Between July and September, oil and gas industry lobbyists and public
relations consultants spent lavishly to convince California lawmakers to
approve a bill that could drastically weaken environmental regulations and pave
the way for hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” operations to get underway in
the state.
Documents released last week revealed that among the many perks was a
$13,000 lobster dinner for a dozen lawmakers and their staff at one of
Sacramento’s snootiest venues, just before the vote hit the Assembly floor.
Greased by nearly $5 million in oil company cash, the measure
eventually slid through the Senate and was signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, according
to the Sacramento Bee.
Is this what the founding fathers meant when they talked about free
speech, or is this kind of influence a perversion that is dooming American
democracy, as many critics suggest?
Lobbying and other corporate and special interest influence on the
legislative system draws just such drastic distinctions today especially as
wealth distribution in America reaches levels of disparities more indicative of
Third World countries than those of the developed world.
“At least in America, I
no longer think we live in a democratic society,” said Jeffery Hollender, co-founder
of natural products company Seventh Generation and author of the book How to Make the World a Better Place, A
Beginner’s Guide. “I mean we live in a society where politics is controlled
by money, wealthy individuals and big businesses. And until we deal with
campaign finance reform to take money out of politics; until we overturn
Citizens United to take money away from big corporations; it’s a challenge. We
need to deal with these systemic underlying issues.”
The system that Hollender -- who is also president of the
200,000-buinsiness strong Sustainable Business Council -- decries is the result
of a steady erosion of reforms since the 1970s that has allowed wealthy
individuals and special interests to deal directly with lawmakers on
legislation, in essence skipping the people in the process.
Technically, lobbying is defined as direct contact with local, state
or national lawmakers or officials with the intention of influencing policy.
Lobbyists are defined as individuals who make more than one “contact” to such
an end on behalf of a client. They must be registered as such if they spend 20
percent of their time on such activities over six months and make more than
$5,000 for their services or, as in-house specialists, their organizations
spend $20,000 or more to on direct influence activities. These activities are
regulated to varying degrees at all levels of government and are protected as
“free speech” when done within the law.
Using public relations to influence public opinion about an issue with
the goal of influencing public influencing government policy on an issue is
known as “grassroots lobbying,” and is not considered lobbying or subject to
regulation.
In reality, though, lobbying is like the Wild West and is in no way
limited to Washington. In fact, its most effective practitioners peddle
influence in state assemblies.
Another way corporations and other individuals and special interest
groups such as unions influence policy is through campaign contributions. With
certain diminishing limitations from the Federal Election Commission, this
money is constitutionally protected free speech as well.
Individuals can give up to $2,600 to each candidate, $32,000 to
national parties, and $10,000 to state or local party committees. Corporations can’t
give anything directly to a candidate, but can give $15,000 to a national
party. To get around the ban on direct contributions to candidates,
corporate-affiliated individuals, often CEOS, have devised a system known as
“bundling” by which they convince other individuals affiliated with their
organization to combine contributions into a “bundle” that is tagged as being
affiliated with that corporation or entity, giving the bundler a seat at influential
events.
In
2010, however, the conservatively-stacked Supreme Court changed the game in
favor of corporations, in effect giving them free speech right and deeming
their money as free speech. The ruling, known as Citizens United, allowed
corporations to form Super PACS and spend unlimited amounts of money on ads and
media campaigns for or opposed to a candidate or issue as long as they are not
coordinated with the candidate’s campaign.
Nobel
Laureate economist Robert Solow called its effect, “The redistribution of
wealth in favor of the wealthy and or power in favor of the powerful.” (Moyers,
2012)
The
ease of opening super PACS makes it possible for corporations to spend billions
to shape policy, set priorities and frame the issues, which many say comes at
the expense of the American people.
“Corporate
influence is tainting the legislative process, particularly out across the
states,” said the late Bod Edgar, executive director of the media group Common
Cause. “And the average Americans are paying the price.”
A
good recent example of the power of super PACS came Tuesday when corporate
sponsors far outspent proponents of a Washington State bill to require labeling
for genetically modified food products (GMOs). According to the Center for
Democracy’s PR Watch, a coalition of corporations including Monsanto, DuPont,
Pepsi, Nestle, Coca-Cola and Dow spend more than $17 million on ads to convince
voters that the bill was a bad idea. Just before the vote, the corporations laid
down another $5 million in last minute ads. The money won.
Citizens
United “opened a Pandora’s box,” says Quinnipiac University Public Relations
professor and former Fortune 300 PAC organizer Patricia Whalen. It “raises all
kinds of questions about the future of our democratic system and whether our
government’s ever going to be able to work again….” (Whalen, 2013).
A couple good books on the subject of lobbying, Citizens
United and money in politics include:
Clements, Jeffery D. (2012) Corporations Are Not People: Why They Have More Rights Than You Do and
What You Can Do About It. San Francisco, CA. Berrett Koeller.
Kaiser, Robert G. So
Much Damned Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and The Corrosion of American
Government. (2009) New York. Vintage Books.
Hacker, Jackob S., and Paul Pierson. (2010) Winner-Take-All-Politics: How Washington
Made The rich Richer – and Turned its Back on The Middle Class. New York.
Simon & Schuster.
Other References:
Capitol Alert Blog, Sacramento Bee. Nov. 4, 2013. Captured
Nov. 5 at 10 p.m.
Center for Public Integrity. www.publicintegrity.org
Center for Media and Democracy. www.prwatch.org
Gower, Carla. (2008) Legal
and Ethical Considerations for Public Relations. Long Grove, IL. Waveland
Press, Inc.
Moyers, Bill. (2012) From the Introduction to So Much Damned Money: The Triumph of
Lobbying and The Corrosion of American Government. (2009) by Robert G.
Kaiser. New York. Vintage Books.
Public Citizen. www.citizen.org
Whalen, Patricia. (2013) Course lecture for PRR Public
Relations 504, Public Relations Law and Ethics, Quinnipiac University, Fall
2013.
Good work! Super PACs do in fact shape the election/campaign, etc. They enable more money to be shed on an issue that otherwise might not properly be exposed. They have certainly transformed American politics for better or worse. Democracy is a far ways away from where it used to be before Super PACs in the 1980s. Policies are forced on the people and the vote has seemed to be a little bit diminished as a result.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jared. Yes, SuperPACS have blown American politics wide open. It’s amazing how much money is being spent. And when you think that the price tag to win gets higher and higher, really the only players are huge corporations and moguls, and it’s only their worldview and priorities that get aired and implemented. In a world on the brink of environmental collapse, and where the gap between rich and poor is growing exponentially, this is a dangerous – I would say disastrous – development. That’s why I often call what is happening now “suicide capitalism.” It takes the smaller voices – the democracy – right out of American politics, leaving us a barely disguised plutocracy. The Citizens United ruling is so troubling because corporations are not people, they have no conscience, they feel no empathy, they do not know anything but more, more, MORE!
DeleteI’m glad you brought up changes since the 1980s. That’s interesting because one of the most omnivorous, powerful and aggressive super PACS is actually a corporate coalition that dates back to the early 80s called ALEC – the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC is like a closed door club including many of the largest corporations in the country and at least 2,000 state legislators who together draft “model legislation” that become the laws of the land. In other words, these corporations choose the priorities, agendas and even draft the wording of at least 1,000 state bills each year that are then introduced by member legislators in their assemblies each year. They all have that same general thrust – to sell off and privatize all government functions and services, crush organized labor, and remove all restrictions and regulations, especially those that protect the environment. A really good documentary on ALEC was produced by Bill Moyers and the Center for Media and Democracy called The United States of ALEC. This link is to Part II, but has enough of the first part to make sense. It’s good, well-sourced journalism and will shock you. Common Cause also has a good page on it with many links and subsections. ALEC itself has an informative page explaining its mission and justification. I would suggest starting with Bill Moyers, though, because I’ve always wanted to be Bill Moyers when I grow up. Happy hunting.
PACs are such a tricky ethical area, I think. I honestly don't like the idea of them and think "bundling" is just one of the many loopholes involved. I also think this topic goes well with the arguments about corporate personhood because if a corporation had the same rights as a person shouldn't they be able to directly donate to a candidate? Definitely one of those "grey areas" when it comes to ethics and really what opinions of the topic is. Great post!
ReplyDeleteThanks Katie. Yes, it does raise many hairy issues, doesn’t it. I brought up the classic lobbying example from California just because it was so classic – high priced dinner for lawmakers, promises and handshake deals made during champagne toasts, etc. Where to “the people” fit into that? How can “the people” -- who will ultimately see their water sucked up and poisoned by fracking operations, suffer the inevitable spills and disasters, and yet enjoy none of the profits – compete with all the “free speech” money the oil companies can throw at the lawmakers who will decide? The people can’t. On the other hand, “the people” lobby, too. We vote, for one thing. We band together and form associations and other civic groups that reach out directly to lawmakers and make emotional, factual and rational arguments on behalf of our causes. We also donate to nonprofits -- NGOs and activist groups -- that then lobby politicians directly. I’ve done it and know that it can work. It all depends on what the lawmaker’s values are.
DeleteAs far as corporate personhood goes, I think that is the downfall of our country and shows our values more than anything. As I ranted to Jared, a corporation is not a person. It has no conscience. It’s only value is profit. In fact, it has a fiduciary mandate to value profit over all else. It does not have empathy, a conscience, know love or sorrow or guilt. It will get externalize all possible expenses, costs, waste and damages. The popular documentary The Corporation gives a really good picture of how corporations came about and how they came to be regarded as legal persons. It’s on Youtube, too. I think it’s our system’s fatal flaw. The Citizens United ruling only took it to a new level. As Prof. Whalen said, it opened a Pandora’s Box and gave the corporate worldview and agenda primacy over all else – especially our founding democratic values. It goes even further than the chief spokesman of that worldview, Milton Friedman, suggested when he said: “There is one and only one social responsibility of business–to use it resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud.” The system now allows corporations to change the “rules of the game” to limit “open and free competition” and makes “deception and fraud” the norm rather than the exception. And it and leaves our representative government either collusive or lame to do anything about it.
National Public Radio has a good, short audio piece on the origins of corporate personhood. It’s amazing to see how almost accidental it was at the time, but how corporations have come to dominate every aspect of our lives. They truly have more “say” and chances for ‘free speech” than the people, especially now that money is considered free speech after the 2010 Citizens United ruling. Happy hunting!
Darrin, excellent thoughts! When looking up some extra articles on the issue, here were a couple of interesting ones I came across…
ReplyDeleteWhen one thinks of 'lobbying' Google probably isn't the first organization that comes to mind. Rather oil, insurance, and pharmaceuticals companies are most known for shelling out money to influence lawmakers and policy. However, Bloomberg's article 'Google's 8th Ranked Lobbying Machine takes on the Spy Debate' tells of how Google is voicing it's opinion about NSA's snooping - they don't like it and want it to stop. The article says that Google has aligned itself with the normal lobbying operations, to include donating to campaigns and making friends on both sides. Are these ethical components of a corporation with Google's power and influence? Is it legal?
The article continues by stating - "Google is asking Congress for the ability to publicly release how often technology companies turn over customer data in response to government orders. Companies joining in the push to provide more transparency to its customers include Facebook Inc. (FB), Apple Inc. (AAPL), Microsoft and AOL Inc. (AOL)."
Ref: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-05/google-s-8th-ranked-lobbying-machine-takes-on-spy-debate.html
While lobbying can sometimes be for the good, it is not for the good when the funding comes from the government. The Forbes’ article describes this is as illegal lobbying. The article talks about governement several slush funds that have been used for lobbying efforts, which compromises the lobbying regulations. This paragraph from the article sums up the issue pretty straight forward –
“Spending to influence state and local legislation, critics claim, violates a web of overlapping federal laws, beginning with the federal Anti-Lobbying Act of 1919, as amended in 2002, which says: “No part of the money appropriated by . . . Congress shall . . . be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, . . . telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended . . . to influence in any manner a member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose, by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation.””
Ref: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/30/obamacares-slush-fund-fuels-a-broader-lobbying-controversy/
Good point Sarah: Google isn’t what you might think of right off when you bring up lobbying, corporate power or the influence of money on our political system. But why not? Communication monopolies have always been among the biggest influence on our system since, well, the telegraph and the railroad. I mean, if you look at the post Civil War era, when the railroads really expanded (and communications with them), the first wave of corporate barons took advantage of post Civil-War chaos to solidify hold on government benefits.
Delete“The greater its profits, the tighter the emergent industrial class was able to solidify its hold on government to obtain further benefits,” writes economic historian David Korten. “Seeing what was unfolding, President Abraham Lincoln observed just before his death:
Corporations have been enthroned… An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working with the prejudices of the people… until wealth is aggregated in a few hands… and the Republic is destroyed.
So nothing about a major media company lobbying to stay big and get bigger is nothing new. Using government money to do so only illustrates the boundless creativity of capital. I enjoyed the articles you linked. I saw another few that showed how Google’s lobbying has focused on avoiding the application of local, state and federal antitrust (monopoly) laws as well as avoiding tax laws being applied to the billions it shelters in offshore accounts. It’s classic corporate behavior. And the government’s response has been classic in an era of what author Sheldon S. Wolin calls “Democracy, Inc.” in 1877, President Rutherford B. Hayes recognized what was going on as corporations consolidated their power. “This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people no longer. It is a government of corporations, by corporations, and for corporations.”
A good piece on Google’s antitrust complications and efforts to lobby them away is at http://www.dailytech.com/Google+Makes+Last+Ditch+Pitch+to+EU+With+Big+Concessions+5B+Fine+Looms/article33336.htm.
Happy hunting!
Darrin - this is a very confusing topic, and you did a great job of explaining it.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't surprise me that the Citizens United bill was passed. It's a way for candidates to get more money, and a way for the people behind the political parties to continue to control the marionette strings.
When a corporation gets involved in political campaigns, "shmooze" ethics go into play. For example: a candidate's campaign team takes out the CEO and/or president of a major corporation. They are wined, dined, and perhaps even taken out to a few...shows. During the course of the evening, or even a week-long trip, handshakes are exchanged and promises are made to support one another. If the corporation helps the politician, once elected into office, the politician will help the corporation. While the ruling states that the corporation can't be coordinated with the campaign, how is that regulated? How would anyone know about behind-the-scenes handshakes?
For example:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/u-s-charges-two-men-with-illegal-lobbying-for-mugabe.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/nyregion/economic-development-corporation-and-2-other-groups-admit-to-illegal-lobbying.html?_r=0
There is no way that the average American can have the financial influence that a large corporation can have. Therefore, this begs the question: are candidates campaigning towards people or corporations? Do they want votes or do they want money?
Thanks Teddy. Good examples you bring up. Handshakes over cigars and scotch at the strip club – sounds cliché. But it’s the way things are done. I personally can’t wait to get to Jack Abramoff’s lobbying bad boy tell-all “Capitol Punishment,” which, from what I hear, describes exactly the kind of cliché you and I just spoke about. Now old Jack is on a crusade. Here’s a good summary: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/11/18/142506057/jack-abramoff-from-corrupt-lobbyist-to-washington-reformer
DeleteOn the “other hand,” as I told another reviewer, I have been a lobbyist of sorts myself. When I saw first had what the U.S. Navy had been doing to the environment and people of Vieques, Puerto Rico, I took my collected reporting, including a series that won the SPJ that year, to more than 60 members of Congress, mostly members of the Hispanic Caucus and members of various military and environmental committees, trying to get more traction for the protests there. In the end – in no way on account of my efforts – the incoming Bush administration abandoned Vieques as one of its first “national security” decisions just before 9/11 would change the calculus forever.
But to think that kind of citizen lobbying, or NGO lobbying, can compare to cash and call girls, is foolish.
One of my favorite placards of the Occupy Wall Street protests included one that said, “I can’t afford a lobbyist. I’m the 99%”
That pretty much says it all.
Fight corporate power. Happy hunting!
I think, to a degree, lobbying IS political public relations! In many other ways, of course, it is not; however, ethical considerations of lobbying certainly reflect the concerns most citizens have about the way large corporations (such as Coca-Cola and, most especially, Monsanto) have undue influence over politics. Monsanto certainly has a lot of money and power, intimidating everyone who stands between them and what they want. It’s not surprising that they join with other very powerful organizations to accomplish their goals. The Abramoff case is one of particular repugnance. It certainly illustrates the very worst of politics as they take advantage of organizations or people (in this case, the Indian tribes) who rely on their help – however the size of the assistance needed – as a means to an end. Although, most people believe that lobbyists are people of ill-repute and one might question why the Indian tribes would have sought help from Abramoff’s organization rather than, for instance, spend that money on advertising or, say, a really effective public relations campaign.
ReplyDeleteI have a very close friend whose husband is a lobbyist here in Connecticut. He is a nice enough guy (PR is his job!), but he makes a ton of money for his work (a lot), which seems pretty unfair considering how hard I know his wife actually works as a nurse. His closest friends are Senators and other politicians and they have memberships to private beach clubs and places they would not belong to if not for his position. After knowing him, I can say that my position on lobbyists is definitely more resolute.
Thanks for your posting, Darrin...it was well-written and very informative.
DeleteThanks Beth! You know, I think lobbying in a pure PR sense, as in building and maintaining relationships and having a chance to educate, explain, and maintain "symmetrical" communications, seems ideal, even idyllic. I love the idea that we would all have that kind of access. In fact, that kind of model is what first got me interested in politics and journalism -- even activism. In the 70s my father was founder and president of our local homeowners' association and lobbied county assemblymen and state legislators on issues that affected our community. As a little brat, I went to the town hall meetings where positions were voted on and then heard the stories as my dad went and bent the ear of local politicians to make our case. It seemed to work in some small way and I grew up believing in democracy. But now, as politics have completely been turned over to the market, locally and on up, democracy is a farce. As Matthew Joseph Joespheson cites in his book "The Robber Barons," (quoted by David Korten in his "When Corporations Rule the World), in teh 180s and 1890s, when corporations were first regarded as legal persons, "The halls of legislation were transformed into a mart where the price of votes was haggled over, and laws, made to order, were bought and sold." In other words, this is nothing new. But after the 2010 Citizens United ruling, corporations are free to pour as much money as they want into campaigns (their own parallel campaigns) on referenda or elections. I don't see how citizens, even through large NGOs and activist organizations, can have a voice in government anymore. That's why I am an open advocate of direct action activism. That's why I'm an anarchist.
DeleteJust a thought from an article I read tonight on Truthout.org, a publication I have written for since 2007.
ReplyDelete"At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says, 'half the world's great forests have already been leveled, and half the world's plant and animal species may be gone at the end of this century.' Corporations aren't necessarily evil -- although plenty are diabolically evil -- but they can't help themselves. They're just doing what they're supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders."
Darrin -- I know it got in a little late, but great job on this piece! You truly have a talent for writing. You provide great examples of current activities on the topic, but also manage to provide key definitions and guidelines. You get a "brownie point" for using my quote, but I LOVE the quote from Robert Solow about the effect of the Citizen's United ruling: “The redistribution of wealth in favor of the wealthy and or power in favor of the powerful.” (Moyers, 2012) -- I've put that one in my "favorite quotes" list.
ReplyDeleteYou also did a very thorough job responding to everyone's comments.
Pat Whalen