Q: Who Controls America? A: Big Business and Big Money

Dear Friends,

Recent news articles have made it very clear who actually controls America and most of its politicians from both parties.  While the following news stories are seemingly unrelated, consider them as evidence to support the fact that big business and big money control America.  While I would expect the Republican Party today to be in favor of control by big business and big money, I am dismayed at the lack of opposition by the mainstream Democrats.

Trans-Pacific Partnership
I have written before about the TPP and how terrible it is (here and here).  Each time more information is leaked about what is in this so-called trade agreement, there is another uproar about it. On March 25, The New York Times published an article by Jonathan Weisman entitled "Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S. (here).  The agreement has many advisors from big business but nobody is looking out for everybody else.  Here are a couple of the pertinent paragraphs from the article.  Keep in mind that the provision allowing suits against the US to stop the enforcement of US laws is only one of many really bad ideas in the TPP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Backers of the emerging trade accord, which is supported by a wide variety of business groups and favored by most Republicans, say that it is in line with previous agreements that contain similar provisions. But critics, including many Democrats in Congress, argue that the planned deal widens the opening for multinationals to sue in the United States and elsewhere, giving greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers. The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors.

Why would you require that a provision not be made public for 4 years after enactment or the end of negotiations if you were not really embarrassed about it.  Please note that the TPP has the full backing of not just big business and the Republicans but also President Obama.  Secretary Clinton was a big supporter of TPP when she was the Secretary of State, and she was an enthusiastic backer of NAFTA during her husband's administration.  The progressives in the Democratic Party including Senators Sanders, Brown and Warren are all opponents of TPP.

 Shell Oil Arctic Drilling

Shell Oil is already moving a large drilling rig to the Arctic even though it has not yet received the approvals needed from the United States government.  Shell ran into big problems last year when it began its program and had to stop drilling operations.  The Obama Administration is about to grant approval for it to start drilling.  One paragraph from an article in The New York Times on August 28, 2014 (here) summarizes Shell's demonstrated ability to drill in the Arctic.

Over the last eight years, Shell’s Alaskan Arctic efforts have been plagued by blunders and accidents involving ships and support equipment, reaching a climax with the grounding of one of its drilling vessels in late December 2012 in stormy seas. Environmental groups seized on the episodes as evidence to support their claims about the risks.

It is not only President Obama that is ignoring the pleas of environmentalist to stop the drilling.  Recently the Port of Seattle (a separate governmental unit from the city of Seattle) entered into a contract with Shell to permit Shell to use the port to service its rigs that will be used in the Arctic drilling.  As soon as that agreement was made public, the outrage began in force from environmental groups and the city of Seattle.  Why is it that all these agreements are kept quiet until they are done?  An article in The New York Times on March 13, 2015 (here) makes the issue clear in the first two paragraphs.

SEATTLE — The environmental messaging never stops here, whether from a city-owned electric utility that gets nearly 98 percent of its power from sources untainted by carbon (and is not about to let residents forget it) or the fussy garbage collectors who can write tickets for the improper sorting of recyclables.
So when a lease was signed allowing Royal Dutch Shell, the petrochemical giant, to bring its Arctic Ocean drilling rigs to the city’s waterfront, the result was a kind of civic call to arms. A unanimous City Council lined up alongside the mayor to question the legality of the agreement with the Port of Seattle, a court challenge was filed by environmental groups, and protesters, in bluster or bluff, vowed to block the rigs’ arrival — though the exact timetable is secret, for security reasons — with a flotilla of kayaks in Elliott Bay.

The fight to stop Shell from drilling in the Arctic is not over but clearly so far big business is winning.

Big Banks

In a moment of amazingly transparent honesty, the big banks have made it clear that they expect to get a huge return on their investment in buying politicians.  It has been widely reported that big banks intend to withhold contributions to Democrats if Senators Warren and Brown do not tone down their rhetoric about "too big to fail" legislation.  This action by the big banks is a clear statement of what they expect in exchange for their political contributions.  They are buying support for their policies which are not good for America.  They are only good for the banks.  The following is Senator Warren's response as quoted tin the Boston Globe on March 27 (here):

WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren took aim at Wall Street on Friday after two banks reportedly decided to halt campaign contributions to Senate Democrats unless Warren and Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio tone down their rhetoric on breaking up large financial institutions.
“They can threaten or bully or say whatever they want, but we aren’t going to change our game plan,” Warren wrote to her supporters. “We do, however, need to respond.” 

Secrecy of Corporate Contributions

There was a great editorial in The New York Times on March 27 entitled "Which Companies Are Buying the Election? (here).  The impetus for the editorial was a recent Congressional hearing with the head of the SEC as the witness.  For the first 3.5 hours there were no questions about forcing disclosure of corporate political contributions from either the Republicans or the Democrats.  Eventually there was a question and the response was that the SEC does not have the time.  There are more pressing needs.  Once again clearly the Republicans do not want corporate or individual donors to be disclosed.  The Koch Brothers have done an incredible job of putting together a network of big donors that can contribute through all kinds of charades without having their names disclosed.  The response from the corporate wing of the Democratic party has been to remain silent.  Despite pressure from numerous advocacy groups President Obama is not taking any action to increase the transparency of political contributions.  Once again only the truly progressive Democrats including Senators Warren and Sanders are pushing for full disclosure of political contributions and limits.

Senator Reid and Senator Schumer

I have seldom praised Senator Reid as the Senate Majority Leader although he clearly did a lot of good things.  I recently listened to an interview of Senator Sanders who said that Senator Reid was a true progressive.  That is high praise coming from Senator Reid.  What worries me is that Senator Schumer is the heir apparent to Senator Reid as Majority Leader.  This CNN headline (here) tells you all you need to know:  "Wall Street welcomes expected Chuck Schumer promotion".

I could go on and on but I think these examples are enough, and I am sure that you can think of plenty of your own.  The United States of America is our country and our democracy is clearly in crisis as we become a plutocracy.  We, as individual citizens, are the only ones who can get our democracy back.  Get involved.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal