-
Putting a Check on Corporate Power
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
If we get seduced into seeing the vicissitudes of electoral politics as the only means to the ends of equity and justice we will end up with a situation much like 1992, when many progressives concluded that there was little need to put pressure on the Clinton/Gore administration because they believed it would represent their views.
Many would later feel betrayed. The reason is that the ultimate enemy of democracy -- corporate power -- extends far beyond the two major parties and the three major branches of government. The permanent government inside the beltway -- the 30,000 lobbyists that work for corporations and the dozens of corporate legal foundations, public relations firms, think tanks, trade associations and front groups -- will doubtless continue pushing their agenda forward regardless of who sits in the White House.
Therefore, it makes little sense to hang our hopes on progressive candidates unless we can also build the kind of institutional strength and momentum that will be necessary to stiffen their spines.
Whatever administration comes into office will also be saddled with two major handicaps before they can turn to a proactive plan -- the war in Iraq and a downward-spiraling economy. Nevertheless, progressives can start pushing now for a few measures which have the potential to begin building momentum for other parts of the progressive agenda.
Public Funding of Elections
Virtually all single issue groups have been disappointed by the Congressional obsession with limited, partisan goals. For example, the evidence is clear that we have less than ten years before catastrophic climate change is virtually irreversible. The power of Big Oil and King Coal to minimize any attempts to displace their domination over energy policy is fueled in large part by millions of dollars of campaign contributions.
In conjunction with Oil Change International, the Center for Corporate Policy recently looked at the key climate and energy votes of the past four years and found that members who voted against clean energy and measures to address the impending climate catastrophe took four times as much money from Big Oil as those who voted for clean energy policies and the public interest.(link: http://priceofoil.org/oilmoney_keyfindings/)
There is little doubt that the same pattern exists with other legislation that has the potential to directly affect a powerful and entrenched industry.
Business has a right to argue its case, but it shouldn't be able to use its wealth to dominate the discourse. One of the ways we can restore some balance and seed the ground for a more expansive policymaking process is to liberate candidates from the pull of corporate money by pushing for public funding of elections.
There is much potential for progressives and conservatives to share some ground here. Regardless of where they stand along the political spectrum, members of Congress are tired of the fundraising rat race and spending their time dialing for dollars instead of debating the issues. Public funding of elections (aka "voter-owned elections") has succeeded at the state level in places like Maine and Arizona, where it has opened the political process to citizens not indentured to a political machine or group of corporate contributors. It could have as salutary or greater an effect on a Congress.
The good news is that after ten years of progress at the state level, bi-partisan legislation was introduced for the first time in 2007 in both the Senate and the House. Another Abramoff-like scandal could be all it takes to tip the balance and get such legislation passed. (See www.publiccampaign.org and www.JustSixDollars.org to learn more.)
Restore Regulatory Integrity
Over the past eight years hundreds of industry executives, lobbyists and other corporate shills have passed through the revolving door into government, where they have worked assiduously to gut key regulations.
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email






