Tuesday night Carrie Solages was all smiles at the Nassau County Democratic Headquarters Victory Party. As he thanked his supporters and family, he was exuberant and gracious. And he had every right to be. He had done something that Nassau Democrats had been trying to do for years with little luck – he unseated 16 year incumbent Republican Legislator John Ciotti, and as a person familiar with the history of the district, believe me when I say it was a truly Sisyphean victory.

The district is majority Democratic, but John Ciotti is popular in the community and for various reasons Democratic voters do not turn in as high numbers as Republicans do in the odd year elections when the county legislators are elected. However, there is more at play than a simple lack of enthusiasm. The Nassau County Republicans are notorious for their intimidation of Democratic voters, especially people of color, as I have written about previously. The difference is that this year, Solages campaign was able to capture this intimidation and racism on film.

Solages win is symbolic of so many things – a grassroots victory over an entrenched political machine, the power of the internet and ubiquity of digital cameras to influence a large number of people quickly, a community standing up and fighting back against racism, and also proof that sometimes – the good guy does win. Sometimes, justice is served, and the person standing up to the bully doesn’t get trampled, but is the triumphant hero. And this year, it wasn’t merely a dream, or an inspirational story liberals tell themselves to keep their spirits high, it came true right here on Long Island.

The final lesson to learn in this happy chapter of the 2011 elections, is that the Nassau County Republicans are not unaware of how and why they lost this seat. Tuesday night, two candidates who won reelection spoke of their unwavering support for John Ciotti.

Other Republicans stood up for Ciotti even as the numbers looked grim “Ciotti ran a great race,” said fellow North Valley Streamer and Town of Hempstead Councilman Ed Ambrosino. “I don’t care what it says up here, John Ciotti is a winner each and every day.”

“John Ciotti is a man of tremendous integrity, of tremendous character,” said Nassau County Legislator Fran Becker.

What fascinates me about these quotes is that they were uttered at the exact moment they will have maximum impact in both raining on Carrie Solages victory and minimizing the damage to their own reputations. In two years, no one will remember John Ciotti’s racist tactics and so statements supporting him will be meaningless as ammunition for challengers. There will be no consequences for absurdity of these statements. That they were made at a time when they cannot be held accountable for them shows a shrewd calculation, that they are aware of the power of their words. Ambrosino and Becker did not say these things two weeks ago when Ciotti’s campaign was going down in flames, because outright support for racist and intimidating tactics would have hurt their own electoral chances. By waiting until after the polls have closed on election night proves they know it, and this is important to remember. Future dirty tricks may be more subtle or not as cinematic, but still just as underhanded as what happened in front of Solages’ campaign office this October.

Two years ago, I posted a diary over at Feministing about why I disagree with people who claim that those of us who have respect for others regardless of race, gender or sexuality can be Republicans. The idea of the Republican “big tent” is easily disproved.

The video below and the campaign that followed were a lesson to me in Republican dirty tricks. It wasn’t that I hadn’t seen mud slinging before on Long Island. I had heard Republicans use racist code words about to discredit Democrats, especially candidates who were people of color – if a person was Black, they would talk about how “the neighborhood is changing” and if the candidate was Latin@, “immigration” would suddenly become the top priority for local government. But the summer of 2009 and the time I spent on Nina Petraro Bastardi’s campaign was when I realized how much their prejudice meant to Republicans and how far they were willing to take it. I watched as the Nassau County Republican Party lost all claim to plausible deniability with regards to their bigotry. They really are burning with hatred. Listen to this man’s voice.

It doesn’t stop with screaming. One of the reasons that Ms Petraro Bastardi became a Democrat was because of explicitly racist voter suppression tactics used by the Republican party:

Nassau County Republican Board of Elections Commissioner John A. DeGrace [attempted] to reproduce and mail the bogus ACORN letter to newly registered African-American voters in the Hempstead-Uniondale district. The letter allegedly told the would-be voters not to go to the polls on Election Day, that their votes would be cast for their respective parties’ candidates.

Some blamed the outburst on anger that Ms Petraro Bastardi had left the Republican party. But this is just not true. Claims of intimidation have surfaced again, this time made by Carrie Solages, a local attorney who is running for the Nassau County Leigslature in the 3rd district against incumbent John Ciotti, the same contest Ms Petraro Bastardi attempted to win previously.

Does the man calling for “animal control” to come and take away the Black people look familiar?

John Ciotti denies that he knows Vinnie Prisco. But that’s patently false. In this followup video, it’s reported that Mr. Prisco’s mother said that he’s John Ciotti’s right hand man. In addition to the coverage by WPIX, ABC also gets the story right, putting it into context with past racism and voter suppression. NBC interviewed John Ciotti, and he insisted it was “an isolated incident” but the video from Nina Petraro Bastardi’s campaign announcement above, her statement, and statements from Patrick Nicolosi and others who have campaigned in Nassau prove otherwise.

Kudos to those who got the story right. It would be easy to let this devolve into a “he said/she said” story, but the evidence is clear – the actions of the Nassau County Republicans have been despicable and show a clear pattern of racism and voter intimidation. It’s time we started calling them out for it.

And if John Ciotti cares so much about justice, if he really was sickened by these events, then he should stop worrying about Vinny Prisco and start worrying about all of his other thugs. If Mr. Ciotti has seen the light, and really wants a fair election, then he should support Carrie Solages call for for Federal Election monitors on November 8th.

I have been following the Occupy Wall Street protests with great interests. Like many on the left, at first I wasn’t sure what I thought – but every day that they stayed, I was more captivated. I haven’t been there in person yet. Most of my free time in these past few months has been spent volunteering for a campaign for a local election on Long Island. I would like to visit after election day. But like many Americans, I worry about the threat to my day job if I were to be arrested.

Last night, I went to sleep after reading the news that Mayor Bloomberg had decided that this morning at 6AM he would force the protesters from the park, for cleaning. This was exactly how Los Indignatos were forced from their protest in Barcelona, while Adam and I were visiting in May. When the protesters tried to return, they were beaten with clubs by the police. I worried about something similar happening in New York.

This morning, however, brought good news. Mayor Bloomberg has backed down. I opened my email and revised the message I had started to write to my City Councilman, Mark Weprin last night, and sent it.

This morning I was very relieved to hear that Mayor Bloomberg decided not to remove the protesters from Zuccotti Park. I am writing this email to urge you to do everything you can to support New Yorkers’ First Amendment Rights. Our city is made great by the diversity of people who live here, and that includes differences in politics. I am proud to live in a place where the Occupy Wall Street Protests are taking place, and where the right to peaceful protest is respected by the government.

I sent a similar email to Mayor Bloomberg, and included a reference to his inspiring speech defending Park 51 last year where he claimed to champion diversity and freedom. Here’s hoping he will continue to be that Mayor and not the misguided one he was last night.

Amanda wrote about her incredulity that we are still having an argument about whether or not government should exist. As my recent long discussion with some internet libertarians* about the legitimacy of government is winding down, I know very well how much this debate can feel like smashing your forehead into a brick wall.

What I got out of the discussion is that even though libertarians admit that the government does lots of good things that improve people’s lives, they insist they have deeply principled moral objections to the idea of a government that has the power to put people in jail.

It’s similar to what can be observed of pro-lifers – they present themselves as just loving babies but what they really want is to control everyone else’s sex life. Libertarians claim they just love freedom but in the end they are just sullenly complaining that a any authority exists above themselves, no matter how pragmatic or democratic it is.

This prioritizing of one’s own smug self assurance of the moral high ground at the expense of every other person in the country is in no way superior to those who accept the legitimacy of the state to exist. It ignores and demeans all of the work put into our country (and others) by elected representatives and civil servants throughout history. It disgraces the memories of the people who died for the right to self-government. It leads to the questioning of a person’s touch with reality.

A person who denies the need for a government, denies the existence of the commons problem, which has been a subject for philosophers since the days of Aristotle. The solutions that they do offer have no rigor that would stand up to a competent policy analysis and no explanation of how they would be achieved aside from fiat.

Because I support the idea of a democratic republic like the United States, I was called “an authoritarian.” I reject this label outright. I am a liberal. There is a large middle ground between Authoritarian tyranny and Seasteading Solipsism. The argument that there is not goes like this: in a Democracy, some people will not vote for various reasons, and others who vote will not have their candidate or proposition win a majority. Therefore, those people will not get there way. Thus, they are oppressed. That every single person cannot get their way at all times, is not oppression. I do not see a difference between the communal solutions they propose and efforts already being made at a local level by small communities. Even if environmentalists (or any other group) is not getting results at the federal level, policy changes are often quicker at state and local levels. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and the granting of same sex marriage rights in several states come to mind.

It was proposed that because a majority of Americans say the government operates “without the consent of the governed” that our government is illegitimate. Another commenter pointed out that the question forced people to speculate about what others think of the government, not whether the person being asked has given their consent. I would add that for the average person not interested in political philosophy the difference between whether or not you agree to the actions of the current slate of elected leaders versus whether you felt that the mere existence of the government in general was contrary to your will is probably lost.

Finally, I want to address the comparison of government to rape. Over and over in the thread, it was brought up that a person saying nothing, laying silently cannot be considered to have consented to sex. I gave this a lot of thought because on it’s face it appears to be a valid argument. But the government is not like a rapist. No one is born being raped, they way they are born a citizen of the United States. Rape is a specific action which one individual takes upon another without the victims consent, or despite her protests. The United States Government is an institution created by its citizens which, while oppressive at times, changes in response to their participation. A rapist can be identified and held responsible for his crime, similar to the way individual corrupt members of an administration may be. But the idea of the United States is not put on trial by it’s citizens in any significant way – even though they would have the power to do so by electing people into office who promised to disband it. That we continue to elect people to use the powers proscribed for them is testament to our consent.

*Some of the people defined themselves as Libertarians, others as Anarchists or Anarcho-Capitalists. As they were all arguing that the United States Government be abolished and not replaces with anything else, I am grouping them together.

Last week, I received a response from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to the letter I wrote her regarding Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and several tweets and emails I sent regarding the increasing attacks by Republicans on women’s rights – including HR3 – the so-called “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act” which has since passed the House of Representatives.

As I have written previously, this bill would:
-Tax women who purchased insurance coverage that includes abortion care
–Tax employers who provide such insurance
-Stop Medicaid (health insurance for poor people) from covering abortions for women who have been raped unless it meets the Republicans narrowed criteria of “forcible rape”
-Create “Abortion Audits” for women who had abortions, to determine the cause of the unwanted pregnancy. If the women had not reported the abortion, and if they had been pregnant for reasons other than “forcible rape” she would have to pay a tax
-Allow doctors and hospitals to refuse life saving care to a pregnant women if such care would harm or kill her fetus.

I also contacted her about the vote to defund Planned Parenthood. Although the House voted for it, the Senate voted against it.

Senator Gillibrand affirmed her pro choice position:

I hope I am correct in taking this to mean that she will vote against the No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act if there is a Senate vote on it. Where do your representatives stand?

Congressman Gary Ackerman recently sent me this response to my letter:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern regarding corporate influence in political campaigns.

The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission strengthens the power of corporate lobbyists and special interests in the political process. This misguided and overreaching decision grants corporations the same First Amendment rights as American citizens to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office and inhibits the ability of average Americans to have an impact on elections.

As a result of the Citizens United decision, American citizens will be forced to compete with corporations who can spend millions of dollars in support or in opposition to candidates for public office without breaking the bank. As a result of the Court’s decision, oil companies can threaten to spend millions to ensure the defeat of Members of Congress for supporting a clean energy bill, or corporations with foreign interests can spend millions in support of a candidate to secure a favorable trade agreement for another country. At a time when the American public increasingly questions the impact of big donors and lobbyists on the legislative process, our democracy certainly does not need to reverse the progress that has been made with regard to campaign finance reform.

In response to the Court’s decision, I introduced the Corporate Politics Transparency Act. Under my bill, publically-traded companies would be required to notify shareholders of all independent expenditures made either for or against a candidate for public office over the last six years if spending exceeds $10,000 in an election, by disclosing the spending in quarterly statements, annual reports, proxy statements, and registration statements. I am also a cosponsor of legislation that would require corporations to seek approval from a majority of shareholders before spending on politics. I firmly believe that if companies want to spend corporate funds to influence elections, their shareholders have a right to know, approve or disapprove of the spending, and have the opportunity to hold corporate management accountable for how their company is spending their money.

First Amendment Solutions Sunday is a series of posts with a quick link round up of actions you can take to exercise your First Amendment rights to help feminist, environmentalist or otherwise progressive causes.

Here are three reasons to call your Senator this week:

1. The League of Conservation Voters released its annual scorecard for Senators this week. How did your Senator do? Call to congratulate them for a job well done or urge them to do better next time

2. Congress voted to give themselves a few more months to decide what to do about the Patriot Act. It’s not too early to get yourself on the record with your Senator about opposing Civil Rights violations in the name of security theater.

3. The House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Call your Senators and tell them you stand with Planned Parenthood.

Other ways to get involved:

I was deeply disturbed by the sexual assault of Lara Logan, a reporter covering the revolution in Egypt, and the subsequent victim blaming that went on in the media. I have decided to make a donation to the women’s shelter and rape crisis center in my neighborhood. Women are victims of violence all of the world, not just when it makes international news.

Planned Parenthood New York City is having a rally this Saturday February 26th. Plan to attend here.

Finally, former Senator Russ Feingold is starting a new political action committee, Progressives United. It’s not clear yet how it will function – will it be similar to Move On or something else entirely?

Despite the surprise stalling on the renewal of the Patriot Act earlier this week, on Thursday, there were enough votes for it to proceed. You can see a list of how each member of the House of Representatives voted here.

Something I have not been blogging about but have been meaning to get into is contacting my representative after a vote and letting them know that I was pleased with their vote or that I was disappointed. I’m going to do that today. You can find out how to contact your Representative here. An email, phone call or even a tweet might be a good strategy in this case because the reaction should come soon after the vote. Contact information for Members of Congress is here.

While I’m waiting patiently for a time when we can have a discussion about reproductive justice and human trafficking without Young Republicans dressed up like pimps, I want to call attention to another video sting operation going on in the United States. Since 2009, the city of New York under Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been collecting evidence that people can buy guns illegally at gun shows around the United States. I learned about this project on The Rachel Maddow Show.

I had known that the mayor was working with other city and state governments on reducing the amount of illegal guns brought into NYC but I did not know that sting videos were being made.

I think that this project is a good idea and it’s different and from what Lila Rose and Live Action Films are doing for several reasons.

First, Mayor Bloomberg has solid evidence that these illegal guns kill people in New York City every year. Live Action Films has no such evidence that Planned Parenthood has ever aided or abetted sex traffickers. The issue of trafficking is being used to stir up outrage for the purpose of making abortion illegal and impossible to do safely.

Secondly, saying “I probably/don’t think I couldn’t pass a background check.” is deliberately vague enough that the sellers are breaking the law in not asking for a background check and yet this is not the same lying that went on in the Planned Parenthood sting videos. These actors are not saying “I am an ex-convict” for example, they are stating an opinion about their own ability to meet a standard.

Finally, Mayor Bloomberg has not named the dealers who sold the illegal guns to the public. Yes, their images and voices have been made public but there is no demonizing of them personally they are not called “murderers” or “gun runners” or “merchants of death” which they quite easily could be. They are simply part of a larger systemic problem of ignored gun laws in the Unites States. Bloomberg’s plan is to work within his network of mayors and governors to try and convince the Federal government enforce the law. Lila Rose’s goal is not for mandated reporting laws to be enforced – which in the firing of an employee, and reports to the police, FBI and US Attorney General they were. She has stated she wants to “bring down Planned Parenthood” and has no intentions to help trafficked women and children. Rose and her ilk want personal ruin for Planned Parenthood employees, and has proposed no alternative for the people who get contraceptives, care and testing for STIs and prenatal care from Planned Parenthood clinics.

If you have been following the news lately, you may have noticed a series of attacks on women’s reproductive rights. Rather than post a letter to Congress I’m writing this week – which I still encourage you to do, I’m going to list some other First Amendment Solutions you can employ to fight these attempts to restrict access to health care.

-The Republicans in Congress are sponsoring HR 3 which would make it illegal for private insurance companies to cover abortions. The “forcible rape” language has been dropped, no doubt in part due to the activism of thousands of feminists on twitter who used the #DearJohn hash tag to spread awareness of the issue. This is a victory to be savored, considering that the Republicans had no reason to do it as they had enough votes for it to pass the House and they knew it would never pass the Senate. They did it because the American public was a lot more feminist than they had expected, and didn’t want to look bad. Obviously they are saving face – but the fact that the public is on our side is heartening. #DearJohn is still going strong because although it’s no longer redefining rape, the bill is still unacceptable. If you have a twitter account, join the conversation. You can also send an email to congress opposing the bill here.

-An anti-choice group has made a series of videos they say depicts Planned Parenthood breaking the law. The full story is here, but there’s no reason to believe this is any different from the dishonest tactics used against ACORN or Shirley Sherrod. For a thorough response to the first “unedited” video, I recommend this post by Katie73. Amanda Marcotte is brilliant as usual here and here in response to the second video. There are ten more to go and while I wish we could have a real conversation about women’s health and how to better prevent unplanned pregnancies instead, it seems we have more mean-spirited conservatives dressing up like pimps to sit through first. On first hearing of this scandal, I made a donation to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and I encourage everyone to do the same. You can also use their website to find you local Planned Parenthood clinic. If you have some free time, call and see what volunteer opportunities are available. I have been a clinic escort, and it was a very worthwhile and rewarding experience.

-I’ve saved the worst for last. While HR 3 would limit a woman’s ability to pay for an abortion through private insurance, HR 358, the “Protect Life Act” could kill her. The bill would free hospitals of their legal obligation to treat pregnant women in emergency situations if the fetus would be harmed or killed or to provide an emergency abortion if the woman’s life was in danger. If your congressperson supports this bill, then I think a phone call, email or letter is in order. However, more than that, we should build on the momentum and success from what happened last week with HR 3. It wasn’t just tweets to John Boehner that took the language our of the bill, it was public outrage. So tell your friends and family about HR 358. Some are using #DearJohn to tweet about it, or think up a new hash tag. Post it on facebook. Don’t let these people hide behind the moniker of “pro life.” Denying women life saving care is anything but.