Democracy is terrific. You get a vote, your neighbor gets a vote, every person gets a vote.
But every day money is pumped into the democratic system without your active participation.
If you own corporate stock, are a union member, or are a member of a professional association (e.g., Association of Realtors, Society for Human Resources Management), then your membership dues or ownership dollars are being used to fund political candidates and issues which you oppose. I guarantee that.
Of course, such organizations advocate on your behalf and many of the issues they promote are in your interest. But do you agree with all the issues on their respective agendas? Independent of your membership in the organization, would you have sent money to a political candidate, party, or PAC to support issues you oppose? Is your professional association or corporation pushing only issues that you agree with? No. No. No.
Money Gets a Vote
Candidates and issues that are the best financed get on the ballot. Elected officials, who plan on keeping their jobs, depend on money for re-election. While in office, those officials behave in ways that help ensure the steady flow of cash for their next campaigns. In fact, they spend time away from their official jobs raising those necessary funds.
Clearly, the deepest pockets will be able to flex their influence far more powerfully than less well endowed folks.
(See Open Secrets for the rest of this list and info on top donors - http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php)
I think it's time to severely curtail the influence of money in the political process.
Reasons to End Corporate (and Many Other) Financial Influences in Democracy
There are five reasons I can think of that for-profit corporations should not be permitted to influence the democratic process in any way and/or heavily regulated in doing so. Many of these reasons also apply to labor unions and professional organizations. To the extent that these reasons apply to any organization, I believe money should not be permitted to flow to political donations.
(1) corporate democracy is an illusion
(2) the choice that people have when investing is a false one
(3) owning corporations/joining an organization is not an inherently political statement/action
(4) for a large segment of the population with very specific and related characteristics, there are barriers to participating in corporate ownership
(5) corporations have un-democratic advantages in the political process
Corporations are Not Democratic
As an owner of many corporations, you have a vote. But there are large institutional investors with much more important votes. Therefore, you can hardly expect any corporation in which you invest to be responsive to your needs. So you could take my money elsewhere, right?
"Just Take Your Money Elsewhere" is a False Choice
Corporations all play by the same rules. Don't you want to invest in the biggest, strongest corporations that play as close to the rules as possible without violating them? I sure do. My future financial security is at stake here and that is serious business (especially when you consider that my middle class is losing ground each day). However, that does not mean that I want the rules by which all corporations play to be relaxed in such a way that violates my values. I want the democratic process to set the rules, and then I must invest in the for-profit corporations who take the best advantage of those rules.
Even if investing my money elsewhere WERE a fair option, who has time to research and verify which corporations even match my values anyway (assuming that could even be known or possible)? Partly because of the lack of transparency and accountability mentioned above, and partly because we are all busy people, forcing me to research my investments this way is not reasonable.
The choice we should be discussing is how the rules of business are defined, not forcing investors to use their investment dollars to both secure themselves financially AND figure out how to make a political statement.
Owning a Corporation is a Private Financial Action, not a Public Democratic Action
If I buy a hot dog, I don't do that because I want money going to the hot dog industry. Of course the hot dog shop owner can use his profits however he wants. And when I buy a piece of General Electric, I also do not want the money going to loosen environmental laws or weakening labor organizing regulations. That's especially true since in these examples I am consuming the hot dog but I am OWNING the General Electric. These are things I do privately and I don't expect them to have political ramifications. Nor should they.
For Many, Barriers Exist to Investing
Barriers to democracy should not exist. It's fairly easy to vote (especially if you have a cushy desk job and a car to bring you to the polls). Every citizen (felons excluded) gets to vote and everyone gets ONE vote. However, some people simply cannot afford to cast another vote by investing in for-profit corporations. Some might have the extra loose change to invest, but they may have no clue how to go about doing that or they may not understand what it means to own stock. Some may have the extra funds AND understand investing but they may need more immediate access to their money since they live on a tighter budget. Many people are not lucky enough to work for employers who contribute EXTRA money into retirement funds, which are usually corporate investments. There are people don't receive stock options in their jobs.
Our poorer, less educated citizens tend to be the people described above. If corporations are allowed to influence the political process with their powerful resources, those citizens are at a democratic disadvantage.
Corporations Have Other Advantages
The corporation has one goal - to make money. And the corporation becomes an actor in the democratic process through lobbying, political donations, etc. The for-profit corporation shares a singular goal -- profit -- with its fellow for-profit corporations, so they bring an enormous influence in the direction of some similar agendas which are not necessarily in the best interest of a majority of citizens:
- Minimal regulatory oversight of environmental issues
- Minimal rights for people to organize to improve their bargaining power as employees
- Minimal product oversight
- Minimal rights for employees in general
But Doesn't Money Help Challenging Candidates Get Name Recognition?
Yes. But if the incumbent is performing satisfactorily, what is the problem?
Closing
I wish I had a solution to this problem. It appears that legislation or constitutional admendments may be required to movie this issue forward.
Contact the White House with your feedback. Contact your elected officials. Contact the organizations you are members of and the corporations you own. Sadly, one feature of our large, complex society is that access to decision makers is very difficult. I believe that unless change is effected, the larger and more complex society becomes, the less democratic it will be.
3 comments:
Interesting post Mike. One of the problems you’ve identified is quite pervasive, namely the indirect political effects of actions that one takes for entirely non-political reasons. You give two examples: buying a hotdog and owning General Electric stock. In each case a secondary effect of your action might be political activity to promote causes with which you disagree. The hot dog vendor might take the money you paid for the hot dog and contribute to the political campaign of a candidate you oppose. GE lobbyists might be advocating policies with which you disagree. The difference you point out between the two cases is that while the hot dog shop owner is entitled to spend his money the way he wants, GE (to the extent that it is owned by you, a stockholder) is spending *your* money in its political activities.
Earlier in your post you linked to an opensecrets.org list of political contributions listed by company. You may not realize that the political contributions listed in that table are more similar to your hot dog vendor analogy than to your GE lobbyist analogy. The political contributions listed in that table are *not* from the listed corporations at all. Rather, those numbers represent the total contributions from the *employees* of the listed companies. Corporations themselves are forbidden by law from contributing to the campaigns of any candidate for federal office. This law, the Tillman Act, has been in place since 1907. Many states have similar laws for state elections. I assume that since you recognize the right of the hot dog shop owner to spend his profits as he sees fit, that you also support the rights of employees to similarly spend their earnings (unless you think that income from capital should be less regulated than income from labor; however, given your support for employee rights I doubt that you hold such a position).
The problem you’ve highlighted, Mike, extends well beyond financial transactions with for-profit corporations. Nearly any interaction with another human being can have indirect political implications. For example, suppose you buy $20 worth of produce directly from a local organic farmer at a farmers’ market or roadside stand. Such a transaction might not involve any corporations at all: no distributors, no warehouses, no food processing plants – just you and the farmer. Even so the farmer might take your $20 and use it for political activity with which you disagree. But wait, it gets worse. Even non-commercial interactions with people can have indirect political ramifications. If you give a stranger directions to help him get to his destination, you might save that stranger 20 minutes of driving around, and the stranger might use his extra time for political activity!
With a problem as seemingly large and intractable as this one, taking a step or two back to look at the big picture might help. Is the existence of political activity for causes with which one disagrees really a problem at all? It certainly seems to be a problem at first glance. After all, political activity for causes one opposes sometimes results in the enactment of policies that violate one’s values! Still, we might be missing something here. Perhaps we can find some other way to view diversity of opinion so that it becomes a blessing and not a curse.
Just some food for thought.
Interesting post Mike. One of the problems you’ve identified is quite pervasive, namely the indirect political effects of actions that one takes for entirely non-political reasons. You give two examples: buying a hotdog and owning General Electric stock. In each case a secondary effect of your action might be political activity to promote causes with which you disagree. The hot dog vendor might take the money you paid for the hot dog and contribute to the political campaign of a candidate you oppose. GE lobbyists might be advocating policies with which you disagree. The difference you point out between the two cases is that while the hot dog shop owner is entitled to spend his money the way he wants, GE (to the extent that it is owned by you, a stockholder) is spending *your* money in its political activities.
Earlier in your post you linked to an opensecrets.org list of political contributions listed by company. You may not realize that the political contributions listed in that table are more similar to your hot dog vendor analogy than to your GE lobbyist analogy. The political contributions listed in that table are *not* from the listed corporations at all. Rather, those numbers represent the total contributions from the *employees* of the listed companies. Corporations themselves are forbidden by law from contributing to the campaigns of any candidate for federal office. This law, the Tillman Act, has been in place since 1907. Many states have similar laws for state elections. I assume that since you recognize the right of the hot dog shop owner to spend his profits as he sees fit, that you also support the rights of employees to similarly spend their earnings (unless you think that income from capital should be less regulated than income from labor; however, given your support for employee rights I doubt that you hold such a position).
The problem you’ve highlighted, Mike, extends well beyond financial transactions with for-profit corporations. Nearly any interaction with another human being can have indirect political implications. For example, suppose you buy $20 worth of produce directly from a local organic farmer at a farmers’ market or roadside stand. Such a transaction might not involve any corporations at all: no distributors, no warehouses, no food processing plants – just you and the farmer. Even so the farmer might take your $20 and use it for political activity with which you disagree. But wait, it gets worse. Even non-commercial interactions with people can have indirect political ramifications. If you give a stranger directions to help him get to his destination, you might save that stranger 20 minutes of driving around, and the stranger might use his extra time for political activity!
With a problem as seemingly large and intractable as this one, taking a step or two back to look at the big picture might help. Is the existence of political activity for causes with which one disagrees really a problem at all? It certainly seems to be a problem at first glance. After all, political activity for causes one opposes sometimes results in the enactment of policies that violate one’s values! Still, we might be missing something here. Perhaps we can find some other way to view diversity of opinion so that it becomes a blessing and not a curse.
Just some food for thought.
oops. Sorry about the double post.
Post a Comment