Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Corporations That Occupy Congress
Some of the biggest companies in the United States have been firing workers and in some cases lobbying for rules that depress wages at the very time that jobs are needed, pay is low, and the federal budget suffers from a lack of revenue.
Last month Citizens for Tax Justice and an affiliate issued “Corporate Taxpayers and Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10″. It showed that 30 brand-name companies paid a federal income tax rate of minus 6.7 percent on $160 billion of profit from 2008 through 2010 compared to a going corporate tax rate of 35 percent. All but one of those 30 companies reported lobbying expenses in Washington.
Another report, by Public Campaign, shows that 29 of those companies spent nearly half a billion dollars over those three years lobbying in Washington for laws and rules that favor their interests. Only Atmos Energy, the 30th company, reported no lobbying.
Public Campaign replaced Atmos with Federal Express, the package delivery company that paid a smidgen of tax — $37 million, or less than one percent of the $4.2 billion in profit it reported in 2008 through 2010.
For the amount spent lobbying, the companies could have hired 3,100 people at $50,000 for wages and benefits to do productive work.
The report – “For Hire: Lobbyists or the 99 percent” – says that while shedding jobs, the 30 companies are “spending millions of dollars on Washington lobbyists to stave off higher taxes or regulations.”
These and other companies have access to lawmakers and regulators that are unavailable to ordinary Americans.
CALL CONGRESS
Doubt that? Dial the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121, ask for your representative’s office and request a five-minute audience, in person, at the lawmaker’s convenience back in the home district.
In more than a decade of lectures recommending this, I have yet to have a single person email me about having scored a private meeting with the representative called.
Corporations have vast resources to pour into ensuring access — resources that expand when little or no taxes are paid on profits thanks to rules they previously lobbied into law.
Companies form nonprofit trade associations, hire former lawmakers and agency staffers, and have jobs to dole out to lawmakers after they leave office and to friends and family while they’re in office. Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, corporations can now pour unlimited sums into influencing elections. So can unions, but they are financial pipsqueaks compared to companies.
Then there are political action committees, or PACs, to finance campaigns as well as donations by executives and major shareholders.
Combine all this and you have a powerful formula for making rules that favor corporate interests over human interests, something that the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood more than two centuries ago.
James Madison wrote disapprovingly in 1792 of “a government operating by corrupt influence, substituting the motive of private interest in place of public duty” where eventually “the terror of the sword, may support a real domination of the few, under an apparent liberty of the many.”
FEARS COME TRUE
The late U.S. president’s fears have come to life. For swords, just substitute police with rubber bullets, batons and pepper spray at Occupy demonstrations, including perfectly peaceful ones.
Company reports to shareholders show that among the 30 companies in the Public Campaign report, the 10 firms that spent the most on lobbying during the same three-year period fired more than 93,000 American workers.
Those firings took place in an economy that had five million fewer people with any work in 2010 than in 2008.
All those firings mean higher costs to taxpayers to support those unable to find work, including the more than 4.2 million Americans who are now persevering by applying for jobs after more than a year. Millions more have given up and are no longer counted among the unemployed.
Federal Express spent $25 million lobbying to protect a rule that makes it virtually impossible for its express delivery workers to unionize. That’s 67 percent of what it paid in taxes.
FedEx says it was “educating lawmakers” about a proposal “that would cripple competition in the express delivery industry and hinder our nation’s future economic success.”
The Teamsters, who represent drivers at United Parcel Service, say FedEx was protecting a special interest rule that shorts workers. UPS pays its unionized drivers 53 percent to 104 percent more per hour than FedEx does.
The United States already ranks second among modern nations, just behind South Korea, in the share of its workers in low-wage jobs while too many companies lobby for ever lower taxes, ever smaller wages and ever fewer worker rights to protect the mighty torrents of greenbacks flowing into their coffers. A better balance would make America better off.
- Posted in


18 Comments so far
Show AllAhhh yes, the true face of fascism.
All of the global corporations mentioned have allegence to no nation and seek to own as many governments as they can afford to own in order to maximize profits . Their mission statements really are that simple.
As Thomas Jefferson said "Greed degraded, and will degrade. . ."
As Thomas Jefferson said "Greed degraded, and will degrade. . ."
Herewith (to use legalese) is what the New York Law Journal (perhaps the leading U.S. legal trade paper) has to say about regulation. Its slant is evident (for those who have had jobs since 2008 and read only the fawning corporate media--it's NOT progressive, still advocates pure capitalism, and doesn't notice that the U.S. now can indefinitely detain citizens on a whim.) One wonders why the bible of NY's legal community never attacks the DEREGULATION (repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999) that precipitated the Crash of 2008. All other NYLJ commentaries in its "special" “Regulatory Reform” section are locked to those unable to pay the thousand-dollar subscription that is chump change to Manhattan's elite legal club. Only this first essay is open to serfs. Its writers give no real opinion, but simply regurgitate what the so-called "new regulator in town" is, glossing over the pocket-money fines that the new agency could assess:
"’There's a New Regulator in Town’, Dec 19, 2011: [On] Oct 3, [NY] state, home to the largest and most sophisticated financial services companies in the world, significantly changed its regulatory landscape by merging its primary financial services regulators, namely, the Insurance and Banking Departments, into a new, single agency, known as the Department of Financial Services (DFS). The DFS is the brainchild of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, and was created by the Financial Services Law (FSL) .
“The DFS mark[s] the beginning of a new regulatory era in New York, and signif[ies] a move towards more unified and comprehensive oversight of financial services and both the insurance and banking industries in particular. While the merger has widespread implications for the insurance and banking industries, as well as the financial services industry as a whole, [we] focus on aspects of the FSL and DFS as they apply to the insurance industry in particular. Pursuant to the FSL, the DFS not only succeeded to the powers and duties of the former Insurance and Banking departments following the merger, but also assumed new and enhanced responsibilities with respect to these two industries, and the wider financial services industry in New York. The FSL expressly charged the new DFS with attainment of certain goals and objectives. These include:
“• encouraging growth of financial services institutions, including both insurance and banking institutions; modernizing NY's regulatory and consumer protection framework, with an aim to ensure effective regulation of new financial products and services that become available on the market; enforcing the banking and insurance laws; ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial services industry; protecting the public interest, including educating and protecting consumers of banking, insurance, and financial services products; and promoting fraud reduction and elimination. In addition, the DFS has authority beyond that held by the Insurance or Banking Departments individually, to regulate a broader range of financial products and services, which are defined by the FSL to include any financial product or service provided by any person regulated or required to be regulated under the banking or insurance law, or any financial product or service offered to consumers. This is an expansive definition, extending the regulatory purview of the new regulator. There are, however, products and services that are excluded from the DFS' jurisdiction, in particular, [those] under the exclusive jurisdiction of a federal agency; regulated for the purpose of consumer or investor protection by another state agency, department or public authority; where rules or regulations promulgated by the DFS would be preempted by federal law; and when offered by a provider of consumer goods or services. Furthermore, the DFS may choose not to regulate products in its discretion. It is interesting to note that the original version of the FSL included a wider definition of ‘financial product or service.’The original definition proposed to cover products and services regulated under the insurance and banking law, as well as any other law, and included contracts involving the types of products or services otherwise specified in the definition. The adopted definition was narrowed. Nevertheless, it still affords the DFS expanded authority, particularly when read in connection with provisions granting the DRS authority to investigate certain types of fraud and misconduct as more thoroughly described below. The DFS superintendent [may] impose penalties for violations: a civil penalty of up to $5,000 for each intentional fraud or misrepresentation, or up to $1,000 for each violation of the FSL and applicable regulations. Conclusion: The DFS marks the beginning of a new financial regulatory regime in the state. A unified system is not a new concept. Other states have adopted similar regimes. However, as New York is home to many of the largest and most sophisticated financial services companies in the world, changes in its regulatory environment are significant to both domestic and international companies conducting business in New York. The benefits of a single regulator with a full, complete view of the financial services industry could, if used wisely and prudently, be significant and will lead to significant changes in how practices evolve.” The authors are: Mark Peters and Mohana Terry of Edwards Wildman Palmer in New York.
The other locked essays have titles as follows (but it is evident they do not present progressive views):
* Investment Advisers Faced a Tumultuous Regulatory Year, by Ira Halperin, a partner at Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone, and Gisella Rivera, an associate at the firm, who discuss select 2011 court decisions and regulatory and legislative actions that significantly affect the asset management business.
* Agencies Pursued an Aggressive Antitrust Agenda in 2011, by Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson partners Barry Nigro, Peter Guryan and Richard Park, who discuss the FTC and DOJ's increasing use of the courts in merger challenges and their express endorsement of behavioral remedies in consent decrees, and
* Government Responds to New Sense of Urgency for Securities Reform by Anna T. Pinedo and James R. Tanenbaum, partners at Morrison & Foerster, who write: As attention in the United States has turned to promoting economic activity, the dialogue related to regulatory burdens and their effect on capital formation, job creation and general financial security has taken on a new sense of urgency. Congress is listening and there are several significant legislative proposals that would ease the regulatory burdens of smaller companies.
Duke Energy is another major player, along with Bank of America,
from Charlotte, North Carolina,
where all the player democrats will gather for their corporate pledge of allegiance convention in 2012.
Their move to their new headquarters was/is (if, as announced in 2009) financed by Wells Fargo.
I hope everybody is cozy enough.
garlanddegree: My take is that this is a good thing, protecting the consumer, regulating the banking/insurance industry. If it is, good for Cuomo. And good for the present Atty.Gen. if he's in on it. Wish Spitzer was there - he was good & that's why Wall St. watched him so closely. Am I on the right page? Thanks.
There is a very good reason why lobbying the government persists: the return on investment is quite lucrative (especially GE & Well Fargo).
buying votes, at the source, means you don't have to win the election then! why didn't i think of that?
Both parties are thoroughly corrupt but we shouldn't leave out the presidency which is also knee deep in corruption as we have seen with everything Obama has done to help his biggest donors.
Interesting article. GE is right on top. They just were levied a $70 mill. fine for bid rigging the Muni Bonds in 44 states.(FT TIMES Article yesterday). That is BID RIGGING! They are exhibiting criminal behavior and they were only fined $70 million on a market that represents $12 trillion. They are in good company with The Squid (Goldman) JP Morgan, BA and UBS...there are to many to mention. But because they lobby and have control of the political center they end up walking free. They also were one of the biggies that received huge TARP bailouts in the 2008's. They probably are paying that fine with Tax payers cash.
uhm hum (clearing my throat...) I hate to rain on your parade here, but the school teacher in me MUST COME OUT and CORRECT the headline of your article... b/c now that Corporations enjoy "personhood", the headline should read: "The Corporations WHO Occupy Congress"
Citizens United is a BAD LAW and we need to get behind ALL EFFORTS to create a Constitutional Amendment to overturn this PIECE OF #### "law"
So GE really DOESN'T bring good things to life!
An Alternative to Capitalism (if the people knew about it, they would demand it)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
~ Albert Einstein
This report straight from Reuters, which is owned by the Rothschild family, so read it inside out if you will, assuming that whatever point is being made here is what they want you to believe. One could assume that the corporations at the top of the list that we are being encouraged to hate for their apparent manipulation of the lobbying system are likely in disfavor with the Rothschild family, who basically run the world. As a Reuters graph alone, the information is suspect as it is coming from an organization that has made trillions of dollars on manipulating news and current events over the last 3 centuries.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70623.html
New Hampshire voters should draft Hillary
We argued in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed piece that President Barack Obama should stand down and let Secretary of State Hillary Clinton run as the Democratic presidential nominee in 2012.
We are now calling on Democratic voters nationally — particularly in New Hampshire — to organize a write-in campaign for Clinton
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70623.html#ixzz1haNrKLue
http://baselinescenario.com/2011/12/22/no-one-is-above-the-law/
The Baseline Scenario
by Simon Johnson
What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.................................."No One Is Above The Law".......................................
Very good article. Thanks for posting
http://www.averageuscitizen.com