Political movements and campaigns are often defined by one-line statements or slogans. While this is a remarkably effective marketing tool, it rarely reflects the nuanced opinion of a single person, let alone an entire political party. Unfortunately in today’s political arena, a candidate, party, or faction that is unable to articulate their message in 30 seconds or less is unlikely to succeed. Recently, one group has bucked this trend to come together for the sole purpose of opposing the status quo.
Almost one month ago, 1,000 people from all walks of life filed into New York City’s financial district to protest government corruption and the disproportionate political influence of corporations and wealthy individuals. Unlike most protests, many protesters (originally organized by Canadian activist group, Adbusters) did not disperse after making themselves heard. Instead, they took up residence in Zucotti Park (originally named Liberty Plaza Park), and began to literally occupy Wall Street. While New York law prohibits them from setting up tents, people have built cardboard structures to sleep in or have simply slept on a sleeping pad. Each day since their arrival the occupants call a general assembly to discuss safety and the underlying themes of the protests.
The Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York City, but have spread to nearly 80 cities around the United States, with each group of protesters “occupying” a space near a financial or political center. (Full disclosure: My sister is an active participant of the Occupy LA movement) These gatherings have generally been peaceful, and the police have intervened and detained individuals in just a handful of situations, and only one mass arrest has been necessary during a march on the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.
Media coverage of the protests was limited during the first weeks of the protest, but recently, amidst allegations that the media was purposefully ignoring the protests, various news outlets have begun to interview protesters and discuss the movement with elected officials. Here on the LexBlog Network, the discussion ranges from confusion to an analysis of First Amendment rights. We’ll start things off with a piece from James Saska of Fox Rothschild on the firm’s Securities Compliance Sentinel blog about the implications the protests could have on businesses:
“Noticeably and not-unexpectedly, few of the news reports I have read quote either Tea Party members or Wall Street Occupiers waxing philosophical on the latest rules and regulations emerging from the Dodd-Frank act. While corporations, the SEC, the CFTC and others discuss how to implement what many call the most sweeping financial reforms since 1934, a large and diverse public does not seem satisfied. Can we expect further legislation in the build up to the 2012 elections?
…..
Robust recovery appears to be over a year away. A suddenly re-energized left, with elements of Ron Paul libertarianism thrown in, combined with a mobilized Tea Party could cause some havoc if they can inspire Congress to channel this incoherent anger. More likely, however, is even more partisan gridlock, at least until November 2012. Either way, the yawning disconnect between policy makers and the public continues to grow without signs of abating anytime soon, and that will make it even harder for businesses already mired in economic uncertainty.”
Big businesses continue to give protesters ammunition, as William McGrath, a partner with Porter Wright, points out on the firm’s Federal Securities Law Blog with a post on “illicit” payments made by Koch Industries Inc.:
“A report on Monday, October 3 from Bloomberg Markets Magazine detailed a years-long scheme by Koch Industries, Inc. to make improper payments to win contracts in six countries – payments which the company admitted “constitute violations of criminal law.” The article states that the Justice Department would not confirm or deny the existence of any investigation into the activities, but such an investigation seems likely given the articles description of events that may violate the FCPA or the laws regarding the Iran Trade Embargo.
…….
Because it is privately held, the shares of Koch Industries are not traded on Wall Street. The “Occupy Wall Street” movement (whose protests resulted in 700 arrests at the Brooklyn Bridge on Saturday and are supposed to extend to Washington, DC on Thursday, according to the Washington Post) may have a new target. As the Washington Post article stated: “[t]he primary theme [of the protests] is that corporate capitalists, backed by corrupt politicians, have tipped the balance of the economic system too far in favor of the powerful, thus condemning the regular guy to a sea of debt and little opportunity.” According to the Huffington Post, protests have been planned for the Koch Industries headquarters by the “Occupy DC” movement this week.”
Although coverage from the larger media outlets has been somewhat lacking, the story is gaining momentum. Paul Krugman of the New York Times penned this op-ed piece on the potential social impact of the protests:
“The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is. Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.
And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.” But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”
and Kate Linthicum of the Los Angeles Times watched as a group of LA City Council members toured the Occupy LA movement’s encampment outside City Hall:
“In the middle of Tuesday’s Los Angeles City Council meeting, where the most scintillating item on the agenda was a proposal to increase ticket prices at the L.A. Zoo, a speaker stood up and told lawmakers they were ignoring an obvious fact: “You are surrounded by tents.”
He was referring to the large group of protesters camped a few hundred feet away, on a lawn outside City Hall. The group, which calls itself Occupy LA, has been there since Saturday in a demonstration against economic policies that benefit corporations and the wealthiest Americans. They say they may stay until Christmas.
The speaker, local political gadfly John Walsh, invited the council members to tour the tent city outside. So when the meeting adjourned, several of them did.”
Back on the LexBlog Network, Steve Honig, author of The Law & Other Anomalies, has written an introspective piece on his feelings about the Occupy Wall Street protests:
“When I was an up-and-coming lawyer I moved my young family to the top of Belmont Hill, a pretty fancy address with big lawns and big mortgages. It was then that I started to have “the nightmare” that sometimes even woke me: hoards of protesters, angry that people like me had so much wealth when times were hard (as times are always hard for many) finally did what Americans never did: the rose in true mass social protest and marched up my street and broke into my house and took my stuff and burned my fancy valuables and moved into my basement (a la Dr. Zhivago).
The “nightmare” faded; since then I have lived in a series of nice places and not once did the unwashed masses parade down my street.
Today is my first day back in the office from an extended business trip, and as I glance out of my elegant office I look down on Dewey Square, an open area in front of the Boston Federal Reserve Bank. And what do I see? Dozens and dozens of tents, of people camped out protesting corporate greed. Not so large a showing as in New York City (where last Friday my cab driver had to take a detour to get me where I was going at the Battery) but a lot of people”
Lastly, Maxwell Kennerly put together an excellent post on his blog, Litigation & Trial, analyzing the First Amendment rights of the protesters, and if they’re within those rights:
“Perhaps the most interesting case I saw was Frantz v. Gress, 520 F. Supp. 2d 677 (E.D. Pa. 2007), in which an individual handing out religious leaflets on a sidewalk was arrested for violating 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 5507, a Pennsylvania statute which says “[a] person, who, having no legal privilege to do so, intentionally or recklessly obstructs any highway . . . or public utility right-of-way, sidewalk . . . [or] other public passage, whether alone or with others, commits a summary offense, or, in case he persists after warning by a law officer, a misdemeanor of the third degree.”
Bet you didn’t know recklessly obstructing a sidewalk was a misdemeanor, did you? I’m betting that’s the same law that will be cited against the Philadelphia City Hall protestors: by sleeping and setting up camps in City Hall, they’re obstructing a “public passage.”
The Frantz case eventually proceeded to a non-jury trial in which Frantz lost his claims, a judgment later affirmed by the Third Circuit. But that’s because of the facts of the case, because “the officers’ orders that Frantz move closer to the curb burdened his speech no more than was necessary.”
And so we come full circle; the question at City Hall truly is if the judges reviewing the eventual case believe the protestors’ speech was “burdened no more than necessary” by the Philadelphia Police Department. This discretion is why federal judicial appointments matter so much.”
It’s interesting to read these articles on protests that are sweeping the nation from the eyes of attorneys who have intimate knowledge of the “system” these protesters find so deplorable. Surprising or not, each of the posts I read were tinged with sympathy for the protesters, and a genuine feeling they understood the frustration and anger of so many people. The longevity and staying power of this movement remains unseen and, to a degree, untested, but the spotlight is growing and the passion is clearly there. Many pundits are likening these protests to the Tea Party, and it may be that Occupy Wall Street will spawn a political faction of its own. Whatever the outcome, people are beginning to take notice of this movement, and beginning to understand it.