Occupy Wall Street: what next?

 Talk is abundant about what next steps the civil protest movement faces. As the cold weather sets in and municipality tolerance unravels, should the occupation continue--"protest as usual"--or could the movement parley the national spotlight and notoriety into a meaningful, sustained strategy?

They could do a lot worse than to peer over winter's horizon toward the 2012 primary and fall elections. Though the Occupy movement has been acknowledged by candidates for president and various other elected officials, nothing has changed about the political system that continues to favor wealthy and corporate interests over everyone else.

OWS has sensibly called for reform of our influence peddling election process--which allowed elected officials the latitude to look the other way as underregulated investment and banking industries executed one of the great wealth-siphoning swindles of our lifetimes. Not only have the securities fraud decision makers remained unpunished, the galactically risky derivatives market carries on unregulated and in the dark.

Protest participants continue to build a consensus on a number of demands for which they assemble; the most relevant and actionable being the reform of campaign finance.

Getting money out of politics has summoned a number of solutions ranging from publicly financing elections to amending the constitution. Robert Steele, former CIA agent turned government reform activist makes the case for an electoral reform act that voters could leverage against incumbant members of Congress--if the legislative body failed to pass it.

More recently an election reform working group arrived at the conclusion that "[though] the bill is an outstanding effort worthy of passing, it is too complex for the average citizen to support without an extensive education campaign, and therefore not passable in the short run."

What could force this issue as a make-or-break matter for incumbants and opposition candidates? A non-partisan, legislation-focused online resource called aGREATER.US may have an answer. Today the organization is in the process of building consensus to address what voters consider the most pressing problems our country faces. Near the top of all issues participants have submitted and voted on, is a campaign finance reform effort called The PRE-Plan.

The 'plan' is comprised of the following three initiatives: clean elections standards, term limits and ending gerrymandering. The lynchpin to this effort involves compelling a public commitment to these goals from those running for elected office--incumbant and challenger. Depending on who is willing to commit to the PRE-Plan, voters can gauge which candidate stands the best chance of making said reforms law.

Assuming the PRE-Plan reaches an indispensable plurality of voters, it will be fascinating to watch how candidates will reconcile reaching reform-minded voters whileaccepting large, bundled campaign donations.

As effort-worthy such aims are, they do not address the influence gap that privileges wealthy campaign contributors over all other voters. Most members of Congress, obliged to the givers of such generous donations, would not be inclined to support any legislative measures that limited the elite contributor's influence. The prevailing assumption for a viable candidacy is having to raise stunning sums of money to pay for ultra costly airtime on television and radio.

The question for voters is whether they can exert the collective will to restore electoral accountability to a prodigal U.S. Congress.