Who should decide whether our communities have museums, concert and dance facilities, parks and other cultural programs?  Who should decide on priorities for funding for disaster assistance or research into cures for diseases?  

Should the public make the bulk of these decisions, through the transparent and accountable systems of our democracy?  Or should a few individuals who control vast wealth and resources make these decisions for the people?

Because of dwindling tax revenues many communities have come to rely on “corporate philanthropy” for assistance with cultural programs, or to supplement their schools, or for other community benefits.  

The people who run corporations are in a position to decide to donate the corporation’s money to various causes.  Many of these are things that the people, through our government, no longer have the resources to support.  For example, the executives and Board of a corporation might decide to donate to build a museum.  They might decide to fund a school.  

And they might decide not to do these things.  

So look at what is happening — as discussed in the Feb. 26 post, Reflecting on Corporations, we have corporations using their resources to influence the public and government to change the rules of the playing field on which corporations operate – deregulating, lowering taxes, etc.  As this corporate influence brings cuts in corporate taxes (as well as cuts in taxes paid by the owners of the corporations), our society is left with fewer public resources for building museums, conducting research, etc.  

And then we have corporations stepping in, using some of their earnings to provide those benefits, with their executives deciding where to direct the resources.  For which the public is supposed to be grateful, and feel more favorable to the corporations, and perhaps grant them further benefits.

These are functions that the public once prioritized and controlled.  But today the balance of control of the country’s resources continues to shift more and more to fewer private individuals.  This massing of assets and resources into corporate hands takes away the people’s ability to decide to build museums and fund schools.  It puts more and more power to make decisions that affect the public into the hands of corporate executives.  Is this compatible with our understanding of democracy?

And a related question:  Should corporate earnings be diverted from the shareholders?  Is it the proper function of corporations to make decisions about funding museums, etc?

Perhaps there should be controls that guarantee that corporate funds and resources are used solely for the benefit of the shareholders and broader pubic interest.  Perhaps corporations should be prohibited from engaging in any activities that influence our government or lawmaking or public opinion.  Perhaps they should operate on the playing field that We, the People lay out for them — and not be able to influence that playing field for the benefit of a few individuals who control the corporation.  

Perhaps.

UPDATE: Mayor Newsom has some thoughts about Matt Gonzalez on the Nader ticket over at the Big Orange. It’s worth a read, and perhaps a rec so others will get a chance to read it as well.

I made no mistake there, I mean that by running with Nader, Gonzalez has transitioned from feasible candidate to somebody shouting from the sidelines.  BeyondChron has the news:

At 9:00 a.m. Pacific Standard Time today, presidential candidate Ralph Nader will announce his running mate at a Washington DC press conference. BeyondChron has learned that it will be former San Francisco Supervisor and Board President Matt Gonzalez.

The previous day, Gonzalez had written a BeyondChron editorial about Barack Obama that harshly criticized the junior Senator from Illinois for not actually being that progressive.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to reign in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.

He goes on to recount some of Obama’s more troubling positions on class action and tort deform, where he enabled the Bush administration to plunder the rights of consumers and working Americans for the protection of corporations, on the plundering of our environment by mining corporations.

As for me, I am under no illusions that Obama was the progressive choice.  Clearly Kucinich was the best for that, but Chris Dodd and John Edwards were clearly to the left of Obama. I understood that and hoped that Edwards would squeak by with a win in Iowa. But once it become clear that Senator Obama was building a grassroots infrastructure that could be leveraged to produce long-term electoral strength, I knew that he should be the nominee.

Look, Obama isn’t perfect, and neither are any of the Democrats. I mean, you needn’t look any further than the front page of today’s Chronicle to see where the Dems are giving away money meant for WIC and Food Stamps to agribusiness giants like ADM. But as this movement grows, truly “we are the change we’ve been waiting for.”

Gonzalez acknowledges this in his post, that this movement is something special. But, this movement is not about any candidate. It’s been growing for a while, and Obama, like Dean before him, has only ridden the tidal wave of support for a new progressive agenda built from leadership from the grassroots on up. We have been bruised by the current administration, and while this might be a smaller step than we would have liked, it’s clearly a step in the right direction.

UPDATE: AP has it now too.

According to Capitol Weekly, it’s a done deal.

Assemblywoman Karen Bass captured the speakership Wednesday night to replace Speaker Fabian Nunez following a round of closed-door meetings.

Bass, a Los Angeles Democrat and the Assembly’s majority leader, received a majority of support in the Democratic caucus to win the job. Nunez engineered the deal that put her over the top. Several legislators, including some who had hoped to be speaker themselves, announced as they left the meeting that  Bass had won.

“She’s got it,” said Assemblyman Hector de la Torre, D-Southgate, after the final meeting.

Other than a brief few months during the post-Prop. 93 Willie Brown fallout, Bass will be the first female Speaker of the Assembly, and the first Democratic woman overall.  She becomes the 3rd African-American, and the 1st African-American woman.  2008 continues to be a year of firsts.

I also think that Bass and Darrell Steinberg well make an excellent leadership team, though it’ll be somewhat short-lived, as Bass is termed out in 2010.  I can’t think of many better combinations than this.