Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 Controlling corporations and restoring democracy By Lee Drutman and Charlie CrayFebruary 18, 2005 One does not have to look far in Washington these days to find evidence that government policy is being crafted with America’s biggest corporations in mind. For example, the Bush administration’s 2006 budget cuts the enforcement budgets of almost all the major regulatory agencies. If the gutting of the ergonomics rule, power plant emissions standards and drug safety programs was not already enough evidence that OSHA, EPA and FDA are deeply compromised, the slashing of their enforcement budgets presents the possibility—indeed, probability—that these public agencies will become captives of the private corporations they are supposed to regulate. This should come as no surprise to anybody familiar with the streams of corporate money that flowed into Bush campaign coffers (as well as the Kerry campaign and all races for the House and Senate) in the 2004 election. The old “follow the money” adage leads us to a democracy in thrall to giant corporations—a democracy that is a far cry from the government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” that Lincoln hailed at Gettysburg. At a time when our democracy appears to be so thoroughly under the sway of large corporations, it is tempting to give up on politics. We must resist this temptation. Democracy offers the best solution to challenging corporate power. We must engage as citizens, not just as consumers or investors angling for a share of President Bush’s “ownership society.” The problem of corporate power Unfortunately, the destructive power of large corporations today is not limited to the political sphere. The increasing domination of corporations over virtually every dimension of our lives—economic, political, cultural, even spiritual—poses a fundamental threat to the well-being of our society. Corporations have fostered a polarization of wealth that has undermined our faith in a shared sense of prosperity. A corporate-driven consumer culture has led millions of Americans into personal debt, and alienated millions more by convincing them that the only path to happiness is through the purchase and consumption of ever-increasing quantities of material goods. The damage to the earth’s life-supporting systems caused by the accelerating extraction of natural resources and the continued production, use, and disposal of life-threatening chemicals and greenhouse gases is huge and, in some respects, irreversible. Today’s giant corporations spend billions of dollars a year to project a positive, friendly and caring image, promoting themselves as “responsible citizens” and “good neighbors.” They have large marketing budgets and public relations experts skilled at neutralizing their critics and diverting attention from any controversy. By 2004, corporate advertising expenditures were expected to top $250 billion, enough to bring the average American more than 2,000 commercial messages a day. The problem of the corporation is at root one of design. Corporations are not structured to be benevolent institutions; they are structured to make money. In the pursuit of this one goal, they will freely cast aside concerns about the societies and ecological systems in which they operate. When corporations reach the size that they have reached today, they begin to overwhelm the political institutions that can keep them in check, eroding key limitations on their destructive capacities. Internationally, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations and 49 are nations. (!!!) How Big Business got to be so big Corporations in the United States began as quasi-government institutions, business organizations created by deliberate acts of state governments for distinct public purposes such as building canals or turnpikes. These corporations were limited in size and had only those rights and privileges directly written into their charters. As corporations grew bigger and more independent, their legal status changed them from creatures of the state to independent entities, from mere business organizations to “persons” with constitutional rights. The last three decades have represented the most sustained pro-business period in U.S. history. The corporate sector’s game plan for fortifying its power in America was outlined in a memo written in August 1971 by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The “Powell Memorandum,” drafted in response to rising popular skepticism about the role of big business and the unprecedented growth of consumer and environmental protection laws, was intended as a catalytic plan to spur big business into action. Powell argued that corporate leaders should single out the campuses, the courts and the media as key battlegrounds. One of the most significant developments that followed Powell’s memo was the formation of the Business Roundtable in 1972 by Frederick Borch of General Electric and John Harper of Alcoa. As author Ted Nace has explained, “The Business Roundtable … functioned as a sort of senate for the corporate elite, allowing big business as a whole to set priorities and deploy its resources in a more effective way than ever before. … The ’70s saw the creation of institutions to support the corporate agenda, including foundations, think tanks, litigation centers, publications, and increasingly sophisticated public relations and lobbying agencies.” For example, beer magnate Joseph Coors, moved by Powell’s memo, donated a quarter of a million dollars to the Analysis and Research Association, the forerunner of the massive font of pro-business and conservative propaganda known today as the Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, existing but tiny conservative think tanks, like the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, grew dramatically in the ’70s. Today, they are key players in the pro-business policy apparatus that dominates state and federal policymaking. According to a 2004 study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, between 1999 and 2001, 79 conservative foundations made more than $252 million in grants to 350 “archconservative policy nonprofit organizations.” By contrast, the few timid foundations that have funded liberal causes often seem to act as a “drag anchor” on the progressive movement, moving from issue to issue like trust fund children with a serious case of attention-deficit disorder. From analysis to action The vast majority of people, when asked, believe that corporations have too much power and are too focused on making a profit. “Business has gained too much power over too many aspects of American life,” agreed 82 percent of respondents in a June 2000 Business Week poll, a year and a half before Enron’s collapse. A 2004 Harris poll found that three-quarters of respondents said that the image of large corporations was either “not good” or “terrible.” Corporations have achieved their dominant role in society through a complex power grab that spans the economic, political, legal and cultural spheres. Any attempt to challenge their power must take all these areas into account. There is a great need to develop a domestic strategy for challenging corporate power in the United States, where 185 of the world’s 500 largest corporations are headquartered. Although any efforts to challenge corporations are inevitably bound up in the global justice movement, there is much to do here in the United States that can have a profoundly important effect on the global situation. By understanding the origin of the corporation as a creature of the state, we can better understand how we, as citizens with sovereignty over our government, ultimately can and must assert our right to hold corporations accountable. The task is to understand how we can begin to reestablish true citizen sovereignty in a country where corporations currently have almost all the power. Developing the movement To free our economy, culture and politics from the grip of giant corporations, we will have to develop a large, diverse and well-organized movement. But at what level should we focus our efforts: local, state, national or global? The answer, we believe, is a balance of all four. Across the country, many local communities continue to organize in resistance to giant chain stores like Wal-Mart, predatory lenders, factory farms, private prisons, incinerators and landfills, the planting of genetically modified organisms, and nuclear power plants. Local communities are continuously organizing to strengthen local businesses, raise the living wage, resist predatory marketing in schools, cut off corporate welfare and protect essential services such as water from privatization. Local struggles are crucial for recruiting citizens to the broader struggle against corporate rule. http://www.blueaction.org " Better to have one freedom too many than to have one freedom too few. " http://www.sharedvoice.org/unamerican/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 21, 2005 Report Share Posted February 21, 2005 It's truly a sad situation, that we can see an otherwise brilliant essay such as the one below, written with the goal of focusing on ways of dealing with the crushing power of corporations over our government, but without once mentioning the critical and unique ability of media to bring attention to the problem and to the largest possible audience, in the shortest time, yielding the best chances for public action. Media and corporate power are essentially the same, at least insofar as reaching mass audiences is concerned. But if there's a place we ought to begin our efforts to turn corporate treachery around, it should be media. It seems obvious to me, that little progress can or will be made without mass media helping us. Corporations are essentially invisible monoliths, remote and inaccessible; whereas media are where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. Media are the most vulnerable to public pressure for change, yet we do next to nothing to change them. Corporations, however benign an image they project to us, entirely through media I might add, need not justify their obsession on profit as their bottom line. But media, though they're similarly motivated (siding with those politics that promote the pursuit of wealth above all other values), cannot allow the general public to get too convinced of this cynical notion about them, and must constantly work to create the image that they're out to serve the public interest. We should wage a constant fight with media, demanding that they present both or all sides of issues that bear on the best interests, on the rights, well being and safety, political insight and values of all our citizens. We know or should know that media, by and large, and increasingly, serve the interests of the rich and powerful. This must change. JP - " DitziSis " <mk2967 " 1DISGUSTED " <thoroughlydisgustedpissedoff Sunday, February 20, 2005 9:21 PM The People's Business (no link) Controlling corporations and restoring democracy By Lee Drutman and Charlie CrayFebruary 18, 2005 One does not have to look far in Washington these days to find evidence that government policy is being crafted with America's biggest corporations in mind. For example, the Bush administration's 2006 budget cuts the enforcement budgets of almost all the major regulatory agencies. If the gutting of the ergonomics rule, power plant emissions standards and drug safety programs was not already enough evidence that OSHA, EPA and FDA are deeply compromised, the slashing of their enforcement budgets presents the possibility-indeed, probability-that these public agencies will become captives of the private corporations they are supposed to regulate. This should come as no surprise to anybody familiar with the streams of corporate money that flowed into Bush campaign coffers (as well as the Kerry campaign and all races for the House and Senate) in the 2004 election. The old " follow the money " adage leads us to a democracy in thrall to giant corporations-a democracy that is a far cry from the government " of the people, by the people, and for the people " that Lincoln hailed at Gettysburg. At a time when our democracy appears to be so thoroughly under the sway of large corporations, it is tempting to give up on politics. We must resist this temptation. Democracy offers the best solution to challenging corporate power. We must engage as citizens, not just as consumers or investors angling for a share of President Bush's " ownership society. " The problem of corporate power Unfortunately, the destructive power of large corporations today is not limited to the political sphere. The increasing domination of corporations over virtually every dimension of our lives-economic, political, cultural, even spiritual-poses a fundamental threat to the well-being of our society. Corporations have fostered a polarization of wealth that has undermined our faith in a shared sense of prosperity. A corporate-driven consumer culture has led millions of Americans into personal debt, and alienated millions more by convincing them that the only path to happiness is through the purchase and consumption of ever-increasing quantities of material goods. The damage to the earth's life-supporting systems caused by the accelerating extraction of natural resources and the continued production, use, and disposal of life-threatening chemicals and greenhouse gases is huge and, in some respects, irreversible. Today's giant corporations spend billions of dollars a year to project a positive, friendly and caring image, promoting themselves as " responsible citizens " and " good neighbors. " They have large marketing budgets and public relations experts skilled at neutralizing their critics and diverting attention from any controversy. By 2004, corporate advertising expenditures were expected to top $250 billion, enough to bring the average American more than 2,000 commercial messages a day. The problem of the corporation is at root one of design. Corporations are not structured to be benevolent institutions; they are structured to make money. In the pursuit of this one goal, they will freely cast aside concerns about the societies and ecological systems in which they operate. When corporations reach the size that they have reached today, they begin to overwhelm the political institutions that can keep them in check, eroding key limitations on their destructive capacities. Internationally, of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations and 49 are nations. (!!!) How Big Business got to be so big Corporations in the United States began as quasi-government institutions, business organizations created by deliberate acts of state governments for distinct public purposes such as building canals or turnpikes. These corporations were limited in size and had only those rights and privileges directly written into their charters. As corporations grew bigger and more independent, their legal status changed them from creatures of the state to independent entities, from mere business organizations to " persons " with constitutional rights. The last three decades have represented the most sustained pro-business period in U.S. history. The corporate sector's game plan for fortifying its power in America was outlined in a memo written in August 1971 by soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. at the behest of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The " Powell Memorandum, " drafted in response to rising popular skepticism about the role of big business and the unprecedented growth of consumer and environmental protection laws, was intended as a catalytic plan to spur big business into action. Powell argued that corporate leaders should single out the campuses, the courts and the media as key battlegrounds. One of the most significant developments that followed Powell's memo was the formation of the Business Roundtable in 1972 by Frederick Borch of General Electric and John Harper of Alcoa. As author Ted Nace has explained, " The Business Roundtable . functioned as a sort of senate for the corporate elite, allowing big business as a whole to set priorities and deploy its resources in a more effective way than ever before. . The '70s saw the creation of institutions to support the corporate agenda, including foundations, think tanks, litigation centers, publications, and increasingly sophisticated public relations and lobbying agencies. " For example, beer magnate Joseph Coors, moved by Powell's memo, donated a quarter of a million dollars to the Analysis and Research Association, the forerunner of the massive font of pro-business and conservative propaganda known today as the Heritage Foundation. Meanwhile, existing but tiny conservative think tanks, like the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, grew dramatically in the '70s. Today, they are key players in the pro-business policy apparatus that dominates state and federal policymaking. According to a 2004 study by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, between 1999 and 2001, 79 conservative foundations made more than $252 million in grants to 350 " archconservative policy nonprofit organizations. " By contrast, the few timid foundations that have funded liberal causes often seem to act as a " drag anchor " on the progressive movement, moving from issue to issue like trust fund children with a serious case of attention-deficit disorder. (snip) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.