak suggestion to separate corporation and state. The video below on MSNBC even calls Hillary Clinton’s remarks on the possible need for a constitutional amendment as “strong words”. Yeah right.

But Entrepreneur and co-founder of the ice cream chain “Ben and Jerry’s” set Ed Schultz straight that this was a weak suggestion! I really have to applaude Ben Cohen. The most important remarks come after the 1:30 miniute mark if you want to scroll forward. By the way the commercial is from MSNBC not this blogger.

Ben Cohen in effect stated:

Hillary Clinton’s proposal is disingenuous because it only deals with dark money. Even the visible money is going unchallenged and undermining our democratic processes! Furthermore Mr. Cohen states we need a real amendment to declare money is NOT free speech else rich people will continue to buy out politicians.

No one has picked up on this and as a Progressive I give this businessman  great credit. Ed Schultz thought Hillary finally saw the light but Ben Cohen set him straight.

You can see Ed Schultz is at a loss of words as he was ready to fall all over his new “glitter tinsel object” Hillary Clinton as he did in prior years over Barrack Obama.

Kudos To Ben Cohen And His Ice Cream Chain

Just to give you some background on Ben Cohen and his Ice Cream chain that he co-founded.

He asked Congress to NOT give tax breaks to the rich even though he is rich.

His chain supported Gay marriage and the end to discrimination.

I am not against the rich. I am support those who make real products and services that make our world better.

I wish Ben Cohen continued wealth and even MORE prosperity!

I am not being paid for this. But if you like ice cream why not buy it from his chain. You can click on the link to find a store near you. Good work Mr. Cohen you alerted us to a fact that even Ed Schultz did not realize.

As a Progressive I have constantly critizied Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton for playing “make believe liberal” inside the corporate sandbox of their rich donors.

Does this mean they are the same as Republicans?

No but in a sense Republicans are better since they are out of the closet and some may even honestly believe what they preach. Some Republicans may not alter their views due to corporate financing since they already hold corporate friendly views.

The problem is corporate financing alters the election process since it slants elections to politicians who may honestly favor them or who will be purchased. Organized money creates a “filter” whereby politicians must be in effect “certified” by a patrician sponsorship.

Now the question is what about Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

I hopefully believe they at least started off as Progressives. But I concede they are defeatists and sellouts. They realize organized money is powerful and in order to wage a political campaign it is far better to have some big donors. Thus they actually may advance some aspects of the Progressive Agenda as long as it does not go outside the “safe boundary” of the sandbox set by their sponsors.

But it is worse that that.

Don’t Worry About Gay Marriage Worry About The Marriage Of Corporation And State

The problem with organized money and Democrats is:

  1. Not only does it cool their progressive zeal it also makes Democrats sponsor the corporate agenda. Examples are Bill Clinton with NAFTA and Barrack Obama’s appointment of corporate friendly cabinet members. Thus it not only restricts their liberal impulses, if they have any left, but it actually makes them active for the corporate agenda.
  2. Investigations into corporate destruction of our society are not investigated. Banksters got away free and they got bailed out.
  3. The corporate power’s hold on our society is not challenged. It was bad enough before Obama took office but now with two corporate friendly Supreme Court decisions we need decisive action. Where is Barrack Obama? “MEOW”. Where is Hillary Clinton?
  4. This marriage of organized money and Democrats is worse than the corporate sponsorship of Republicans. Why? Because our young, who came out in 2008 are now becoming disillusioned. Exactly what the corporations want. I thank God in 2012 I did NOT vote for Obama but instead I voted Green. The problem is many voters will now become infected with Obama induced Trickle down testosterone deficiency syndrome and not vote at all! This is why we first lost the House and next the Senate.
  5. Democrats will not up the rhetoric for fear of losing their patrician sponsorship. Obama and Hillary Clinton are no FDR!

The marriage of corporate power to the state is going unchallenged!

Obama made a few speeches against it yet would never commit to going around the nation barnstorming for a constitutional amendment to separate corporation and state.

If Hillary Clinton wants to show she has reformed here are some ideas:

  1. Oppose TPP and Fast Track
  2. Support Fast Track for CARD CHECK to bring back our unions and organize even white collar workers.
  3. Repeal NAFTA and H1-b. Support American blue and white collar job holders.
  4. Raise the tariff and support economic patriotism.
  5. Go on an aggressive campaign to pass a real constitutional amendment that would ban corporate contributions and set limits on individual contributions. As part of the amendment we could create a corporate tax to create a pool that would finance elections by a ratio to small individual contributions.
  6. Outlaw one dollar = one vote!

But Hillary Clinton will not do this! If Elizabeth Warren wants to stay in the Senate then we have but one choice!