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.
How is it that corporations have the rights that individuals do, but not the responsibilities?
Let’s reflect on what a corporation is. A business is formed by a few people. The business asks the government for a corporate charter, pays a fee, and is then this special entity called a corporation with special rights granted by the government.
Under our laws, corporations are fictional persons with certain rights. They can own assets, employ agents and engage in contracts just like people. But unlike you or me they have special benefits including limited liability and unlimited life.
Corporations enjoy limited liability — if you or I commit a crime, injure someone, go bankrupt or get sued we’re in big trouble and have to suffer the consequences. But this is not what happens to the owners of corporations. Their liability is limited and if their corporation is involved in any of these things they can just fly away in their private jets. In some jurisdictions corporate officers and directors are even shielded from liability for criminal acts the corporation commits.
Corporations have unlimited life — which means the entity continues beyond any individual. The assets owned by a corporation can stay and grow in that corporation, and be controlled by its owners perpetually. So the corporation is able to amass significant assets and resources.
A corporation is not taxed the same as individuals. In most case they pay much lower taxes, the dividends they pay their owners are taxed at lower rates, as are the capital gains. In fact there are many circumstances where corporations do not have to pay taxes at all! So the burden of paying for the roads and schools (and wars) falls on the rest of us.
Corporations are able to compel large numbers of people — employees, contractors, other corporations and other paid entities — to do certain things. They can even tell people what to wear, how to wear their hair, even to wear makeup or not.
These special rights help corporations build up tremendous resources and power far beyond the ability of any individual in our society. So individuals finding themselves up against corporations face tremendous disadvantages. Many of the mechanisms for mitigating this disparity, including unions, the right to sue, taxes, even government regulation, have been reduced as a result of corporate-funded lobbying, ballot initiatives or other efforts. The ability to amass tremendous assets and power enables the people at the top of corporations to have great influence over our government and the laws it makes — even to the point of granting them ever greater rights and benefits and tax cuts — helping them to amass even greater assets, resources and power.
Corporations make decisions in ways that are very different from how We, the People of America and California make our community decisions through our governments. In our government all decisions and spending are participatory and transparent, meaning all of us can vote for representatives and can watch or otherwise look at how decisions are made and understand where all money is spent. In California it is even illegal for a city council committee to meet in secret. This is certainly not how things are done with corporations. (By the way, this is why some people say corporations are “more efficient”– they do not have the procedures for the degree of transparency and accountability that governments and other public entities require.)
Question — are these differences between public and corporate accountability and transparency compatible with our understanding of democracy? What about the ability of corporations to influence how our government regulates corporations? Keep in mind that corporations are nothing more than the creation of our laws. So discussing questions like these is essential to the maintenance of that democracy.
In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S.
…
in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world’s largest media corporation.
In 2004, Bagdikian’s revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations — Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) — now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric’s NBC is a close sixth.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations?
Get background information on some of the FCC’s more recent decisions below:
Local Radio Ownership Rule, National TV Ownership Rule enacted. A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of the nation’s homes.
1946
Dual Television Network Rule enacted, prohibiting a major network from buying another major network.
1964
Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule enacted, prohibiting a broadcaster from owning more than one television station in the same market, unless there are at least eight stations in the market.
…
1981 [Reagan Presidency]
Reagan Administration deregulation under the leadership of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler. Deregulatory moves, some made by Congress, others by the FCC included extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981. The number of television stations any single entity could owngrew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985.
1985 [Reagan Presidency]
Guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming are abolished. FCC guidelines on how much advertising can be carried per hour are eliminated.
1987 [Reagan Presidency]
“Fairness Doctrine” eliminated. At its founding the FCC viewed the stations to which it granted licenses as “public trustee” – and required that they made every reasonable attempt to cover contrasting points of views.
…
1996 [Clinton Presidency]
President Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is generally regarded as the most important legislation regulating media ownership in over a decade. The radio industry experiences unprecedented consolidation after the 40-station ownership cap is lifted.
Does Clinton regret the Media Merger Mania he unleashed?
It’s not clear:
Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal
8/6/2007
The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996
* Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news.
* Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing.
…
* The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections.
* The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.
One Candidate has spoken out against this senseless consolidation of the Free Press — that Candidate is John Edwards
8/6/2007
John Edwards:
“It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp.-Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation.”
So far, Edwards is the only candidate to address this issue, and he deserves enormous credit for exhibiting such courage. The media is a potentially devastating enemy – just ask Howard Dean. However, Hillary Clinton has the greatest moral obligation to take a stand given what her husband saddled us with.
And Edwards has paid the Price for telling the Truth to the American People!
The price tag: being “Virtually Ignored” by the Media, and even being dropped from Candidate Polls, based on the arbitrary decisions of corporate Media Executives, and little else:
What is Edwards saying that they find so disturbing?
Edwards Comes Out Strongly Against Media Consolidation
Aug 2, 2007
Challenges Democratic presidential candidates to cut off contributions from News Corp Executives
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards spoke out strongly against media consolidation which threatens the health of our democracy, by calling on Democrats to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger between News Corp and the Dow Jones Company/The Wall Street Journal. Edwards called on Democrats to oppose the merger in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News, and other media arms of News Corp, cover Democrats and the Democratic Party.
…
“News Corp’s purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media – all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets – not fewer. It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.
Al Gore, another Progressive Statesman, has also spoken out just as urgently against this “wild west” atmosphere for evermore Media Consolidation:
Gore Lashes Out at Media Consolidation
by Jill Lawless
August 28, 2006
“Democracy is under attack,” Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. “Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time.
“Democracy is a conversation, and the most important role of the media is to facilitate that conversation of democracy. Now the conversation is more controlled, it is more centralized.”
…
In the United States “the only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on the air often enough to convince the voters to elect you or re-elect you,” he said. “The person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins.”
Where do the other Candidates stand on the FCC, Media Consolidation, and the Fairness Doctrine?
It would be nice to know!
(The Fairness Doctrine, by the way, pre-Reagan era, used to require ALL qualified Candidates, get Equal Air time from the broadcasters, in exchange for their very lucrative broadcasting licenses.)
Edwards has the guts to take a Stand and speak out, like Al Gore did —
“One of the things we have a problem with in America is the conglomeration and consolidation of the Media.
We need to make sure that diverse voices are being heard, and we don’t have that kind of consolidation because that’s a big part of the problem.”
If the Trends set in motion by Ronald Reagan, and continued by Bill Clinton, are allowed to proceed unchecked as they have for 2 decades, this is the likely Future we will face
Instead of the “Big Six” Media Conglomerates —
we’ll end up with the “Titanic Two”
Fox and MSNBC!(and just wait til they merge)
If you think the Media stinks now —
just stay tuned …
and now a word from those Sponsors,
those VERY Special Interests down at www.MediaLobbyists.Inc …
underwritten and enabled by “Business as Usual” politicians, SPONSORS!
New Poll results from that COM (Corporate Owned Media) with the “best political team on Television”:
CNN Opinion Poll
Interviews with 1,033 adult Americans conducted by telephone by Opinion Research Corporation on January 9-10, 2008. The margin of sampling error for results based on the total sample is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
FOR RELEASE: SATURDAY, JANUARY 12 AT 2 PM
Here is a typical Question from this Poll, using their “filtered” version of reality:
11. For each of the following candidates, please tell me whether you will definitely vote for that person in November if they won their party’s nomination, whether you might consider voting for that person, or whether you will definitely not vote for that person in November. (RANDOM ORDER)
Definitely For | Consider Voting for | Definitely Not Vote for | No Opinion
Hillary Clinton 37% 19% 43% *
Barack Obama 30% 32% 38% *
John McCain 22% 35% 43% *
Rudy Giuliani 19% 25% 55% *
Mike Huckabee 15% 31% 52% 1%
Mitt Romney 13% 25% 62% 1%
A search of this entire Poll, shows Edwards Name is NOT mentioned anywhere! … (apparently he “was abducted by Aliens”!)
Did Edwards quit Running?
Did Edwards do worse than Giuliani or Romney?
What gives CNN the Right to Censor Edwards from this Opinion Poll?
(An Opinion Poll that the Media Bobble-heads, will no doubt repeat at nauseum for the next week, too.)
Could it be that CNN did not quite like the Results, when Edwards was included in their last Poll?
Maybe CNN was worried about another strong showing by Edwards, if he was included in their Jan. Poll?
This is simply Outrageous!
No matter which Candidate you support, the Media should not be empowered to make arbitrary decisions like this!
In my opinion, if John Edwards received half the coverage that Obama and Clinton have, the results of those 1st two elections would have been very different.
With the nation’s economy increasingly becoming a volatile issue in the presidential campaign, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce is about to issue one very tough promise to spend millions of dollars against candidates deemed to be anti-business. (Are you listening John Edwards?)
It seems if you dare to tell the Truth about the wholesale “sell off” of hopes and aspirations the American Middle Class — well the “powers that be” just might get a little UPSET with you …
But will that shut Edwards up about it? … I hope not!
Sunlight afterall, is the best disinfectant!
(not capitulation and compromise)
The US Chamber of Commerce, why do they care about what Edwards is saying?
Could it be that some alarm bells went off, as Edwards keeps calling out Lobbyists before a National Audience?
“No corporate lobbyists or anyone who has lobbied for a foreign government will work in my White House. We will not replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats. I hear people argue that the way that you can get things done is to sit at a table with drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, and negotiate with them and somehow they will voluntarily give away their power. I think this is a complete fantasy.”
And then the nerve — to raise the issue again on a Sunday Talk show! What was Edwards thinking?
John Edwards: This Week with George Stephanopoulos
John Edwards: The real question is What is Day One in the White House going to look like? “Day One, in my White House there will be NO Corporate Lobbyists, Nobody who Lobbied for Foreign Governments.”
…
“Yes. There will be NO Lobbyists who have worked for Trial Lawyers, NO Lobbyists who have worked for Big Corporations in my White House — Period!”
…
“I don’t think the Lobbyists are doing America any good! I think what they’re doing is, they’re standing up against working Middle Class families. And the Middle Class is struggling, and at risk as a result.”
…
Straight talk like that — really upsets those shadowy sales-rep-types, who have more of a say in Congress, than YOU DO!
Even though the US Chamber of Commerce’s logo shows “the people” they supposedly represent, their “behind the scenes” activities show the Chamber actually works very hard for some slightly more “influential interests”.
Think this is an exaggeration? Reuters in the UK, has just announced, that Big Business is the “most afraid” of John Edwards to really change things:
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) – Ask corporate lobbyists which presidential contender is most feared by their clients and the answer is almost always the same — Democrat John Edwards.
…
His stump speeches are peppered with attacks on “corporate greed” and warnings of “the destruction of the middle class.”
He accuses lobbyists of “corrupting the government” and says Americans lack universal health care because of “drug companies, insurance companies and their lobbyists.”
…
An Edwards campaign spokesman said on Thursday that inside-the-Beltway operatives who fight to defend the powerful and the privileged should be afraid.
“The lobbyists and special interests who abuse the system in Washington have good reason to fear John Edwards.
“Once he is president, the interests of middle class families will never again take a back seat to corporate greed in Washington,” said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz.
Open attacks on the business elite are seldom heard from mainstream White House candidates in America, despite skyrocketing CEO pay, rising income inequality, and a torrent of scandals in corporate boardrooms and on Wall Street.
…
Another lobbyist said an Edwards presidency would be “a disaster” for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
…
BUSINESS’S FAVORITE UNCLEAR
Asked which candidate their clients most support, corporate lobbyists were unsure. Clinton has cautious backing within the corporate jet set, as do Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and former Republican Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, they said.
These candidates represent stability to executives who have much to lose if November’s election brings about the sweeping change some candidates are promising.
…
“My sense is that Obama would govern as a reasonably pragmatic Democrat … I think Hillary is approachable. She knows where a lot of her funding has come from, to be blunt,” said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Stanford Group Co., a market and policy analysis group.
But Edwards, Valliere said, is seen as “an anti-business populist” and “a trade protectionist who is quite unabashed about raising taxes.”
“I think his regulatory policies, as well as his tax policies, would be viewed as a threat to business,” he said.
This is what the Corporate Elite is SO nervous about:
You can Pick your Candidate, only so long as ‘they don’t upset the apple cart’. Anyone that dares to really challenge Corporations for Economic Fairness, will face the wrath of the Media Pundits and Programming Directors! (and the US Dept of Commerce too, apparently.)
Silly People, thinking we actually run our Government. That ship has sailed, starting with Reagan’s Deregulation, and Supply-Side give-aways to business, and it’s been going down hill ever since. (Anyone remember NAFTA and CAFTA?)
Despite the angst of the super rich, to keep hording and acquiring more Wealth, our country has done fine in the past when Tax Rates were much higher for business and the power-elite.
Historically, Marginal Tax Rates have been much higher than we have now: (Even rolling back to the Reagan Tax rates of the 1980’s is hardly extreme, given historical Tax rates.)
Even when we had these greater levels of Tax Responsibility for the very wealthy in eras past, that did NOT cause the U.S. Economy to nosedive in those years. Just the contrary actually, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) continued to grow in those periods, in large part I suspect, due to the hard working nature of the American People:
Edwards just wants Corporations to be Good Citizens, and to pay their fair share, to support this Country of ours:
The Corporate Section of the chart (Rose Color) could really stand to be a little wider, now couldn’t it?
That Reuters article cited a lobbyist who said:
an Edwards presidency would be “a disaster” for his well-heeled industrialist clients.
So what is exactly “the disaster” for those industrialists?
Perhaps making 300 to 400 x more than average worker is NOT enough to maintain their “upper crust” lifestyle? Or perhaps “corporate greed” has little patience for the petty problems of working people, as we drift ever further into debt and despair?
Ever since the Regan era, American Workers started going downhill … and we have rarely looked back. And our Leaders have rarely tried to correct that course of those who toil their lives away, in the trenches:
Most of those Trend lines by the way, are headed in the WRONG Direction for 95% of us!
Of course those Corporate Execs and their Lobbyists are ‘pleased as punch’, since their Wealth Trends are skyrocketing upwards, in that top 5% tier.
This is what Edwards is talking about when he says we must fight for Economic Fairness, and against the greed of the top 1%. Of course much of that Business elite often have a totally different Agenda — so different in fact, that they have put Edwards on their “must watch” list (and on the Media Blackout List too).
This Wealth Gap is Real. And has recently been confirmed by respected University of Michigan researchers:
ScienceDaily (Aug. 9, 2007) – The rich really are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, a new University of Michigan study shows.
The study—the most recent available analysis of long-term wealth trends among U.S. households—is based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, conducted by the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR) since 1968.
Over the last 20 years, the net worth of
the top two percentile of American families nearly doubled, from $1,071,000 in 1984 to $2,100,500 in 2005.
But the poorest quarter of American families lost ground
over the same period, with their 2005 net worth
below their 1984 net worth,
measured in constant 2005 dollars.
The poorest ten percent of families actually had a negative net worth—more liabilities than assets.
…
The researchers also examined net worth dynamics across different age groups and educational levels. They found that the median household net worth of people in their 20s declined by nearly 30 percent, while the net worth of households headed by people in their 30s also fell slightly. The findings provide support for the widespread sense that it is harder than it used to be for younger people to establish themselves financially.
…
Those Divergent Wealth Trends are Real. And so is the daily pain for the Majority of us left behind, on all those downward tracks! As Edwards has been saying those corporate interests are literally stealing our children’s future!
John Edwards on Taking on Entrenched Special Interests
.. these entrenched interests — whether you’re talking about oil companies, drug companies, gas companies, whoever — these entrenched interests are literally stealing our children’s future. They have a stranglehold on this democracy and they are having an incredibly destructive force on the middle class, on families …
That is no exaggeration! It’s just life in modern day America, where Issue-based Reporting has been tossed aside, as another extravagance, that our Corporate Media cheerleaders, seemingly has no use, nor time for!
I can sort of understand the Media and Lobbyists trying to keep Edwards quiet — Greed being what it is! Afterall they have that ‘Home in the Hamptons’ to protect, and all those stock options to cash in someday.
But when fellow progressive Democrats join the rabble to censor Free Speech, and the Democratic process — there is really NO Excuse! A diversity of ideas is a Good thing for Democracy. We already have WAY TOO Much filtering out of the Voices of average Americans, from the traditional Media.
As Democrats, we should embrace Free Speech, which includes the rights of Citizens in each State, to cast their Votes!
Last time I checked we were having an Election —
NOT a Coronation!
NOT a President by Media-Fiat!
But an old-fashion, Let the People Decide Election!
The reason we don’t have Universal Health Care today is because of Drug Companies, Insurance Companies and their Lobbyists, in Washington. They stand between you and the Health Care that you need.
We have to take this system on, we have to change it. We have to be willing to be honest about it.
…
You have to say NO to these People!
You have to say as President I represent the American People!
That’s the only way we’ll get the Change that we need in this Country.
John Edwards on Taking on Entrenched Special Interests
I want to say a quick word about this. You know, it is true that these entrenched interests — whether you’re talking about oil companies, drug companies, gas companies, whoever — these entrenched interests are literally stealing our children’s future. They have a stranglehold on this democracy and they are having an incredibly destructive force on the middle class, on families being able to do what my family has done and so many who are sitting here have been able to do.
And the problem is you can’t be with those people, take their money and then challenge them. It doesn’t work. You have to be willing to actually stand up and say no — no to lobbyist money, no to PAC money, no corporate lobbyists working for me in the White House. If you intend to take them on, and if it is personal for you — and this is extraordinarily personal for me — if it’s personal for you, then you can be successful bringing about the change.
Teddy Roosevelt — just one quick example — Teddy Roosevelt — Teddy Roosevelt, a great American president — he didn’t make deals with the monopolies and the trusts. Teddy Roosevelt took them on, busted the monopolies, busted the trusts. That’s what it’s going to take.
We have a battle in front of us. We do. I don’t think we have a problem with politicians in Washington spending enough time with lobbyists and going to cocktail parties. They do it all the time. They do it every single day, and I’ll tell you who’s paying the price for those cocktail parties: Natalie Sarkisian, every single American who doesn’t have health care coverage, everybody who’s going to the gas pump and paying so much money for their gas. When are we going to have a president who actually takes these people on? That’s what I’m going to do.
What you see happening in America today, if you’re president of the United States and you’re looking at this from altitude is you see a very few Americans getting wealthier and wealthier, you see the biggest corporations in America’s profits through the roof — ExxonMobil just made $40 billion, record profits — all of that happening at the same time that we have 47 million people with no health care, 37 million who will wake up in this country tomorrow worried about feeding and clothing their children. Tonight, 200,000 men and women who wore the uniform of the United States of America and served this country honorably will go to sleep under bridges and on grates.
It’s time for us to say and it’s time for the president to say enough is enough. This is a battle for the future of our children. This is a battle for the middle class.
Let’s take jobs, which we haven’t talked about. We’ve touched on a lot of other things, but we haven’t talked about jobs. We’ve had a trade and tax policy that is bleeding American jobs, and all it has done is pad the profits of the biggest multinational corporations in America. You talk about professors here at this college.
…
I saw a projection just a week or so ago suggesting that America could lose as many as 20 (million) to 30 million more jobs over the next decade. Think about that for a minute, 30 million. And who’s the most at-risk group? College graduates. This is not just people who are working in mills and working in factories — who have been devastated by this, completely devastated — these are middle-class families, these are college graduates and their jobs at risk.
“We need a different Tax Policy, a different Trade Policy,
where the first question, and this is what I WILL ask
when I’m President of the United States:
‘Is this Trade Proposal, Is this Tax Proposal,
IS it good for working Middle Class Americans?’
That’s the Question!”
John Edwards: This Week with George Stephanopoulos
John Edwards: The real question is What is Day One in the White House going to look like? “Day One, in my White House there will be NO Corporate Lobbyists, Nobody who Lobbied for Foreign Governments.”
…
“Yes. There will be NO Lobbyists who have worked for Trial Lawyers, NO Lobbyists who have worked for Big Corporations in my White House — Period!”
…
“I don’t think the Lobbyists are doing America any good! I think what they’re doing is, they’re standing up against working Middle Class families. And the Middle Class is struggling, and at risk as a result.”
…
This is the reason George, that the Voters here in NH, and all the future States, need an ‘unfiltered Debate’ between the two of us, about who can best bring about change.
George Stephanopoulos: You want a 2-person race?
John Edwards: I want a debate with — Listen I like Senator Obama very much. We do have a basic general view that is very similar. But I have a very view than he does, about how we bring about Change. I think we have an ‘epic fight’ on our hands, against these entrenched monied interests. And I think we’ll never be successful —
George Stephanopoulos: He led the fight for Lobbying Reform in the Senate, he says.
John Edwards: But he talks about this in a that suggests, you sit at a table and negotiate, with Drug Company Lobbyists, Insurance Company Lobbyists, and Oil Company Lobbyists, and you can somehow negotiate — they’ll negotiate their power away. That’s a fantasy, in my judgment! I don’t think it will ever happen! I’ve been these people my entire life. First for 20 years in court rooms. And then I did it in public life.
…
What I am saying is these people have a disproportionate influence on the way the Government works, and they are stopping Progress. And let me be specific, we’re talking about this too generically:
Drug Companies and Insurance Companies have killed Health Care Reform in America.
Oil Companies have kept us from protecting the Environment, by attacking Global Warming.
The biggest multi-national corporations have set up, a set of Trade Systems and a set of Tax Laws that benefit them and profit them, but the Middle Class and working people are struggling as the result.
That is Wrong! I want to be the President that fights for the Middle Class, fights for working people, the kind of people I grew up with, George. I said this last night. This not abstract, or academic for me — it is PERSONAL! I see these people, going to these cocktail parties, having their receptions. You’ve been there George, you know how it works!
…
I mentioned this last night, this young woman who lost her life Nataline Sarkisyan, just a few week ago. Because her insurance company, one of the largest in America would not pay for a liver transplant operation — even though she HAD insurance. They would NOT pay for it! And People say to me, as their President, they want me to sit at a table and negotiate with these people?
I mean, they’re the PROBLEM, they’re NOT the SOLUTION!
And my job is to stand up for the American People against them!
…
This Cause, of fighting for people like Nataline Sarkisyan, fighting for people like my own family, and for the Middle Class, and giving them a decent life. And making sure their kids have a better life — which is what this is ultimately about — this is ‘the Cause of my Life’!
And I have NO Intention of stopping!
I am in this, through the Convention — and to the White House.
George Stephanopoulos: through the Convention?
John Edwards: Absolutely!
… I am in this through the Convention — and to the White House.
SO … Who is Standing up for you and your family, and your Future?
Who is looking for just another way, that we can “all just get along” …
I’m sorry, “Playing Nice” just does NOT work, anymore!
That Ship has sailed!
Look what happens when you work hard and “play by the rules” — hard-working Americans “get played for fools”!
This isn’t about petty politics or good intentions.
Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children’s future.
The moral test of our generation is whether we’re going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it’s too late.
They aren’t going to just give their power away.
Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that’s a fight I was born for.
Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children’s future.
How so?
Do those “greedy corporations” just stroll into Congress and demand that legislators, just give them concessions?
Well sometimes — but usually its much more subtle than that. Usually they just hire someone to do this convincing for them.
And those they employ, know the “behind the scenes” working of Washington quite well — They don’t become highly paid Lobbyists for nothing!
Lobbying is hard work! The stress level and the burn out rates in the Lobbying industry is high. Lobbying Firms must resort to snapping up “retiring Congressmen”, in a system known as the “revolving door”. Sometimes Lobbyists need a break too, and they go back into Politics for a spell (just ask Fred Thompson).
Lobbying Firms also have been known to recruit this country’s best talent, in places like Harvard and Princeton. Recent graduates, are probably easier to train, and ready to “go that extra mile” in order to make a name for themselves:
from the Princeton Review Career page:
Lobbyist: Day in the Life
First and foremost, lobbyists must be adept at the art of persuasion, which is the mainstay of their job. They must figure out how to sway politicians to vote on legislation in a way that favors the interest they represent.
When normally opposing groups find a common area of interest and can present a united front they are extremely effective.
Lobbying can be direct or indirect.
Direct lobbying means actually meeting with congressmen and providing them with information pertinent to a bill being voted on. The lobbyist imparts her information with the help of graphs, charts, polls, and reports that she has hunted up or created. Needless to say, this is usually information that the politician might not otherwise have access to, that casts the matter in a light favorable to the interest the lobbyist represents.
Sometimes, lobbyists will even sit down and help a politician draft legislation that is advantageous for their interest.
Maintaining good relations with politicians who can be relied on to support the lobbyist”s interest is key. While lobbyists and their employers cannot themselves make large campaign donations to politicians, they can, and do, raise money from other sources for reelection campaigns.
Indirect lobbying, sometimes referred to as grassroots organizing, is a bit less glamorous. Grassroots lobbyists enlist the help of the community to influence politicians by writing, calling, or demonstrating on the organization”s behalf. This means long hours spent on the phone and writing letters, trying to rouse the community to get involved. These lobbyists also report to politicians about the concerns and reactions they have gotten from community members. Indirect lobbying is also done through the media. Grassroots lobbyists write articles for newspapers and magazines and appear on talk shows to generate interest in and awareness of their issues.
There are no licensing or certification requirements, but lobbyists are required to register with the state and federal governments. Most lobbyists have college degrees. A major in political science, journalism, law, communications, public relations, or economics should stand future lobbyists in good stead.
Many lobbyists also come from careers as legislators, as former politicians often capitalize on their years of government service and their connections to old pals still in office. This is the “revolving door” that recent legislation has begun to regulate.
Indeed, networking is the name of the game in lobbying, where people are hired as much for who they know as what they know. Someone who can schmooze at high levels will start his lobbying career from an accordingly high perch, while others face a long hard climb upwards.
So how are Corporations, stealing our Children’s future?
By sheer numbers and dollars spent, to block legislation, or otherwise, insert clauses to laws, helpful to their Profits Margin — and little else. That’s what unchecked greed gets you, in a Free Market society, where Corporations make up the rules, and the People must take a back seat.
Here’s the list of the most influential power-brokers in Washington, and chances are you never even heard of them:
Top Lobbying Firms, 1998-2007
Lobbying firm – Total [retainer fees]
Patton Boggs LLP
$251,392,000
Cassidy & Assoc
$247,275,000
Akin, Gump et al
$205,225,000
Van Scoyoc Assoc
$167,198,000
Barbour, Griffith & Rogers
$126,640,000
Williams & Jensen
$123,404,000
Ernst & Young
$112,871,560
Hogan & Hartson
$109,293,907
Greenberg Traurig LLP
$96,708,249
Quinn, Gillespie & Assoc
$95,637,500
PMA Group
$92,680,132
Preston, Gates et al
$88,720,000
Verner, Liipfert et al
$88,595,000
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
$85,534,945
Holland & Knight
$74,969,544
Alcalde & Fay
$70,290,660
Clark & Weinstock
$69,725,000
Timmons & Co
$69,068,000
PodestaMattoon
$68,955,000
Washington Group
$68,820,000
In addition to campaign contributions to elected officials and candidates, companies, labor unions, and other organizations spend billions of dollars each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies.
Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.
THIS — is the “Broken System in Washington” that Edwards talks about in that Ad!
This is “the moral test of our generation”:
whether we’re going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it’s too late.
Have you every wondered why we don’t have:
– Universal Health Care
– Energy Independence
– Fair tax policy
– Fair trade policy
Well who do you think can afford to hire “enough” Lobbyists to get their way?
How much did you give to Sierra Club last year? What about the Natural Resource Defense Council? Chances are it wasn’t enough! Big Oil no doubt gave more to many of these Lobbying Firms — and yet another year slipped by, with NO REAL ACTION, toward Energy Independence, and stopping Global Warming!
That’s just Wrong! This system of Government of our IS Broken!
When are we gonna show a little backbone — and do something about it? (that is something that Edwards often asks, too)
Those Mega-Million-dollar Lobbying Firms have “built a Wall around Washington”! That Wall keeps out the voices and concerns of ordinary Americans like you and me!
Other candidates think that to change the system you got to “work within the system” — if that approach worked, we’d already have – Universal Health Care, Energy Independence, Fair tax policy, Fair trade policy!
I guess “working the system” really only works for those who can afford to “pay to play”?
Hmmmm … maybe I should contact MY Lobbyist?
Wait a minute, who’s that?
Who’s going to Lobby for ME?
Who’s going to Fight for MY Issues?
Who’s going to “represent WE the People”
in that power-broker circus, called DC?
Who’s got the guts, and the experience to take on this “epic fight of a generation”?
That Fighter sounds like John Edwards to me!
The question is, Is America ready to step up, and help fix this Broken System?
If not now, when?
Ever?
Learn more about why Lobbyist’s influence MUST be reigned in:
As I read the LA Times today, I was disappointed to see their endorsement of “No” on California’s Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. What bothered me further is that the majority of their argument is supportive of the initiative. They acknowledge that such reform allows candidates to spend more time with voters discussing issues. They note that legislators become free to say “no” to any interests who use campaign funding as leverage for special treatment. And they realize that special interests are now also turning to ballot measures to get their way with Sacramento.
Indeed, the main thrust of their argument seems to be one of fairness to corporations. And it struck me that this is another example of the boiling frog parable. In their view, corporations are akin to citizens. Prop 89 is “insulting” to corporations. We have to be just as “fair” to them as to people.
Since when has it become acceptable for corporations to be on equal footing with human beings? Corporations serve a useful purpose in the business world, but it’s always dicey when their interests intersect with those of people. In fact, with awareness of American fascism increasing, we should be more concerned than ever about their close ties with government. True, corporations shouldn’t be treated as all-evil and taxed to the hilt for everything. But Prop 89 doesn’t do that. Its modest increase of 0.2% still keeps the tax lower than it was from 1980 to 1996. And most small businesses won’t pay any increase at all.
The Times’ premise seems to be if you don’t like something in a proposition, you should vote “No”. But voting “No” is not sticking with the status quo. To do that, just don’t vote on it. When you vote “No”, you are explicitly choosing a system that gives big business a louder voice than individual citizens. One in which corporate interests are favored over the public good. And one in which our elected officials are obligated to spend time raising money instead of serving the public.
I’ve now heard the argument so many times that I’m tired of it: “Proposition 89 is great, but it’s flawed”. This is a cop-out. Reforming our electoral process doesn’t occur all at once by flipping a switch. It happens in steps. But it can’t even begin if we miss the big picture, the promise of real election reform, by focusing on nits that people will never agree on. That’s just a distraction.
We’ve become like those boiling frogs that don’t know what’s going on around us because the influence of corporations in government has increased so gradually it’s become accepted. Fortunately, the November ballot forces our awareness. We can choose to stay in that pot by voting “no”, or choose to change our situation with a “Yes” on 89.
