As for doing what the Tea Party couldn't....

I'd note the "End the Fed" signs that you see all over the place there.

However the movement is far to fractured to do what the Tea Party couldn't.

The Tea Party was soley about conservative economics. Had "Blue Dog" style Democrats joined in it would of ended up that way.

This movement however has no real goal. Even the "Stopping government corruption" goal. Some are anarchists, some want republicans out, some who want the democrats out (afterall they are the hedgefund darlings more often that non) and some want to change everybody but want to keep the same kind of government.

Then there are plenty of other people there just for selfish reasons, like those who have too much debt and want a government bailout.

The second someone tries to corral the group and solidify the ideals of it, they'll lose 90% of their support.

You already see people trying to convince everyone they are the "Tea Party of the Left."

I don't agree with that. Just as the Tea Party is about conservative economics, the Occupy Wall Street movement is about economic illiteracy. See: their website's demand that everyone make a minimum wage of $20/hour, whether or not they're employed.

Then how would one address the clear problems that stem from these corporations being able to buy candidates? It'd be much easier to simply ban all campaign donations rather than the vast legal quagmire that would be needed to make it such that it's not worth it for corporations to buy candidates

Right, and the President could get stuff done quicker if he abolished congress, the Supreme Court and voting.

The reason we have a bill of rights is so that peoples rights aren't infringed on... sometimes that means doing things the hard way.

Though you could get rid of a lot of the problem by just making it illegal to give different industries any benefits like subsidies or tax breaks or the like.

Additionally.... how is the buying of a poltician by a company any different then the buying of a poltician by a political party?

Yes, but would such a law curtail freedom of expression, if it infringed upon everyone's rights uniformly? The intent of the first amendment is such that the government cannot impugn upon an opinion, no matter how unpopular, but was not designed to fight regulations on one specific mode of speech altogether.

I wonder if i could go out and take a shit on a public sidewalk to make a statement against the city of Philadelphia. Could I then sue after i was arrested? Where does speech end and action begin?

Bear in mind that i understand that judicial precedent has established this as protected speech, but still...

So, it's ok to rob people of freedom of speech and expression.... so long as you do it individually.

So squashing all freedom of speech is wrong....

but squashing each instance in a different law is fine... espiecally if you leave one form... such as private letters to the government open.

By voters making informed choices, like voting out politicians who support corporate welfare. Not by abridging the First Amendment.

The idea that all campaigns should be publicly funded is a pretty egregious flouting of free speech principles as well. No one should be forced to promote candidates or ideas with which they disagree, especially not at the cost of being able to support the candidate of their choosing (no-hopers like Nader and his ilk, who certainly wouldn't qualify).

For all practical purposes, the Occupy movement is is Operation Empire State Rebellion, Part 2.  In short, it is what the guy at AmpedStatus site, followed up with a bit of Anonymous, wanted to do (first one pretty much failed).  Only way it is remotely "Tea Party of the Left" is that it has politically leaning to the left folks deciding to meet together and get upset, thus being a counter to the Tea Party folks.  If it ends up being a "Tea Party on the Left" movement, then it will fail to bring about any needed change.  If it morphs into what was seen in the mideast with large numbers together marching for change, there is a chance of happening.  But not if it is just merely the left.

It really wouldn't though.  In the middleast marching for change was against a dictatorship.

Here we have an actual democracy.  They aren't going to change the system because of a minority of protestors.

Actual change can only be accomplished by voting.

It'd be fun to see some change though.

What's amusing now is the  hot potato game of trying to make the other party vote down Obama's dumb stimulus bill first.

Cantor refused to let the whole thing come to the floor.

So Obama said "why can't i have a vote don't have the time".

So McConnel, knowing there aren't even enough Democrats to support  it said "Yeah he's right, lets vote on this now."

Only to have Harry Reid block it amusingly calling it a "poltical stunt."

Which is just... weird honestly.  I mean it was a political stunt, but it was still the presidents bill word for word.

Well, now Anon is planning to take down Wallstreet.

If they follow through and succeed you can say goodbye to anyone supporting the movement as everyday working peoples retirement funds suddenly take a huge hit do to the chaos and uncertainty the ability of wallstreet to be hacked would bring.

It's funny though If people actually care about how corporations operate... they'd support the ones they liked and boycott the ones they don't.

Instead however, places like Ben and Jerrys are forced to go more and more corporate because nobodies willing to deal with a cheaper or inefficent product to have more "social" corporations.

Corporations are nothing more then a reflection of the populace that it serves.

People feel disenfranchised, but in reality they are only feel that way because they refuse to bother doing anything hard or constructive.

It's easy to protest. (In the west)