This webinar explores how to effectively integrate film into economic fairness campaigns. How do social issue documentary films do more than just raise awareness? How can you leverage the story in a documentary film to advance your efforts? How can you effectively rally local audiences around your cause once the lights come up? This Tax Fairness Tune-Up webinar will answer all these questions, and provide a framework on how to use film as an asset to economic fairness campaigns.

Featured Speakers:

Andy Myers

Campaign Coordinator, Working Films

Andy holds a B.A in film studies, with a focus in documentary film and a minor in environmental studies from the University of North Carolina Wilmington. A longtime proponent of connecting film with activism, he has coordinated various national campaigns, which leverage the narrative in social issue documentaries to advance the efforts of organizations with shared goals.

Karin Hayes & Victoria Bruce

Directors/Producers

Recipients of the duPont-Columbia University Award for excellence in broadcast journalism for their first film, The Kidnapping of Ingrid Betancourt (HBO/Cinemax). Their most recent film We’re Not Broke premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival and was nominated for the Grand Jury Award.

Brad Lichtenstein

President of 371 Productions/BizVizz

An award-winning filmmaker and the president of 371 Productions. He has been working in documentary production since 1/92. His latest film, As Goes Janesville, is a documentary about how a town tries to reinvent itself amid the loss of their century-old GM plant and Wisconsin’s civil war over unions. The film’s storyline about corporate transparency inspired him to create BizVizz. He’s busy right now developing new technology and media projects for the common good. Before making his own films, Brad associate produced FRONTLINE’s Peabody award-winning presidential election year special, Choice ’96, and Lumiere Production’s PBS series, "With God on Our Side: The History of the Religious Right."

Responding to the unprecedented level of outside spending in last year's election cycle, Responsible Wealth has joined a coalition of investors to step up its campaign to press companies to refrain entirely from making political contributions. The coalition, including Clean Yield Asset Management, Green Century Capital Management, Zevin Asset Management, and Harrington Investments, has filed resolutions with Chevron, Bank of America, 3M, Target, Starbucks, ExxonMobil, and the EQT Corporation. Responsible Wealth members filed at Bank of America and Target.

Because of the 2010 Citizens United ruling, so-called “independent” or outside spending in federal elections—made in support of candidates by groups with no supposed connections to their campaigns—contributions increased nearly fivefold between 2010-2012, from $300 million to $1.3 billion (Center for Responsive Politics). Just last week, Demos & the US PIRG Education Fund released a report estimating that for-profit corporations were responsible for at least $101 million in political spending in the 2012 elections, although the actual amount could be up to four times that amount due to vagaries in reporting requirements.

“In 2012, Chevron gave $2.5 million dollars of company funds to a Super PAC—the single largest corporate donation to a Super PAC ever. Shareholders don’t want to pay for Chevron’s political preferences or contribute to the untamed spending unleashed by the Citizens United ruling. It’s time for Chevron to listen to its shareholders and stop throwing millions of dollars into the wind.”       - Leslie Samuelrich, Senior Vice President of Green Century Capital Management

At the same time, we’re seeing a rise in public opposition and backlash to corporate influence in the democratic process. In February 2010, immediately following the Citizens United decision, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 80% of respondents opposed Citizens United, across partisan lines. Political spending and lobbying undermine the trust of the consumer.

“By the sheer volume of money involved, dollar democracy by corporations is drowning out individual political voices and undermining the essence of the American political system. ExxonMobil’s huge political donations are symptomatic of this corrosion of democracy, so as shareholders, we have a responsibility to put a stop to this dangerous behavior.” - Sonia Kowal, Director of Socially Responsible Investing at Zevin Asset Management 

And contrary to conventional wisdom, campaign contributions may actually stunt the long-term growth of a company. A 2012 University of Minnesota study found that companies contributing to political action committees and other outside political groups between 1991-2004 grew more slowly than other firms, invested less, spent less on research and development, and were linked to poor corporate governance.

By changing their policies around political spending, companies have an opportunity to set a higher standard in business, raising the bar for their competitors. At Target, Bank of America, ExxonMobil, 3M, and EQT, Responsible Wealth and its partners are calling for company directors to conduct a study examining the feasibility of adopting a no-spending policy. Chevron is being asked to completely desist from political giving. And at Starbucks, the request is for a complete end to political spending while also asking the company to refrain from establishing a political action committee, a vehicle for raising and spending money from employees and shareholders.

Responsible Wealth members Marnie Thompson & Stephen Johnson (Greensboro, NC) and RW Director Mike Lapham are currently in negotiations with Target executives and are pressing the company to be more transparent about its process and reasons for engaging in political giving. If Target changes its policy around political giving, it’s possible the bar will be raised for its competitors. Only time will tell, but for now, we’re keeping the pressure on. 

CLICK HERE to see the full press release.

UFE's tenth annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Day report, State of the Dream 2013: A Long Way From Home, outlines the state of the racial wealth divide in the U.S. and puts forward creative solutions for addressing persistent racial inequities.

Black and Latino families continue to have far less wealth than White families and have emerged from the Great Recession more indebted and less able than White families to face the economic challenges before them. 

Housing, an integral piece of the increasingly elusive American Dream, has much to do with the hemmorhaging of wealth in communities of color. This report examines the link between housing and asset-building policies, the impacts of those policies on communities of color, and urges a targeted, goal-oriented policy approach that is guided by our shared values and principles.

Fifty years ago this year, on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, Martin Luther King, Jr. shared a vision for a future of equality for all people, regardless of race, in his "I Have a Dream" speech. He spent the final years of his life working with thousands of others to challenge economic inequality and racial injustice. Although their efforts made historic civil rights victories possible, much work remains to close the racial divide. We are, indeed, a long way from home.

Read the report today. Share it with your community. Start a conversation. Speak out and work together to make a new economy possible.

Our Popular Economics Education Team is hosting UFE's renowned Training of Trainers Institute in March 2013 near Dallas/Fort Worth, TX (details below). We invite organizers, activists, educators, students, and others across the U.S. who want to join and advance the movement for a just economy.

Transformative education—which includes reflection, thoughtful analysis, and learning from each other—is vital to the success of any movement for social and economic justice. In order to challenge the status quo, we first need to make sense of the roots of the Great Recession and, more broadly, the ways in which our economic system creates and perpetuates class, race, and gender inequality.

Working toward a shared understanding of how we got here and a shared vision for the future will help us to build a cross-race, cross-class movement for an equitable, democratic, and sustainable economy.

UFE's Training of Trainers Institute explores the causes and consequences of inequality and provides participants with tools to inform their communities and inspire political action.

DATE:

Thursday, March 14 – ­Sunday, March 17, 2013
On-site check-in from 3:00–6:00 p.m. on March 14, 2013; The Institute ends at 1:30 p.m. after lunch on March 17.

CLICK HERE TO APPLY!

LOCATION:

Shady Lakes Ranch Conference Center
Cleburne, TX. Shady Lakes Ranch is 30 miles south of Fort Worth; one hour from the Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) airport. We will help to arrange low cost transportation to and from DFW.

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE:

Jeannette Huezo and Steve Schnapp, UFE's Senior Education Coordinators, will train you in how to lead UFE-style popular economics education workshops that demystify the economy and creatively educate, inspire, and mobilize people to take political action.

It is right for you if you are:

• An organizer, leader, activist, teacher, or trainer engaged in campaigns for economic or social justice, or
• If you are seeking to improve your training and facilitation skills in order to more effectively present information and engage people in dialogue about the economy.

You will learn about:

• National economic trends, the rules and policies that contributed to the Great Recession & the jobless recovery;
• The impacts of economic policies in terms of race and gender;
• Some history about popular resistance to economic inequality in the U.S.;
• Strategies to advance economic recovery by closing the economic divides; and
• Principles and practices of popular education.

You will have opportunities to:

• 

  Work in small groups to plan and practice leading either UFE's or original popular economics education workshop activities;
• Receive constructive feedback on how to effectively present workshops and lead productive discussions on economic inequality; 
• Discuss how to best adapt UFE's materials to your communities and constituents;
• Practice responding to challenging questions and difficult workshop situations; and
• Network, build solidarity and open doors for collaboration with others working for economic justice.

Schedule:

• Participants should arrive at the Conference Center on Thursday, March 14, between 3:00 and 6:00 p.m.; program begins after dinner on Thursday and concludes after lunch on Sunday.
• Sessions will be conducted in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings.
• Breaks will be provided throughout the day to allow participants to reflect and network with other participants.

The program includes presentations of creative and engaging activities from UFE's workshops, including:

• The Growing Divide - The Roots of Economic Security
• Closing the Racial Wealth Divide
• Bankers, Brokers, Bubbles, and Bailouts
• Immigration and the Growing Divide

Space is limited and preference given to applicants who are able to attend the full Institute. Some materials, including a detailed agenda for the Institute and short readings will be sent to all registrants prior to the training to help participants prepare for the Institute.

Registration fee is $500, which includes the Institute fee, materials, meals, and room/board (double occupancy). Transportation is NOT included. However, We will help to arrange low cost transportation to and from the Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) airport.

We offer a reduced fee to organizations sending two or more participants.

Scholarships:

Partial scholarship is available to participants from low-income communities and/or resource-limited organizations. If you require financial assistance to attend the Institute, you need to complete a scholarship request form after submitting this application and paying your deposit.

A minimum $25 deposit is required with your application. A payment of at least 50% of the fee must be paid two (2) weeks prior to the Institute. Payment in full is due one week before the start of the Institute.

CLICK HERE TO APPLY!

For more information:

Contact Jeannette Huezo ([email protected], 857-277-7881) or Steve Schnapp ([email protected], 857-277-7868).

This fall, Responsible Wealth & United for a Fair Economy made the strategic decision to focus our efforts on promoting a stronger estate tax as part of the fiscal slope negotiations. We’ve been heavily involved in rolling back the Bush tax cuts since 2001, but we knew there would be lots of other groups on that bandwagon. We figured Responsible Wealth’s greatest value added would be to get a bunch of really prominent individuals to say we should have a stronger estate tax. So we did. 

Together with signers like Warren Buffett, George Soros, President Carter, Bill Gates, Sr., Abigail Disney, and Richard Rockefeller, Responsible Wealth put a stake in the ground saying we should have a $4 million per couple estate tax exemption and a 45% rate, rising on the largest fortunes. That was considerably to the left of Obama’s proposal ($7 million; 45%) and far stronger than 2012 law ($10 million; 35%). Unless you’ve been backwoods skiing and just made it back to your iPhone, you already know that both the Senate and House passed legislation that extends the $10 million per couple estate tax exemption and raises the rate to 40%.

Here’s the good news:

• We still have an estate tax.  
• We got part of what we wanted in the negotiations: a 40% rate is better than 35%.
• This is the first time the estate tax has been strengthened in 28 years. 
• With your help, Responsible Wealth made the estate tax part of the fiscal cliff debate. Prior to our December 11 teleconference, there was almost NO discussion of the estate tax. In the past two weeks, almost EVERY story about the fiscal cliff tax debate mentioned the estate tax.
• The GOP was forced to tip their hand and expose who they’re really concerned about. They made it clear in the 11^th hour negotiations that keeping the estate tax as weak as possible for wealthy families was their top priority.
• The estate tax was finally indexed to inflation. Some Democrats don’t like this, because it means we’re stuck (for the foreseeable future) with an overly high exemption.  But indexing in and of itself makes sense. If the original estate tax had been indexed for inflation, we likely would never have faced the past 12 years of challenges to the law.

Here’s the not-so-good news:

• The $10 million per couple exemption is still unnecessarily high, and the 40% rate is too low. 
• The estate tax was once again used as a bargaining chip in the negotiation (as in 2010). While the GOP is unified in their staunch opposition to the estate tax, Democrats are mixed. If you look at the socioeconomic level of Members of Congress, and who they are married to, and who gives them 95% of their financial support, it’s no surprise that there are mixed feelings.
• The estate tax discriminates against gay and lesbian partners, since the spousal exemption only applies to married couples by the federal definition of marriage. So only the individual exemption ($5.12 million) applies.
• The federal estate tax remains “de-linked” from state-level estate tax laws, meaning states cannot automatically get a credit on federal estate tax payments.

What’s ahead on the estate tax:

• This is not the last word by any means. Opponents like Jon Kyl will still push to weaken or completely repeal the estate tax as they have done repeatedly since 2000. Wealthy people in particular will need to continue to speak up in favor of a strong estate tax.
• We are continuing to gather signatures on our Responsible Estate Tax proposal. To date, over 1,200 people have joined the initial 36 signers since December 11, including 130 wealthy signers.  
• Most of the revenue from the estate tax comes from having a higher rate (think: really large estates).  We will push for a higher base rate than 40% AND progressive rates up to 55% on the largest estates.
• The exemption level is about fairness. A couple with $10 million in assets (among the wealthiest .15% in the country) should not be able to pass on those assets tax-free to the next generation. Anyone with that amount of wealth has benefited greatly from what our country has to offer. We’ll continue to push—with your help—for a lower exemption.

If you haven’t yet signed our Responsible Estate Tax proposal, please take a moment to do so today.

Why is Oprah the Only Black Person on the Forbes 400?
by Mazher Ali
This column originally appeared on CommonDreams.org on November 16, 2012

Oprah Winfrey is the only African American on the Forbes 400, a list of the wealthiest people in the U.S. In fact, she's one of only six known Black billionaires in the world, and she's the only Black woman with a fortune worth more than a billion dollars.

Let's take stock of how truly remarkable it is that Oprah became OPRAH— "Queen of Talk," media mogul, widely-heeded librophile, heavy-hitting do-gooder, and one of the world's richest people.

First, note that the Forbes 400 isn’t terribly representative of the U.S. demographic. While Blacks comprise 13 percent of the total population, the Forbes list is only one quarter of one percent Black. The Forbes 400 is a men’s club, with women—the majority of whom inherited their fortunes—making up just 10 percent of the total list. And, with well over half of the Forbes 400 having inherited a substantial fortune and 17 percent having family members on the list, it should be clear that financial success isn’t just a product of intelligence and strong work ethic—often privilege and birthright are all it takes.

Racism and white supremacy have been hallmarks of this country since the original colonists washed ashore, and that legacy, which continues to this day, is evident in the current racial economic divide. The median Black family, for example, has only 10¢ of wealth for every dollar of white wealth. Based on the rate of progress Blacks have made over the past 30 years, it would take over five hundred years for them to reach wealth parity with Whites.

Women have long waited for opportunities to participate as fully in the economy as men. Though women have worked outside the home since the 1800s, they were, throughout history, systemically barred from resources and institutions that could have helped to move them more quickly toward economic parity with men. Today, women earn but 77¢ for each dollar men earn, and there’s no rational argument for why that should continue to be the case.

Class barriers restrict the economic mobility of those born poor. The rules of our economy heavily favor the wealthy, making the adage, “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” truer by the day. Over 40 percent of those born into the bottom fifth of the economy are likely to stay at the bottom. Over 40 percent of those born into the richest fifth are likely to maintain or enhance their socioeconomic positions.

Our country isn’t a beacon of opportunity as it’s so frequently depicted. Neither is it the cradle of democracy that those in power would have us believe. There are similarities between our current system and the nobility and family dynasties of the past. Money has poisoned the well of democracy. The richer you are, the louder your political voice—an idea made more literal with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling that equated political spending with free speech.

In this post-Civil Rights era, white supremacy has adapted to function in insidious ways and continues to undermine our social order. Discriminatory policies and practices may be less visible, but the millions of minority victims of predatory lending, citizens who face systemic disenfranchisement by conservative voter suppression efforts, women whose freedoms and self-determination are under attack, and poor communities that are wading through the sludge of poverty can attest to their influence.

Post-racialists, on the other hand, argue that race is no longer a factor. To “pull the race card” is to be divisive. Let the past be the past, they say. If you’re thinking, Well, if Oprah did it…, consider that some people, because of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status or anything else beyond their control, have to work harder than others to realize a life of economic security.

As an African American and a woman and a person born in poverty, Oprah has faced more obstacles to financial success than most, if not all, of her contemporaries on the Forbes list. But, as we celebrate her miraculous rise, we can’t deny the existence of those burdens for members of racial and ethnic minority groups and for millions of poor Americans. Oprah is the exception, not the rule. Public policies are intended to govern the masses, and they should be designed to ensure the well being of the masses, rather than overfill the cups of the few.

Mazher Ali is the communications coordinator for United for a Fair Economy, a national group working to spotlight the causes and consequences of extreme inequality and racial injustice and supporting the movement for a more equitable economy. 

 

 

Amid all the post-election excitement, we also want to celebrate the amazing work of some of UFE’s Tax Fairness Organizing Collaborative (TFOC) partners and other contributors in the state progressive tax movement.

In New Hampshire, our allies prevented a constitutional amendment to ban the state’s income tax. This is a huge win, and it’s one that can be looked to by other states facing regressive policy initiatives. Much hard work is still to be done in the Granite State, but we’re optimistic. That a broad and diverse coalition was able to come together to stop this measure bodes well for positive change in New Hampshire.

Oregon also enjoyed two exciting victories. TFOC partner organizations Tax Fairness Oregon and Our Oregon worked hard to save the Oregon estate tax from repeal. They won a resounding victory for fairness, and ensured that hundreds of millions of dollars would continue to flow to vital services in the Beaver State. As well, measure 85, which eliminated the Corporate Kicker Tax passed with ease, and will allow for much needed revenue for Oregon’s public education system.

Since 2004, conservative activists, led by the corporate-conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have tried with all their might to enact Taxpayer Bills of Rights (TABOR) measures in 30 states. Florida's TABOR, which would have limited public investment and revenue, while requiring a supermajority to override these limits, would have severely hamstrung the state's ability to fund vital services for Floridians. In state after state, voters have turned down this extreme measure, and this year, Floridians joined in that rejection! This was made possible by amazing organizing efforts, combined with voter education and mobilization to stop such a restrictive and economically harmful measure.

Here are a few things we can all take away from these inspiring election day triumphs:

1. To achieve victory you have to educate, not just by telling the voters why they should be for or against a measure, but by also learning from them how these measure affect them and their communities.
2. Organizing still works, even on the less-than-sexy matters of fiscal policy and ballot measures. Effective partnership-building contributed greatly to these successes. Don’t go it alone. We’re stronger and louder when we pool our resources and work together.
3. There is still a tremendous amount of work required to establish fair, progressive tax structures in states across the country. While much of the focus over the next few months will be about federal taxes and budget issues, we can’t forget that the tax fairness movement has to continue at all levels of government.

These statewide election day victories can be models for what’s possible in your state and beyond. We congratulate all of those involved in those efforts and are excited to help keep building momentum for tax fairness and a more just and equitable economy.

Powell

In a CNN.com op-ed, Donna Brazile reminds us that race is still a factor in our country. A recent AP poll actually shows a rise in both anti-Black and anti-Latino attitudes. And indeed, the very same people who promote the idea of the United States as a post-racial society remain eager to exploit racial resentment for their own gain. 

Brazile urges us to beware of snobbishly deceptive "dog-whistle" politics. With a little bit of active listening, you'll recognize "dog-whistling" as an underhanded compliment. Take former New Hampshire Governor John Sununu's recent comment about Gen. Colin Powell's support of a certain African American U.S. president.

"You have to wonder whether that's an endorsement based on issues or that he's got a slightly different reason for supporting President Obama...I think that when you have somebody of your own race that you're proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him."

This crafty mash-up of words, to some, might sound innocuous, polite, even. But, the hidden signals  — "You have to wonder..." or "somebody of your own race" — are merely the stubborn tars of racism, covered in the weightless feathers of empty accolade with, "I applaud Colin."

If you noticed the scum dripping from that statement, CONGRATS! You heard the dog whistle! Language, however, is but one of the ways racism manifests itself in our supposedly "post-racial" society.

Brazile looks to rapidly shifting U.S. demographics as one dimension of racial bias. She cites UFE's 2012 State of the Dream report (yay for us!), which explains that by 2030, the majority of those under 18 will be people of color. By 2042, non-Whites will comprise the majority of the U.S. population. Mix in the fact that 80% of retirees are White and own a significantly greater portion of the country's wealth than younger, minority communities, and you'll see what's essentially a racially-charged class war.

The more disturbing effects of modern-day racism are the social and economic deterioration. People of color are earning and building wealth reserves at alarmingly lower rates than their white counterparts. Predatory banking practices, cuts to public services, and voter disenfranchisement efforts are ravaging communities of color and further muffling their political voices. And, concentrated poverty turns poor communities into zones of social toxicity that are difficult to escape, especially for young people who know only that hopeless reality.

We can't expect to meaningfully address race and class inequities until we build a more cohesive national community. The sooner we accept not just our history of racial division but also the current racial divide, the sooner we can start working together to provide shared opportunity to all people.

Public policies are intended to be a reflection of a country’s values and priorities. In reality, tax and economic policy outcomes represent the wants of the financially enriched, not the needs of the bottom 99%.

The U.S. may be a melting pot of cultures and ethnicities, but wealthy, white males comprise the vast majority of our supposedly representative legislature. Nearly half of Congressional members are millionaires. In 2010, the median net worth of U.S. Senators and Representatives was $2.63 million and  $756,765, respectively, compared to a median net worth of $66,740 for U.S. households.

On the other hand, two historically marginalized groups—women and people of color—are dramatically underrepresented at the policy tables. Women account for only 16.8% of Congress (27% of them are women of color). People of color represent only 15.1% of Congress, with only four seats in the Senate.

As such, the interests of the wealthy dominate public debates while policies of particular importance for women and communities of color struggle for acknowledgement, let alone forward movement. Deficit hysteria has prompted harmfully misguided cuts to the social safety net while maintaining unnecessary tax cuts for the wealthy, painting a frightening picture of who our elected officials actually serve.

Throughout the presidential campaign, many have the criticized candidates for being “out of touch” with the majority of Americans. It can be reasonably argued that, with a few exceptions, Congress is as well. A recent report by the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) points out that some legislators have been loyal advocates for the 99%, while others have not.

The report, “A Congressional Report Card for the 99%,” grades Senators and Representatives based on their voting histories on inequality-related Congressional actions. While the report’s focus is mainly on policies addressing economic inequality, it leaves room for a deeper analysis of the impacts of policies on persistent racial and gender disparities.

Nearly all of the 40 congressional actions evaluated by IPS—including bills related to taxes and the federal budget, jobs and wages, education, housing, poverty, and healthcare—have disproportionately affected communities of color and women.  

The Paycheck Fairness Act, for example, would have helped to ensure equal pay for equal work. This measure would have been a boon for women, who still make 77¢ to every dollar a man makes. The Senate failed to secure the 60 votes needed to advance the Act. The oppositions’ main argument—that the bill would burden small businesses—is unfounded and yet another strike in the conservative war on women.

Another bill, the Half in Ten Act, aims to cut poverty in half in the next ten years. The poorest among us, who are disproportionately people of color, were experiencing economic hardship long before the Great Recession began. Blacks and Latinos respectively make up 27.6% and 25.3% of those in poverty and would benefit greatly by this effort. The bill has 68 co-sponsors but has yet to reach a vote in the House or the Senate. Unfortunately, as politically polarized as Congress has become, even the most sensible policies, like Half in Ten, struggle to gain traction.

Moving forward, we should push lawmakers to more carefully examine the impacts of policies on those hardest hit by inequality, like women and people of color. As citizens, we must all fight to make ours a more truly representative democracy, where the voices of those with the biggest bank accounts carry no more volume than those with the smallest.