We often hear U.S. politicians talking about the universal value of democracy; most often in respect to nations other than our own. But at home, we suffer certain setbacks. Most notably in the SCOTUS' ruling that campaign contributions are a form of speech in Buckley v. Valeo. This country would be vastly different had that ruling gone a different way. It was really a defining moment, considering how hard it is to amend the Constitution; especially when it comes to an issue such as campaign contributions. Now, with Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, things could go even further in the that direction, ushering in a truly precarious time for the world's foremost democracies.

The language of the Constitution is an obstacle. What will unlimited campaign contributions bring? Corporations represent -- by virtue of their wealth -- citizens with weighted votes. Equal suffrage is eliminated when money buys influence, and we really cease to be a democracy. The people no longer have the power. In theory we do, but in theory alone.

Maybe right now we don't realize how good we have it. On the state and local level, it's commonplace for voters to never see an ad or a sign supporting a certain viewpoint when it comes to initiatives and referendums. They enter the polling booth totally unjeopardized; totally neutral to the proposition. Then, they read the language (sometimes multiple times, considering how convoluted the wording can be) and make a decision. That truly is democracy.

The only problem is the wording, which, in most cases, is formulated by the party advocating for the proposition. And often this neutrality of mind is not preserved until the voter enters the booth. Spending for or against is high and one never knows just who has contributed and how much. There is an effort underway in Washington state to release the names of the signers of the petition to push for Referendum 71. Transparency is important but so is privacy. We must find a balance.

The National Initiative for Democracy does just that. It outlaws the use of funds from non-natural persons and outlaws non-natural persons from sponsoring initiatives, in addition to creating third party councils of citizens to formulate the wording for propositions.

Something like the NI4D could really turn the tide when it comes to the chipping away of our democratic liberty in the U.S. and return sovereignty to the American people. It's an effort spearheaded by former Democratic Senator and recent presidential candidate Mike Gravel (click here to see a message from the Senator).

We're making a documentary about the effort and we'd like your support. Like public radio or public television, this movie is funded by everyday people such as yourselves. This insures neutrality and integrity. We hope you'll visit our website and make a pledge. None of us know how much longer we'll have the freedoms we have today. We have to use this opportunity to advocate for more. As Mike says, freedom is defined as "participation in power". So we all need to ask ourselves what freedom really looks like.

Is public policy the general will of the people? Or is it the will of special interests?

We often hear U.S. politicians talking about the universal value of democracy; most often in respect to nations other than our own. But at home, we suffer certain setbacks. Most notably in the SCOTUS' ruling that campaign contributions are a form of speech in Buckley v. Valeo. This country would be vastly different had that ruling gone a different way. It was really a defining moment, considering how hard it is to amend the Constitution; especially when it comes to an issue such as campaign contributions. Now, with Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, things could go even further in the that direction, ushering in a truly precarious time for the world's foremost democracies.

The language of the Constitution is an obstacle. What will unlimited campaign contributions bring? Corporations represent -- by virtue of their wealth -- citizens with weighted votes. Equal suffrage is eliminated when money buys influence, and we really cease to be a democracy. The people no longer have the power. In theory we do, but in theory alone.

Maybe right now we don't realize how good we have it. On the state and local level, it's commonplace for voters to never see an ad or a sign supporting a certain viewpoint when it comes to initiatives and referendums. They enter the polling booth totally unjeopardized; totally neutral to the proposition. Then, they read the language (sometimes multiple times, considering how convoluted the wording can be) and make a decision. That truly is democracy.

The only problem is the wording, which, in most cases, is formulated by the party advocating for the proposition. And often this neutrality of mind is not preserved until the voter enters the booth. Spending for or against is high and one never knows just who has contributed and how much. There is an effort underway in Washington state to release the names of the signers of the petition to push for Referendum 71. Transparency is important but so is privacy. We must find a balance.

The National Initiative for Democracy does just that. It outlaws the use of funds from non-natural persons and outlaws non-natural persons from sponsoring initiatives, in addition to creating third party councils of citizens to formulate the wording for propositions.

Something like the NI4D could really turn the tide when it comes to the chipping away of our democratic liberty in the U.S. and return sovereignty to the American people. It's an effort spearheaded by former Democratic Senator and recent presidential candidate Mike Gravel (click here to see a message from the Senator).

We're making a documentary about the effort and we'd like your support. Like public radio or public television, this movie is funded by everyday people such as yourselves. This insures neutrality and integrity. We hope you'll visit our website and make a pledge. None of us know how much longer we'll have the freedoms we have today. We have to use this opportunity to advocate for more. As Mike says, freedom is defined as "participation in power". So we all need to ask ourselves what freedom really looks like.

Is public policy the general will of the people? Or is it the will of special interests?