September, 08 2009, 12:50pm EDT
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman on ...
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman on ...
Corporate influence over national policy
WASHINGTON
Public Citizen President Robert Weissman on ...
Corporate influence over national policy
"There is a common link between the policy failure to impose
meaningful restraints on Wall Street, drug companies marketing unsafe
drugs, a deeply flawed climate bill, a dysfunctional health insurance
system that results in 18,000 preventable deaths a year, cable
companies' ability to impose onerous contractual terms, and a global
trading system that undermines our government's authority to adopt
consumer, environmental and worker protections. That common link is
excessive and unchecked corporate power. Public Citizen has always been
a leader not only in addressing issues directly related to health,
safety and environmental protection, but also in working directly to
curb excessive corporate power.
"I hope to help us continue to challenge - and break down - the
false boundaries corporations have successfully imposed on policy
debates. In healthcare, the Obama administration and congressional
leaders have refused to consider the only approach - a
Medicare-for-All, single-payer system - that can cure the system's dual
ills: runaway costs and denial of coverage to tens of millions. In
climate, the legislation that has passed the House of Representatives
utterly fails to produce the economic transformation that the science
tells us we must undergo to avert climate catastrophe. In financial
regulation, the banks have defeated the most important legislative
proposals to mitigate the mortgage epidemic - leading Senate Majority
Whip Dick Durbin to say the banks 'own the place.' The banks have
announced they intend to "kill" the most important regulatory proposal
from the Obama administration - a proposed new financial consumer
protection agency. Our job at Public Citizen is to refuse to let
corporations impose these kinds of limits on policymaking."
Climate change
"Climate change is the greatest threat to the well-being of the
planet and its people. It is going to be the defining issue of the next
50 years - and the world is right now on a terribly worrisome
trajectory.
"It is good to have an administration that acknowledges the reality
of climate change and wants to address it, but the proposals on the
table are woefully inadequate. King Coal, Big Oil and the utilities,
among other industrial and agribusiness interests, have joined together
to, so far, thwart an appropriate policy response.
"There is great opportunity in responding to the crisis, with more
attention to the vibrancy of local communities, the creation of
millions and millions of new jobs, greater equity, and a sense of
shared national and global mission.. New efficiency and energy
technologies can be the engine for an economy that has lost its drivers
- which, for this decade, were the financial sector and housing.
Decentralized generation and distribution offer the possibility for
more independent and livable communities.
"But to respond to the crisis will require first recognizing it for
what it is - not just another in the list of important issues, but an
existential threat to the planet. We - all of us together, with
government in the lead - have to mobilize resources and organizational
might commensurate with the scale of the threat. In the United States,
we have to mobilize the way the country did for World War II.
"Public Citizen brings a long history of working on climate-related
policies like fuel economy standards, subsidies for fossil fuels,
stopping new coal plant construction, and promoting the development of
solar and renewable energy technologies. We are going to build on that
tradition and leverage our collective expertise in matters from global
trade to administrative law. We are going to engage our members and
allies so that together we build a strong citizen movement to overcome
the fossil fuel lobby and avert climate catastrophe."
The financial crisis
"Through its avarice and recklessness, Wall Street has sunk us into
the worst recession of the past 70 years - and, not so incidentally,
destroyed many of its leading firms. Those that survive are dependent
on the trillions of dollars in public funds used to bail out Wall
Street and the big banks.
"Yet rather than express shame and apologize, these institutions
continue to dominate the policymaking debate. Senator Durbin says the
banks "own the place," in the context of their defeat of mortgage
cramdown legislation - a modest measure to address foreclosures that
would very likely benefit banks but would contravene their ideological
opposition to adjusting loan principle. The banking industry openly
announces its plans to 'kill' the most significant Obama
administration financial regulatory proposal - to create a new
financial consumer protection agency.
"We need a smaller financial sector. We need to shrink the size of
the giant banks, impose meaningful restraints on compensation for
executives and highly paid employees (because pay packages incentivized
reckless risk-taking), impose a financial transaction tax, empower
consumers, and offer much more institutional support for community
development banks and credit unions."
Health care reform
"The richest country in the world spends far more than other wealthy
nations on healthcare (at least 50 percent more than every country
except Luxembourg) but sports middling health indicators. It permits 45
million people to live without health insurance, denying them access to
preventative and routine care, resulting in the death of 18,000 people
a year. It tolerates private health insurance companies making
life-and-death rationing decisions for millions of people with only
minimal accountability. It lets private health insurers refuse to take
sick people as customers and engage in endless manipulations to discard
its customers if they do become sick. It features a system in which
medical bills and illness contribute to almost two out of three
personal bankruptcies - even though three-quarters of these bankrupt
people had insurance when they became sick.
"There is a cure all for these ills. It is a Medicare-for-All,
single-payer system, in which everyone is guaranteed access to
healthcare as a matter of right and the government pays medical bills
(thus operating as the "single payer").
"Unfortunately, instead of advocating for this approach - which
President Obama supported as a state senator, and which he still says
would be superior if the system was being designed from scratch - the
Obama administration has sought to reach an accommodation with the
insurance industry, hospitals and Big Pharma."
Money in politics/public financing of elections
"We now have a president eager to take on the big issues -
healthcare, climate change, financial regulatory reform. But in each
case, things are going very wrong. That's because of excessive
corporate power in general, and the distorting power of corporate money
in politics in particular. Indeed, the extraordinarily serious problems
with health care, climate and the financial system are traceable in
large part to money in politics. Wall Street invested more than $5
billion in campaign contributions and lobbying in the decade preceding
the financial meltdown, for example. That money bought them a series of
deregulatory moves that paved the way for the financial meltdown. Now,
with it no longer possible to deny that these problems need addressing,
corporate money is working - all too successfully - to prevent
meaningful remedies.
"With the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court appears poised to
make a bad situation much worse. The court may permit corporations to
spend unlimited amounts of money from the company treasury to support
electoral candidates. Such a decision will unleash a tsunami of
corporate money - probably the best investment a business can make - to
slant elections in favor of corporate-friendly candidates. That money
not only will affect the outcome of races, it will further lead
candidates to engage in self-censorship when they risk offending
powerful business interests.
"Running effective campaigns that engage voters costs money. But it
is equally obvious that elections funded by private money give
disproportionate influence to the wealthy. The simple solution is to
treat elections as a public good (we do, after all, still have public
financing of the electoral apparatus itself) and to provide public
financing for candidates."
Pending free trade agreements
"Designed by the world's largest corporations, our global trading
system benefits those who designed it. Trading rules, including those
in existing and pending free trade agreements, strip power away from
democratically elected governments. Trade rules prevent our federal
government and our states (as well as other governments) from
protecting consumers and the environment. They interfere with efforts
to promote community development and the preservation of good-paying
jobs. They give pharmaceutical companies the right to price gouge the
world's poor, and help agribusiness eliminate family farms.
"When it comes to trade, we need a redirection. We need trade rules
that enhance democracy and ensure that trade advances rather than
undermines the things we want from an economy: safe products,
good-paying jobs and decent livelihoods, vibrant communities and a
healthy planet.
"The Trade Reform, Accountability, Development and Employment
(TRADE) Act offers us a way to achieve this redirection. There is
overwhelming public support for the course correction that the TRADE
Act would achieve; the only question is whether the public can be
organized to overcome the entrenched interests supporting the trade
status quo."
The state of the regulatory system
"Whether it comes to health and safety, environmental protection or
maintaining a working financial system that serves all people, our
regulatory system is broken. It is the victim of more than two decades
of deregulatory ideology, misguided court decisions, inappropriate
budget cutbacks, inappropriate reliance on partnership with industry,
distorted cost-benefit analyses and simple corporate capture.
"We need more funding for regulatory agencies - which more than pays
for itself in injuries and illness prevented, lives saved and
environmental space preserved. We need to validate the work of food
inspectors and drug regulators who help keep us safe. We need to ensure
regulatory independence, and empower and direct regulatory agencies to
prioritize their health, safety and related missions over accommodating
the industries they regulate. We need to make sure the courts remain
available for victims of corporate violence, irrespective of whether
their actions were blessed by regulators. And we need to organize and
create mechanisms so citizens can band together to hold regulators (and
the corporations they regulate) accountable."
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Right-Wingers Plot to Give Trump Control Over Federal Reserve If Reelected
"Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump's views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president's behalf," The Wall Street Journal reported.
Apr 26, 2024
Right-wing allies of former U.S. President Donald Trump are reportedly crafting a plan to give the executive branch control over Federal Reserve policy decisions, an effort that comes as the presumptive GOP nominee continues to signal his authoritarian intentions for a potential second term.
The Wall Street Journalreported Thursday that former Trump administration officials and other supporters of the ex-president "have in recent months discussed a range of proposals, from incremental policy changes to a long-shot assertion that the president himself should play a role in setting interest rates."
"A small group of the president's allies—whose work is so secretive that even some prominent former Trump economic aides weren't aware of it—has produced a roughly 10-page document outlining a policy vision for the central bank," the Journal reported. "The group of Trump allies argues that he should be consulted on interest-rate decisions, and the draft document recommends subjecting Fed regulations to White House review and more forcefully using the Treasury Department as a check on the central bank. The group also contends that Trump, if he returns to the White House, would have the authority to oust Jerome Powell as Fed chair before his four-year term ends in 2026."
During his first four years in the White House, Trump repeatedly criticized Powell—whom the former president appointed in 2017—over the central bank's interest rate policy and insisted he had the authority to oust the Fed chair before the end of his term. The Fed is an independent body subject to limited congressional oversight.
"I have the right to do that," Trump said in 2019 of ousting Powell. "I'm not happy with his actions, I don't think he's done a good job."
The Fed, still under Powell's leadership, has since jacked up interest rates to their highest level in decades in an attempt to combat inflation—an approach that progressive lawmakers and economists have criticized as misguided, arguing that prices were elevated primarily by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions and corporate profiteering and that hiking rates would harm workers. (Progressives have historically pushed for Fed reforms that would make the powerful central bank more accountable to the public.)
Late last year, Trump said interest rates were "too high" but did not say he would pressure the central bank to lower them, saying: "Depends where inflation is. But I would get inflation down."
More recently, Trump suggested the Fed's indication that rate cuts are coming in the near future as inflation cools is a political ploy to "help the Democrats."
"It looks to me like he's trying to lower interest rates for the sake of maybe getting people elected, I don't know," Trump said in a Fox Business appearance in February.
Economist Paul Krugman predicted in his New York Timescolumn earlier this year that "Trumpist attacks on the Fed for cutting interest rates are coming."
"What we don't know is how the Fed will react," Krugman wrote. "In a recent dialogue with me about the economy, my colleague Peter Coy suggested that the Fed may be inhibited from cutting rates because it'll fear accusations from Trump that it's trying to help Biden. I hope Fed officials understand that they'll be betraying their responsibilities if they let themselves be intimidated in this way."
"And I hope that forewarned is forearmed," he added. "MAGA attacks on the Fed are coming; they should be treated as the bad-faith bullying they are."
The Journal reported Thursday that "several people who have spoken with Trump about the Fed said he appears to want someone in charge of the institution who will, in effect, treat the president as an ex officio member of the central bank's rate-setting committee."
"Under such an approach, the chair would regularly seek Trump's views on interest-rate policy and then negotiate with the committee to steer policy on the president's behalf," the newspaper continued. "Some of the former president's advisers have discussed requiring that candidates for Fed chair privately agree to consult informally with Trump on the central bank's decisions... Others have made the case that Trump himself could sit on the Fed's board of governors on an acting basis, an option that several people close to the former president described as far-fetched."
According to earlier Journal reporting, Trump's team has discussed several possible replacements for Powell, including former White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett and Arthur Laffer, a former Reagan adviser and notorious tax-cut enthusiast.
Trump allies' plot to help the former president exert control over Fed policy if he's reelected in November provides further insight into the presumptive Republican nominee's likely approach to a second term.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump—who is facing 88 charges across four criminal cases—has vowed to be a dictator on "day one," wield federal authority to go after his political opponents, launch the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history," and use the U.S. military to crack down on protests.
"If a president is truly determined to make himself a dictator, the question at the end of the day is whether the military and other force-deploying agencies of the federal government are willing to go along," Josh Chafetz, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, toldThe Washington Post in a recent interview. "If they are, there's not much Congress or the courts could do about it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular