Full Version: Corporatocracy
Bankruptcy Law, Tort Reform, Medicare Reform, Social Security Privacy accounts, etc. etc.
The shock of these bills to me is the fact that there are plenty of democrats voting for them. These are all laws slanted toward big corporations. For instance, the Credit Card lobbies pushed for Bankrupcty reform so they can continue to give credit cards to high risk cardholders, but now they can collect even when the holder can't pay.
Here in my state, our Senator Debbie Stabenow is a corporacrat. There's no doubt in my mind that she cares about those corporate bucks funding her campaign more than she cares about the welfare of her constituents. She voted for the bankrupcty bill.
And Obama, the brash new democrat with a great oral presense, voted for the new tort reform bill.
Questions:
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
The shock of these bills to me is the fact that there are plenty of democrats voting for them. These are all laws slanted toward big corporations. For instance, the Credit Card lobbies pushed for Bankrupcty reform so they can continue to give credit cards to high risk cardholders, but now they can collect even when the holder can't pay.
Here in my state, our Senator Debbie Stabenow is a corporacrat. There's no doubt in my mind that she cares about those corporate bucks funding her campaign more than she cares about the welfare of her constituents. She voted for the bankrupcty bill.
And Obama, the brash new democrat with a great oral presense, voted for the new tort reform bill.
Questions:
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
Yes, and the effects are not limited to the electoral process.
For example, our education system is now pretty much solely geared to meet the requirements of the corporate sector. Technical specialities are ever more prominent, while subjects that might help people organise and collectivise (history, civics, foreign languages) are gradually eroded, and those that help them express themselves or become aware of the world around them (geography, civics & history again, art, drama) are either directed to be economically useful or phased out of public education.
It could be argued that this has always been the case for mass education, which has only really existed since the industrial revolution anyway.
But think back to the days of apprenticeships - businesses used to pay for the specialist training required by their workforces. These days, degrees are more popular, if for no other reason than they mostly paid for by the students themselves, with a varying mix of taxpayer money depending on the country (and the student).
I don't want to explore that idea any further here (though it might be worth a new topic). I mention it only to illustrate the pervasiveness of corporate interests in modern society.
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
While this is a big and increasing problem, especially in America, there are still large areas of politics that have no real corporate downside, interest or control. Areas such as censorship, morality, abortion, and so on. There is still room for political debate on these areas, since the polticians are not all in the same pocket. (Though it could be argued that some or most are in the pockets of churches, social foundations, and other interested bodies, they aren't all in the same one, so there is still room for disagreement.)
Debate on areas that could harm corporate interests has almost withered away (publicly-funded healthcare; stiff regulation; pollution control & environmental protection) in elections. This used to be called consensus politics. Consensus politics can be because everyone agrees on principle, but it can also be because everyone's pocketbook is filled from the same handout.
Purely by coincidence (yeah, right!) subjects like abortion and morality seem to have become the main areas of debate left in US politics.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
One of the founding principles of American democracy, which has spread across the world, is "no taxation without representation".
Corporations pay taxes (when they can't afford tax lawyers and subsidiaries in tax havens to magic away thier liabilities) but have no representation at the ballot box. So, like rich people before universal suffrage, the rich businesses have to buy their own way, and the small ones have little or no say unless they club together to buy their own way. And, like most people before the American revolution, indeed, like most Americans today, they resent paying taxes and do everything within their power to withhold them.
So one solution could be to make damned sure every corporation or business gets one vote each, and put limits on the donations they can make (they won't need to lobby so hard if they have a vote, will they?).
However, the flipside of "no taxation without representation" is "no representation without taxation". We intepret this literally for citizens - even if one has no income tax liability, one would find it very hard to survive and transact in the modern economy without paying purchase taxes, road taxes, etc.
Currently, corporations generally pay lower taxation rates than individuals anyway, and only on the profits they make. Governments (at state and federal level, I presume) give them the opportunity to make large offsets against their tax liabilities to encourage investment in desirable things (jobs, equipment, etc). This is all fair enough, since they don't have a vote, so it's a bit cheeky taxing them at all.
However, the purpose of taxation is not solely a poll tax. Far more important is to fund the common good - roads and other physical infrastructure, for sure; but also intangibles like the stable and ordered society which can form a stable and ordered economy in the first place (and I firmly believe that it does happen that way around).
The flipside of this business ballot (corporate citizenship?) is to make damned sure than any business that has a vote pays every penny of their tax liability. I've proposed before a flat business tax on turnover, rather than profits, and I think that might work in tandem with a business ballot.
If the country is indeed overly influenced by business through their private donations, and that's the way wel feel we have to do it, formalising that influence through a business ballot and a level tax playing field is only fair (to businesses too - depending on how the flat business trunover tax is structured, some companies may find that they net payments in tax and political funding might actually go down!)
Yes, and the effects are not limited to the electoral process.
For example, our education system is now pretty much solely geared to meet the requirements of the corporate sector. Technical specialities are ever more prominent, while subjects that might help people organise and collectivise (history, civics, foreign languages) are gradually eroded, and those that help them express themselves or become aware of the world around them (geography, civics & history again, art, drama) are either directed to be economically useful or phased out of public education.
It could be argued that this has always been the case for mass education, which has only really existed since the industrial revolution anyway.
But think back to the days of apprenticeships - businesses used to pay for the specialist training required by their workforces. These days, degrees are more popular, if for no other reason than they mostly paid for by the students themselves, with a varying mix of taxpayer money depending on the country (and the student).
I don't want to explore that idea any further here (though it might be worth a new topic). I mention it only to illustrate the pervasiveness of corporate interests in modern society.
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
While this is a big and increasing problem, especially in America, there are still large areas of politics that have no real corporate downside, interest or control. Areas such as censorship, morality, abortion, and so on. There is still room for political debate on these areas, since the polticians are not all in the same pocket. (Though it could be argued that some or most are in the pockets of churches, social foundations, and other interested bodies, they aren't all in the same one, so there is still room for disagreement.)
Debate on areas that could harm corporate interests has almost withered away (publicly-funded healthcare; stiff regulation; pollution control & environmental protection) in elections. This used to be called consensus politics. Consensus politics can be because everyone agrees on principle, but it can also be because everyone's pocketbook is filled from the same handout.
Purely by coincidence (yeah, right!) subjects like abortion and morality seem to have become the main areas of debate left in US politics.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
One of the founding principles of American democracy, which has spread across the world, is "no taxation without representation".
Corporations pay taxes (when they can't afford tax lawyers and subsidiaries in tax havens to magic away thier liabilities) but have no representation at the ballot box. So, like rich people before universal suffrage, the rich businesses have to buy their own way, and the small ones have little or no say unless they club together to buy their own way. And, like most people before the American revolution, indeed, like most Americans today, they resent paying taxes and do everything within their power to withhold them.
So one solution could be to make damned sure every corporation or business gets one vote each, and put limits on the donations they can make (they won't need to lobby so hard if they have a vote, will they?).
However, the flipside of "no taxation without representation" is "no representation without taxation". We intepret this literally for citizens - even if one has no income tax liability, one would find it very hard to survive and transact in the modern economy without paying purchase taxes, road taxes, etc.
Currently, corporations generally pay lower taxation rates than individuals anyway, and only on the profits they make. Governments (at state and federal level, I presume) give them the opportunity to make large offsets against their tax liabilities to encourage investment in desirable things (jobs, equipment, etc). This is all fair enough, since they don't have a vote, so it's a bit cheeky taxing them at all.
However, the purpose of taxation is not solely a poll tax. Far more important is to fund the common good - roads and other physical infrastructure, for sure; but also intangibles like the stable and ordered society which can form a stable and ordered economy in the first place (and I firmly believe that it does happen that way around).
The flipside of this business ballot (corporate citizenship?) is to make damned sure than any business that has a vote pays every penny of their tax liability. I've proposed before a flat business tax on turnover, rather than profits, and I think that might work in tandem with a business ballot.
If the country is indeed overly influenced by business through their private donations, and that's the way wel feel we have to do it, formalising that influence through a business ballot and a level tax playing field is only fair (to businesses too - depending on how the flat business trunover tax is structured, some companies may find that they net payments in tax and political funding might actually go down!)
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
Yes it has, the mere fact that the senate found it necessary to pass campaign finance reform laws should answer that question. However, these laws have only put a dent in the spending. They did accomplish one positive thing though, eliminating soft money. Soft money basically allowed a corporation to directly give money to a campaign, now they have to use a PAC or funnel it through executives and there are limits.
We still have a big problem though, all one has to do is head over to The Center for Responsive Politics to see how much money political action committees are spending on politicians. The one thing you might expect to see if you believe the spin coming from corporate PR departments is that these political action committees are giving roughly equally to both sides. I have found in my research that couldn't be further from the truth. There are certain industries and special interests that are deep inside the pockets of one political party or the other.
If you go over to the Federal Election Commission and start looking up executives of major firms you'll see even more money being spent. The FEC requires that all donations over $250 be tracked in their database. For many top executives they'll give the maximum amount of money and then donate an equivalent amount using spouses and sometimes family members. Again these donations are almost never evenly balanced, they are greatly slanted to one side or the other.
Then you have blatant and open giving like the 2005 Inaugural Donors. If you walk down this list you'll see that with very few exceptions the companies here match the companies giving big money to Republicans.
You also have things like companies funding Tom DeLay's Legal Defense Fund. What business does a corporation have contributing money to a politician hoping they don't go to jail, guilty or not?
The simple fact of the matter is that corporations never cast a vote for an elected official but you can guarantee that their voice is always heard much louder than yours. If you write your representative about an issue chances are it'll never be read by anyone but a staff member assuming it doesn't get pitched straight in the trash to begin with. If you are the CEO of a company that donated heavily in the last election, you have a direct line to that politician and they not only listen to you but pass legislation on your behalf, sometimes in direct conflict with the interests of the people that voted for them!
The bankruptcy bill is a perfect example of this. The bill does absolutely nothing to benefit Americans and everything to benefit credit institutions - which happened to have donated heavily Republican for quite a while. The top ten states which file the most bankruptcies (and therefore would be hurt the most) are red states, and yet it is Republican politicians pushing this through against the interests of the people that voted for them in the first place.
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
I think there still is, clearly both sides still work on issues that are of little interest to corporate America. However, corporate interests weigh in heavily on each and every vote which might effect their business.
But we still have plenty of social issues that either side battles on and there are still foreign policy battles which generally are of no interest to corporations either.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
I wish I had the answer to that, I think awareness is the key there. People don't really know just how bad this problem is and it is time to expose it. That is a large part of the project I'm working on (see signature).
Yes it has, the mere fact that the senate found it necessary to pass campaign finance reform laws should answer that question. However, these laws have only put a dent in the spending. They did accomplish one positive thing though, eliminating soft money. Soft money basically allowed a corporation to directly give money to a campaign, now they have to use a PAC or funnel it through executives and there are limits.
We still have a big problem though, all one has to do is head over to The Center for Responsive Politics to see how much money political action committees are spending on politicians. The one thing you might expect to see if you believe the spin coming from corporate PR departments is that these political action committees are giving roughly equally to both sides. I have found in my research that couldn't be further from the truth. There are certain industries and special interests that are deep inside the pockets of one political party or the other.
If you go over to the Federal Election Commission and start looking up executives of major firms you'll see even more money being spent. The FEC requires that all donations over $250 be tracked in their database. For many top executives they'll give the maximum amount of money and then donate an equivalent amount using spouses and sometimes family members. Again these donations are almost never evenly balanced, they are greatly slanted to one side or the other.
Then you have blatant and open giving like the 2005 Inaugural Donors. If you walk down this list you'll see that with very few exceptions the companies here match the companies giving big money to Republicans.
You also have things like companies funding Tom DeLay's Legal Defense Fund. What business does a corporation have contributing money to a politician hoping they don't go to jail, guilty or not?
The simple fact of the matter is that corporations never cast a vote for an elected official but you can guarantee that their voice is always heard much louder than yours. If you write your representative about an issue chances are it'll never be read by anyone but a staff member assuming it doesn't get pitched straight in the trash to begin with. If you are the CEO of a company that donated heavily in the last election, you have a direct line to that politician and they not only listen to you but pass legislation on your behalf, sometimes in direct conflict with the interests of the people that voted for them!
The bankruptcy bill is a perfect example of this. The bill does absolutely nothing to benefit Americans and everything to benefit credit institutions - which happened to have donated heavily Republican for quite a while. The top ten states which file the most bankruptcies (and therefore would be hurt the most) are red states, and yet it is Republican politicians pushing this through against the interests of the people that voted for them in the first place.
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
I think there still is, clearly both sides still work on issues that are of little interest to corporate America. However, corporate interests weigh in heavily on each and every vote which might effect their business.
But we still have plenty of social issues that either side battles on and there are still foreign policy battles which generally are of no interest to corporations either.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
I wish I had the answer to that, I think awareness is the key there. People don't really know just how bad this problem is and it is time to expose it. That is a large part of the project I'm working on (see signature).
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
I think the assessments here is overly pessimistic.
Is there more corporate influence today than in the 1920s when the President of the United States uttered the famous phrase "The business of America is business"? In the 1950s, William Gossett Vice President of Ford Motor Company described business as "the dominant institution of American society".
This is not a new phenomenon. It has largely become more obvious, however, with the severe centralization of power in Washington, DC. No longer do corporations need to lobby for power in various state assembly houses. They can do so in one place: Congress.
However, I doubt many people will argue that cooperation between the government and corporations is a wholly bad thing. The US, early in its history, made the decision that a strong manufacturing sector was vital to the national interest. In his Report on Manufactures issued in 1791, Alexander Hamilton described the advantages of an industrial United States and urged the government to assist in the industrialization of the US. Big business and the government have been in bed since the beginning.
To answer the question directly, we need to examine the actual influence corporations have on the "electoral" process: money. Now ask yourself: would ANY amount of money have gotten John Kerry (just as an example) elected? Could Bill Gates buy himself the White House in 2008? I think the obvious answer is no. Money is certainly a component, but ideas and charisma and persuasiveness are a much bigger component to elections.
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
Money influences both sides.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
A loaded question if I've ever seen one. Money influences everything, but it does not necessarily control anything. Since it does not overshadow other factors, I do not believe that money is "killing democracy". When votes become tradeable on the NYSE, then I will change my opinion.
I think the assessments here is overly pessimistic.
Is there more corporate influence today than in the 1920s when the President of the United States uttered the famous phrase "The business of America is business"? In the 1950s, William Gossett Vice President of Ford Motor Company described business as "the dominant institution of American society".
This is not a new phenomenon. It has largely become more obvious, however, with the severe centralization of power in Washington, DC. No longer do corporations need to lobby for power in various state assembly houses. They can do so in one place: Congress.
However, I doubt many people will argue that cooperation between the government and corporations is a wholly bad thing. The US, early in its history, made the decision that a strong manufacturing sector was vital to the national interest. In his Report on Manufactures issued in 1791, Alexander Hamilton described the advantages of an industrial United States and urged the government to assist in the industrialization of the US. Big business and the government have been in bed since the beginning.
To answer the question directly, we need to examine the actual influence corporations have on the "electoral" process: money. Now ask yourself: would ANY amount of money have gotten John Kerry (just as an example) elected? Could Bill Gates buy himself the White House in 2008? I think the obvious answer is no. Money is certainly a component, but ideas and charisma and persuasiveness are a much bigger component to elections.
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
Money influences both sides.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
A loaded question if I've ever seen one. Money influences everything, but it does not necessarily control anything. Since it does not overshadow other factors, I do not believe that money is "killing democracy". When votes become tradeable on the NYSE, then I will change my opinion.
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
According to this table, public sector employment in the United States is around 15%. Meaning that 85% of people work in the private sector. According to the sba, while small businesses add 3/4 of new jobs, they still only employ about 50% of the private sector work force. So, doing the math - 85% times 50% = around 42% of Americans working for "big business." I'd say that they are getting their money's worth. Moreover, I would add that some website shouldn't ask you or me not to patronize the employers of those 42% of workers just because the CEO gave money to a Republican congressional candidate, but that's just me
. Many workers in america share in the success of their employers - profit sharing, benefits, stock options, etc., so what's good for their employer may actually be good for them personally.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
As I've stated numerous times on this forum - we should allow unlimited personal donations and no restrictions on political speech, but demand full disclosure of everything online instantly, at places like the FEC site noted by Cube Jockey - it's all out there for you to see - Big Finance donates to republicans, Big Trial Lawyers donate to Democrats, etc.
According to this table, public sector employment in the United States is around 15%. Meaning that 85% of people work in the private sector. According to the sba, while small businesses add 3/4 of new jobs, they still only employ about 50% of the private sector work force. So, doing the math - 85% times 50% = around 42% of Americans working for "big business." I'd say that they are getting their money's worth. Moreover, I would add that some website shouldn't ask you or me not to patronize the employers of those 42% of workers just because the CEO gave money to a Republican congressional candidate, but that's just me
. Many workers in america share in the success of their employers - profit sharing, benefits, stock options, etc., so what's good for their employer may actually be good for them personally.What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
As I've stated numerous times on this forum - we should allow unlimited personal donations and no restrictions on political speech, but demand full disclosure of everything online instantly, at places like the FEC site noted by Cube Jockey - it's all out there for you to see - Big Finance donates to republicans, Big Trial Lawyers donate to Democrats, etc.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey @ Mar 15 2005, 11:40 AM)
Meaning that 85% of people work in the private sector. According to the sba, while small businesses add 3/4 of new jobs, they still only employ about 50% of the private sector work force. So, doing the math - 85% times 50% = around 42% of Americans working for "big business." I'd say that they are getting their money's worth.
Really, so did those businesses vote in a congressional election and I missed it carlito? The American people put politicians in office in the hope that they'll act in their best interests. That is the very definition of representative Democracy.
Of course there are times when business interests coincide with the interests of average Americans, more often than not they don't. Case in point this bankruptcy bill and I could make the same case for numerous other bills.
Furthermore Carlito, you haven't explained why a business should be donating to an inaugural fund or a certain representative's legal defense fund.
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
And in what other nation would someone like Anne Coulter be able to blame the Enron thing on liberals?
I'm not sure I see your point. If we let the abuses here slide then we might as well just give up all laws, the government didn't have any choice but to do something here. How many other cases of "corporate malfeasance" go unnoticed? A lot. White Collar crime isn't real crime in this country, especially from the CEO class, you'll be heading off to camp cupcake like Martha Stewart where your biggest concern won't be whether you are going to be violated in the shower, but whether or not you'll have capuccino available and lamenting over the lack of lemons in the prison diet.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 15 2005, 02:34 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
And in what other nation would someone like Anne Coulter be able to blame the Enron thing on liberals?
I'm not sure I see your point. If we let the abuses here slide then we might as well just give up all laws, the government didn't have any choice but to do something here. How many other cases of "corporate malfeasance" go unnoticed? A lot. White Collar crime isn't real crime in this country, especially from the CEO class, you'll be heading off to camp cupcake like Martha Stewart where your biggest concern won't be whether you are going to be violated in the shower, but whether or not you'll have capuccino available and lamenting over the lack of lemons in the prison diet.
As for Coulter, I'd say "the same nation that could blame election fraud by Democrats on right-wing radio" ...
This is true, (OK, I still don't get the coulter reference, but the prison / country club thing is true) but if we were in, say, France or Italy, perhaps there would be less prosecutorial initiative? In Russia, we certainly wouldn't be discussing this.
With the addition of Stewart, we've named 3 Fortune 500 CEO's here who are either indicted, tried, and/or convicted of crimes for accounting and other fraud. Add Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, the Rite Aid execs, Merrill Lynch and we seem to be pretty aggressively going after corporate crime, even in a time with our own president and government are supposedly bought and paid for by corporate interests. Many other nations (or even the United Nations!) don't enjoy the transparency and lack of corruption that we do.
Carlitoswhey brings up an excellent point: in a true "Corporatocracy", big business leaders would either be immune to prosecution or they would simply be able to buy their way out of trouble. Neither is true in the US.
The fact that these people are being prosecuted should say something. The fact that many of them committed their crimes under the previous administration and are being prosecuted under the current one (after donating heavily to it) should also say something.
The fact that these people are being prosecuted should say something. The fact that many of them committed their crimes under the previous administration and are being prosecuted under the current one (after donating heavily to it) should also say something.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 15 2005, 03:34 PM)
QUOTE(carlitoswhey)
As Worldcom chief Bernie Ebbers is headed to prison, and Kenny Lay of Enron fame is about to go to trial, I think this question is ironic. In what other nation would such powerful, well-connected men have a chance of going to jail for corporate malfeasance? We seem capable of holding money and corporate interests accountable, if not of keeping them out of politics.
And in what other nation would someone like Anne Coulter be able to blame the Enron thing on liberals?
I'm not sure I see your point. If we let the abuses here slide then we might as well just give up all laws, the government didn't have any choice but to do something here. How many other cases of "corporate malfeasance" go unnoticed? A lot. White Collar crime isn't real crime in this country, especially from the CEO class, you'll be heading off to camp cupcake like Martha Stewart where your biggest concern won't be whether you are going to be violated in the shower, but whether or not you'll have capuccino available and lamenting over the lack of lemons in the prison diet.
Let's pretend that for a minute that prison, regardless of the form it takes, is a life altering/ruining event. Martha Stewart is a different situation, in that she has a company to come back to and a healthy salary to lean on. Either way, being kept in a cell isn't the ideal daily ritual for any American... regardless of whether you really think it's a "country club" or not (which it really isn't). Most don't come back to their careers and life as usual.
Second, Carlito had a good point. There aren't any nations in which wealth and privledge don't keep you out of prison. Look at OJ. How, pray tell, did that happen?
Finally, most white collar criminals aren't high-powered "Republican" boosters, like you'd like to portray. For every right-wing CEO who happened to contribute to the GW campaign (and make the news), I'm confident there were hundreds of other white collar criminals that got "slaps on the wrists".
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/200/wcolcrim.html
Most are regular people whom dug themselves holes or saw financial gain. The vast majority of it comes from first time offenders whom embezzle money. Most CEO's are under the spotlight and obey the letter of the law.
To make this into a partisan post is absurd. The truth is that this is an issue that far exceeds party lines, that far exceeds politics... it has everything to do with socio-economics. It has to do with popular perception. It's just a fact that many Americans don't see tax-evasion and embezzlement in the same light as car theft or drug dealing. I think the Enron people will see a fate that only comes due to their media exposure, as I believe did Martha Stewart.
Either way... "Corporatacracy" would lead one to believe that the men/women committing these crimes would be above the law, which is obviously not the case.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Mar 15 2005, 01:49 PM)
Either way... "Corporatacracy" would lead one to believe that the men/women committing these crimes would be above the law, which is obviously not the case.
I disagree with the definition of corporatocracy being thrown around (which isn't even a real word by the way, but corporatism is). We aren't talking about the way a corporation might operate under some communist regime or something.
What we are talking about is the amount of influence corporations have on both our political process and on public policy. This means exactly what it sounds like "influence" it does not mean "immunity" as some people are trying to argue in order to present a strawman argument.
There are numerous documented examples of instances when a law was passed that benefited corporations (which do not vote for politicians) and hurt individuals (which did vote for said politicians). The reason is simple - money.
This is the point of this debate. It very well may not be a new thing historically, but I would argue that 1) people haven't started paying attention to it until recently and 2) Corporations were never so bold and free with their money as they are today.
QUOTE(aevans176 @ Mar 15 2005, 04:49 PM)
Let's pretend that for a minute that prison, regardless of the form it takes, is a life altering/ruining event. Martha Stewart is a different situation, in that she has a company to come back to and a healthy salary to lean on. Either way, being kept in a cell isn't the ideal daily ritual for any American... regardless of whether you really think it's a "country club" or not (which it really isn't). Most don't come back to their careers and life as usual.
C'mon, Martha had it easy. She was at Club Fed for 6 months or whatever. It was a joke. Compare that to a real prison and her experience was summer camp.
QUOTE
Second, Carlito had a good point. There aren't any nations in which wealth and privledge don't keep you out of prison. Look at OJ. How, pray tell, did that happen?
Are you talking about cases like OJ's trial where even a black man with money can avoid justice if he has a team of million dollar attorneys?
Just because select individuals are prosecuted doesn't mean there isn't a disposition in the system that favors wealth and the corporate.
QUOTE
Most are regular people whom dug themselves holes or saw financial gain. The vast majority of it comes from first time offenders whom embezzle money. Most CEO's are under the spotlight and obey the letter of the law.
Would you be as easy to forgive a burgular or an armed robber? My guess is no. Why?
QUOTE(Amlord)
The fact that these people are being prosecuted should say something. The fact that many of them committed their crimes under the previous administration and are being prosecuted under the current one (after donating heavily to it) should also say something.
While I do take some comfort in what Amlord said about the white collar corporate offenders being prosecuted during this administration for wrongs committed during the previous administration (this is GOOD!), I do note that there are CEOs such as Ken Lay who, even though they have been investigated and are under indictment, did manage to avoid jail time and trial for some time, unlike Martha Stewart, of whom the Feds figured they wanted to make an example.
QUOTE(Tim-Mello)
C'mon, Martha had it easy. She was at Club Fed for 6 months or whatever. It was a joke. Compare that to a real prison and her experience was summer camp.
Obviously justice, when it comes to corporate white collar crime, is spotty and inconsistent. Think what you like about the five months Martha Stewart spent in the minimum security facility--she still did not have her freedom, and the door to her cell was locked behind her at night. Alternatively, if you think her sentence was so inadequate, what would you have her do--bust up rocks on a chain gang for what she did?
It is clear that if you have a high-powered team of lawyers and loads of money and influence, you can stay out of jail and extend your trial nearly indefinitely. Such is the power of the corporations in these United States.
It's evidently okay to put caps on lawsuit awards against corporations that benefit the little guys (and their lawyers), but allowing lawyers of powerful clients to have continuances and other legal benefits, thereby extending the costs of money and time lost to the People of a given state or commonwealth, remains sacrosanct.
Has corporate influence on our electoral process become too large?
I think business influence in general has had too much of an influence in law making. For example, water issues are current and ongoing problems for the Western states -- yet sprawling development keeps on growing. The business of real estate trumps concerns about the water supply.
On a national level, I'll point to the reduced requirements for mercury discharges into our environment. We'll get more mercury in payment for lower standards. Don't eat the tuna!
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
Yes, I do still think there are fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
Howard Dean demonstrated how, by using the Internet, many small contributions from the grass roots can exceed the few big contributions from business. I think this will become a trend, where politicians will not be so beholding to special interests with deep pockets.
And now Dean is head of the DNC -- cool things will come from this.
One irony in all this is that caving to business interests will eventually come back to the people running the businesses. Using the western water example, the officers of the development companies also live here. When water restrictions go into effect, everyone has to give up something -- especially if you have acres of trimmed grass and swimming pools. Using the mercury example, hey, don't let your kids eat that tuna fish! Mercury poisoning doesn't care what your annual salary is.
I can use another example with SS reform. The politicians pushing Bush's plan are realizing that people can indeed form opinions for the greater good, not just self-interest. The current SS recipients are concerned for their children and grandchildren.
That's obvious to a typical Democrat, less so for the typical Republican -- or so it seems.
I think business influence in general has had too much of an influence in law making. For example, water issues are current and ongoing problems for the Western states -- yet sprawling development keeps on growing. The business of real estate trumps concerns about the water supply.
On a national level, I'll point to the reduced requirements for mercury discharges into our environment. We'll get more mercury in payment for lower standards. Don't eat the tuna!
Do you think there's really a Left and Right in the party system, or is it just a matter of "who your sponsor is"?
Yes, I do still think there are fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans.
What solutions do you think can end the tide of money influences that are killing our democracy?
Howard Dean demonstrated how, by using the Internet, many small contributions from the grass roots can exceed the few big contributions from business. I think this will become a trend, where politicians will not be so beholding to special interests with deep pockets.
And now Dean is head of the DNC -- cool things will come from this.
One irony in all this is that caving to business interests will eventually come back to the people running the businesses. Using the western water example, the officers of the development companies also live here. When water restrictions go into effect, everyone has to give up something -- especially if you have acres of trimmed grass and swimming pools. Using the mercury example, hey, don't let your kids eat that tuna fish! Mercury poisoning doesn't care what your annual salary is.
I can use another example with SS reform. The politicians pushing Bush's plan are realizing that people can indeed form opinions for the greater good, not just self-interest. The current SS recipients are concerned for their children and grandchildren.
That's obvious to a typical Democrat, less so for the typical Republican -- or so it seems.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.