Annual Fundraising Appeal
Over the course of 21 years, we’ve published many unflattering stories about Henry Kissinger. We’ve recounted his involvement in the Chilean coup and the illegal bombings of Cambodia and Laos; his hidden role in the Kent State massacre and the genocide in East Timor; his noxious influence peddling in DC and craven work for dictators and repressive regimes around the world. We’ve questioned his ethics, his morals and his intelligence. We’ve called for him to be arrested and tried for war crimes. But nothing we’ve ever published pissed off HK quite like this sequence of photos taken at a conference in Brazil, which appeared in one of the early print editions of CounterPunch.
The publication of those photos, and the story that went with them, 20 years ago earned CounterPunch a global audience in the pre-web days and helped make our reputation as a fearless journal willing to take the fight to the forces of darkness without flinching. Now our future is entirely in your hands. Please donate.


Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

or use

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

"Wall Street Chuck" Takes On Electoral Reform

Voters Beware: Schumer vs. Democracy


As more and more voters reject the fossilized two-party system, the political establishment is digging in its heels and doing whatever it takes to limit voter choices in statewide general elections. One of the most undemocratic ways to limit diverse ideas and opinions is to manipulate the way that candidates can get on the general election ballot. One way to limit choice is through primary election rules.

With a lot of attention being paid to primary elections and more states trying to limit the general election choices, U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer’s emergence as the head cheerleader for top-two primaries is a giant red flag. Ultra-partisan Schumer, nicknamed “Wall Street Chuck” is a relentless fundraiser. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, got the nickname from being Wall Street’s main man in the Senate, their protector. In exchange, Schumer raises a lot of campaign money from Wall Street. It is dangerous to believe that Schumer has any interest in reducing partisanship.

While Schumer claims to favor open primaries, he is actually advocating the worst electoral reform in recent history, the top-two primary. In the widely distributed New York Times opinion piece on July 21, 2014, and distributed in many other newspapers across the country, Schumer claims that, “We need a national movement to adopt the ‘top-two’ primary (also known as an open primary), in which all voters, regardless of party registration, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a runoff.” Note to Schumer, it’s not a runoff, it is the general election that’s at stake, the time when the most diverse choices appear on state ballots — except in top-two primary states.

The nation’s leading expert on ballot access law, Richard Winger, describes how top-two reduces voter choice and bars new ideas from the electoral arena. “It terribly hurts minor parties. There have now been 116 instances when a minor party member ran for federal or state office in a top-two system, in which there were at least two major party members running. In all 116 instances, the minor party person did not place first or second and thus couldn’t campaign in the June-November general election campaign season.”

A coalition of California voters from across the political spectrum, members of the Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and Green parties, has filed a lawsuit to demonstrate how the top-two system injures voting rights. The suit strongly makes the case that the court must “protect the longstanding rights of California voters to access diverse political views at the moment of peak political participation: the statewide general election.”

Top-two distorts democracy in the worst way possible while rewarding hyperpartisanship and political gerrymandering of districts. In districts dominated by a single party, a number of top-two primaries resulted in both general election candidates being members of the same political party. This unfair system is designed to eliminate electoral choice.

It is a fact that many more people vote in statewide general elections than vote in primary elections. Top-two severely restricts the majority of the voters to only one or two choices.

Wall Street Chuck is a quack offering false remedies to “save America.” The people want more choices, not fewer choices. There are many progressive voting reforms that have been demonstrated to greatly increase voter participation, reduce negative campaigning and bring people together closer to the middle. Several have been discussed and some enacted in New Mexico; ranked choice voting (instant runoff), public financing and funding limits. There are also lessons to be learned from countries with proportional representation; if there is not a solid majority, a coalition government must be formed.

It is time for the United States to end winner-take-all elections and the resulting partisan bitterness. It is time try coalition government.

Carol Miller is a community organizer from Ojo Sarco, New Mexico (population 300) and an advocate for “geographic democracy,” the belief that the United States must guarantee equal rights and opportunities to participate in the national life, no matter where someone lives.