Tents at State House don’t merit emergency regs

Gov. Nikki Haley placed an “Emergency Regulation” on the Budget and Control Board’s Dec. 20 agenda in an effort to prohibit camping on the State House grounds. She will argue that camping on the lawn is an “imminent peril to public health, safety and or welfare.”

“While camping out at the State House may not be a constitutional right, the governor is going about changing the regulations in a wrong and dangerous way,” said Brett Bursey, director of the SC Progressive Network.

Occupy Columbia protester works on his sign Dec. 18 at State House.

The governor is proposing to use the emergency regulations clause to bypass the laws  (1-23-120) that require public notification, public hearings and legislative consideration for new regulations. The emergency regulations allow a state agency to have regulations approved immediately upon filing with the state Legislative Council. There is no public notice, no hearing and no legislative review of Emergency regulations.

“One would anticipate such an extreme measure to apply to plagues and natural disasters, not to tents on the State House grounds,” Bursey said.

Past emergency regulations have only been enacted by DHEC  for imminent health threats to a community, or considered by the Department of Public Safety during a hurricane evacuation.

“We have an established constitutional process to make new regulations that mandates notice and public hearings,” Bursey said. “Through this process people may decide that ‘free speech camping’ is not allowed on state property, but neither the governor nor the Budget and Control board has that emergency authority. If the emergency regulation can be used in this fashion, there would be nothing to prevent the Department of Agriculture from suspending immigration laws to prevent the ‘imminent peril’ of peaches rotting in the fields as a threat to public welfare, or SLED from declaring union pickets a threat to public safety.”

It’s clear that the governor is more concerned with appearances and politics than with our state’s laws. “She doesn’t want tents on the State House lawn when the legislature returns in January or during the Republican presidential primary Jan. 28. While the governor may find tents on the lawn tacky, they hardly constitute an imminent peril to public welfare. One could argue that the imminent peril is that our democracy has been occupied by monied interests, and the tents on her lawn are a legitimate response.”

The SC Progressive Network suggests that the Budget and Control Board move on to part (B) of the governor’s request, which is to draft regulations for the use of the State House grounds through the established process.

The federal court admonished the state at a Dec. 14 hearing that the GROW v. Campbell decision of 1989 required the state to establish regulations regarding First Amendment expression on state property. Those rules were never codified. (GROW had permission to put a sign on the State House grounds opposing sending the SC National Guard to Central America, at a time when federal troops were banned. The rules were changed – the day the sign was to go up – to prohibit all signs. The court issued a directed verdict of guilty against the state and governor for changing the rules in order to violate GROW’s First Amendment rights. Part of the settlement was the promulgation of new rules.)

Bursey was director of the Grass Roots Organizing Workshop (GROW) when the organization successfully sued Gov. Carroll Campbell over his suppression of free speech on the State House grounds. In  1994 GROW organized the founding of the SC Progressive Network.

“For the past 22 years there has been an operative policy that you don’t need permission to exercise free speech on state property,”  Bursey said. “With Occupy Columbia challenging the governor’s sense of decorum, it looks like we need to put the policy in writing.”

Perk up the economy

By Hoyt Wheeler
Columbia, SC

Why Occupy Columbia? In short, because trickle- down economics has it all wrong. Instead of an economic system in which wealth drips down from the wealthy to everyone else, we should have one in which wealth in the lower reaches of the economy percolates up to enrich the entire economy. Increased demand for goods from millions of American consumers can come only from increased consumer confidence. Increased confidence can come only from higher wages, greater security in old age, and a lack of fear of financial devastation from health problems.

It is the failure of trickle-down economics, along with the failure to sufficiently regulate the financial manipulations of Wall Street, that have prompted the Occupy movement.

The problems in the American economy are not difficult to see. The average American worker’s pay, after inflation, has been essentially flat since 1980, in spite of the economy doubling in size. The unemployment rate hangs stubbornly high at around 9%. The national poverty rate in 2010 was 15.3%, up from 14.3% in 2009, and 46.2 million Americans were living in poverty, up from 42.9 million. Families with young children have a 37% poverty rate, the highest number on record.

In contrast to the situation of the vast majority of Americans, the wealthiest among us are doing quite well. The wealthy are richer than ever, taking home the largest slice of wealth and income in the last 75 years (over 40%), and paying the lowest rate of taxes in 30 years. CEO salaries went up an average of 23% between 2009 and 2010, compared to an increase of 0.5% for the average employee. It is clear that the rich are getting richer. Wealth has become highly concentrated. What is especially offensive is that the fat cat denizens of Wall Street, whose irresponsible behavior is chiefly responsible for a massive financial crisis, have been bailed out with our tax money. For more facts underlying the current protests, see businessinsider.com.

So, what is to be done? The answer of the Republicans and conservative economists is to let the market work its magic. The fact that the market often produces disastrous results for the majority of our citizens is of no consequence, since it is believed with religious fervor that any attempt to interfere with its sacred “invisible hand” will only make matters worse. The historical record reveals, however, that unfettered and unregulated markets have a disagreeable tendency to have periodic crises that produce great suffering by the general public.

Assuming that we can adopt policies to alleviate the unfortunate effects of our economic system, what might these policies be? Obviously, it would help to increase the demand for labor. But labor demand is derived from the demand for its products. To achieve greater demand for products means putting greater financial resources into the hands of consumers, and their having willingness to spend them. Cutting taxes is always a popular method of doing this, but it involves cutting services that are more needed in times of economic distress, and are also needed to have long term prosperity. Cuts in education are a classic example of this.

Fortunately, the money is available. The huge hoards of cash being held by U.S. companies need to be placed in circulation for the economy to recover. There is currently a record $1 trillion squirreled away by corporations. If this large stash of funds were put in circulation, especially in the form of wages, it would stimulate the economy as well as make for better lives for millions of workers.

During the Great Depression the U.S. government adopted a number of policies that had the purpose of increasing demand for products and therefore increasing the demand for labor. In the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, Congress declared that: “The inequality of bargaining power between employees who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and employers who are organized in the corporate or other forms of ownership association… tends to aggravate recurrent business depressions, by depressing wage rates and the purchasing power of wage earners in industry… It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to…encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining….” Unionized workers earn higher wages, have better health insurance and better pensions. Yet, this purpose has been frustrated in recent years by the lack of teeth in the law and the inability to strengthen it to respond to modern conditions. To the contrary, at present the National Labor Relations Board, which administers this law, is under vigorous attack by the political servants of American capital.

The enormous political power of Wall Street prevented the adoption of sensible reforms in the financial system, such as the “Volker Plan” that would have separated traditional banking and speculative financial activity. This should be changed. There are a number of changes in the tax code that would make for a more equitable system as well as produce needed revenue. A small tax on financial transactions is only one of these.

It should not be surprising that on New York’s Wall Street, and in Columbia, and a number of cities across the country, Americans are taking to the streets. The people are finding their voice.

Hoyt Wheeler is Distinguished Professor of Management Emeritus, Moore School of Business, University of South Carolina. His publications include The Future of the American Labor Movement and Industrial Conflict: An Integrative Theory. He is a Co-Chair of the SC Progressive Network. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Moore School of Business, the University of South Carolina or the SC Progressive Network.

Citizens united win in South Carolina!

In case you missed it, here are video clips and photos of the SC Progressive Network‘s support of the Occupy Columbia movement. For the most current Network news and events, join us on Facebook.

Occupy Columbia protesters defy Gov. Haley’s orders to leave State House grounds at 6pm.

SC Progressive Network issues call for citizens to challenge Gov. Haley’s order. Some 300 people showed up for a spirited rally at the State House. Nobody was arrested. Big night for free speech in South Carolina.

SC Progressive Network Director declares victory with Rep. Gilda Cobb-Hunter, the only legislator to risk arrest in defense of the First Amendment.

Photos of Gov. Nikki Haley’s press conference Nov. 16 announcing the eviction of the Occupy Columbia protesters, and the arrest of 19 two hours later.

Photos of a rally organized by the SC Progressive Network Nov. 21 challenging Gov. Haley’s orders.

Citizens United to Challenge Gov. Haley’s Order

The SC Progressive Network is asking South Carolina citizens to gather at the State House on Monday, Nov. 21, to challenge Gov. Nikki Haley’s order against protesting on the grounds after 6pm.

“We are urging citizens who believe that our First Amendment right to petition our government doesn’t end at sunset to join us at the State House from 6 to 7pm on Monday,” said Network Director Brett Bursey. “We will peacefully protest on the grounds, and are inviting legislators to join us in taking a stand for free speech in South Carolina.”

Gov. Nikki Haley orders protesters off the State House grounds at a Nov. 16 press conference. Two hours later, 19 Occupy Columbia activists are arrested.

The Network is a 16-year-old statewide coalition of advocacy organizations and grassroots activists that promotes democratic reforms, including reducing the influence of money in politics. “We do not believe that money is free speech, that corporations are people, or that the Occupy Wall Street protests don’t have a clear message,” Bursey said.

Network Co-chair Virginia Sanders said the the prohibition against protesting after 6pm reminds her of Columbia’s old Jim Crow practice of running the last bus to the black communities before dark. “The governor is saying that if I work until 5pm, my opportunity to protest her decisions will last about 15 minutes,” Sanders said.

Sanders’ remembers 1961, when 187 black students were arrested for protesting racial segregation on the State House grounds. The US Supreme Court threw out the conviction, ordering that the state could not “make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views.”

Participants in Monday’s protest will not be arrested unless they refuse to leave after being ordered to do so by the Bureau of Protective Services.

Neither the Governor’s Office, the Dept. of Public Saftey or the Bureau responded to repeated requests Friday for clarification of the new limits on First Amendment expression on the State House grounds. “It’s my guess that they don’t have a clue how to enforce an illegal order,” Bursey said.

“If I can’t stand on the State House grounds with a sign that expresses my opinion about how our democracy has been hijacked by corporate interests, I’d rather be in jail,” he said.