Americans Own Not Just a Vastly Disproportionate

¶ … Americans own not just a vastly disproportionate amount of the nation's wealth, but they have too much control over the political system. This, it is argued, manifests itself in rule and laws that favor the wealthiest demographic. As the result of these laws, household income among the 1% is growing at a fast rate while household income for most of Americans has not increased much in real terms over the past thirty years (Dickler, 2011). Most members of Congress are millionaires, but being a millionaire does not put one into the 1%.

However, defining a member of Congress as supporting the 99% can be taken to mean supporting policies that benefit average Americans, or at least standing against policies that support the 1%. There is no set definition by which a politician can be adjudged as supporting the 99%. That said, MoveOn.org highlights some politicians who it believes support the 99%. These include Elizabeth Warren and some new candidates for 2012 like Ilya Sheyman in Illinois and Eric Griego in New Mexico.

The group is preparing to identify other candidates as well who it feels are oriented towards supporting the 99%. The 99% idea basically is intended to shift policy in government back to the people and away from those with the most wealth and power. The Citizen's United decision in the Supreme Court is cited as one of the biggest threats to everyday Americans because it allows the wealthy to spend as much money as they want on political campaigns, including smear campaigns, with no accountability.

Another ruling that corporations are people is cited as well as a threat to the 99%, because it gives power equivalent to that of a citizen to a non-citizen entity that is fundamentally different in governance, size and structure than any citizen. The 99% movement seeks to change the political landscape to one that is focused on the interests of all Americans, not just those with money and power. The 99% are of course a disparate group, encompassing all but the wealthiest few. Thus, they will still differ in their specific political objectives.

The only objective in common with all members of this movement is to remove the influence of money -- especially from wealthy and corporate special interests -- from the political environment. These interests benefit because they are allowed to finance political campaigns, and because politicians are dependent on this money to be elected, they owe favors to the wealthy 1%. This compels them to grant laws the favor the rich and corporations, rather than laws that benefit the entire nation.

The 99% movement's objectives are mostly aimed at the privileges of the 1%, and the movement seeks to curtail those privileges.