I'm aware that the usual recipe for political effectiveness is just the opposite: to be cynical, calculating, an insider. But if you think, as I do, that we need deep change in this country, then cynicism is a sucker's bet. Try as hard as you can, you're never going to be as cynical as the corporations and the harem of politicians they pay for. It's like trying to out-chant a Buddhist monastery.
Here's my case in point, one of a thousand stories people working for social change could tell: all last fall, most of the environmental movement, including 350.org, the group I helped found, waged a fight against the planned Keystone XL pipeline that would bring some of the dirtiest energy on the planet from Canada through the US to the Gulf Coast. We waged our struggle against building it out in the open, presenting scientific argument, holding demonstrations, and attending hearings. We sent 1,253 people to jail in the largest civil disobedience action in a generation. Meanwhile, more than half a million Americans offered public comments against the pipeline, the most on any energy project in the nation's history.
And what do you know? We won a small victory in November, when President Obama agreed that, before he could give the project a thumbs-up or -down, it needed another year of careful review. (The previous version of that review, as overseen by the State Department, had been little short of a crony capitalist farce.) Given that James Hansen, the government's premier climate scientist, had said that tapping Canada's tar sands for that pipeline would, in the end, essentially mean "game over for the climate", that seemed an eminently reasonable course to follow, even if it was also eminently political.
A few weeks later, however, Congress decided it wanted to take up the question. In the process, the issue went from out in the open to behind closed doors in money-filled rooms. Within days, and after only a couple of hours of hearings that barely mentioned the key scientific questions or the dangers involved, the House of Representatives voted 234-194 to force a quicker review of the pipeline. Later, the House attached its demand to the must-pass payroll tax cut.
That was an obvious pre-election year attempt to put the president on the spot. Environmentalists are at least hopeful that the White House will now reject the permit. After all, its communications director said that the rider, by hurrying the decision, "virtually guarantees that the pipeline will not be approved".
As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42m in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8m.
Buying Congress
I know that cynics – call them realists, if you prefer – will be completely unsurprised by that. Which is precisely the problem.
We've reached the point where we're unfazed by things that should shake us to the core. So, just for a moment, be naïve and consider what really happened in that vote: the people's representatives who happen to have taken the bulk of the money from those energy companies promptly voted on behalf of their interests.
They weren't weighing science or the national interest; they weren't balancing present benefits against future costs. Instead of doing the work of legislators, that is, they were acting like employees. Forget the idea that they're public servants; the truth is that, in every way that matters, they work for Exxon and its kin. They should, by rights, wear logos on their lapels like Nascar drivers.
If you find this too harsh, think about how obligated you feel when someone gives you something. Did you get a Christmas present last month from someone you hadn't remembered to buy one for? Are you going to send them an extra-special one next year?
And that's for a pair of socks. Speaker of the House John Boehner, who insisted that the Keystone approval decision be speeded up, has gotten $1,111,080 in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry during his tenure. His Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell, who shepherded the bill through his chamber, has raked in $1,277,208 in the course of his tenure in Washington.
If someone had helped your career to the tune of a million dollars, wouldn't you feel in their debt? I would. I get somewhat less than that from my employer, Middlebury College, and yet I bleed Panther blue. Don't ask me to compare my school with, say, Dartmouth, unless you want a biased answer, because that's what you'll get. Which is fine – I am an employee.
But you'd be a fool to let me referee the homecoming football game. In fact, in any other walk of life, we wouldn't think twice before concluding that paying off the referees is wrong. If the Patriots make the Super Bowl, everyone in America would be outraged to see owner Robert Kraft trot out to midfield before the game and hand a $1,000 bill to each of the linesmen and field judges.
If he did it secretly, the newspaper reporter who uncovered the scandal would win a Pulitzer. But a political reporter who bothered to point out Boehner's and McConnell's payoffs would be upbraided by her editor for simpleminded journalism. That's how the game is played and we've all bought into it, even if only to sputter in hopeless outrage.
Far from showing any shame, the big players boast about it: the US Chamber of Commerce, front outfit for a consortium of corporations, has bragged on its website about outspending everyone in Washington, which is easy to do when Chevron, Goldman Sachs and News Corp are writing you seven-figure checks. This really matters. The Chamber of Commerce spent more money on the 2010 elections than the Republican and Democratic National Committees combined, and 94% of those dollars went to climate-change deniers. That helps explain why the House voted last year to say that global warming isn't real.
It also explains why "our" representatives vote, year in and year out, for billions of dollars' worth of subsidies for fossil-fuel companies. If there was ever an industry that didn't need subsidies, it would be this one: they make more money each year than any enterprise in the history of money. Not only that, but we've known how to burn coal for 300 years and oil for 200.
Those subsidies are simply payoffs. Companies give small gifts to legislators, and in return get large ones back – and we're the ones who are actually paying.
Whose Money? Whose Washington?
I don't want to be hopelessly naïve. I want to be hopefully naïve. It would be relatively easy to change this: you could provide public financing for campaigns instead of letting corporations pay. It's the equivalent of having the National Football League hire referees instead of asking the teams to provide them.
Public financing of campaigns would cost a little money, but endlessly less than paying for the presents these guys give their masters. And it would let you watch what was happening in Washington without feeling as disgusted. Even legislators, once they got the hang of it, might enjoy neither raising money nor having to pretend it doesn't affect them.
To make this happen, however, we may have to change the Constitution, as we've done 27 times before. This time, we'd need to specify that corporations aren't people, that money isn't speech, and that it doesn't abridge the first amendment to tell people they can't spend whatever they want getting elected. Winning a change like that would require hard political organising, since big banks and big oil companies and big drug-makers will surely rally to protect their privilege.
Still, there's a chance. The Occupy movement opened the door to this sort of change by reminding us all that the system is rigged, that its outcomes are unfair, that there's reason to think people from across the political spectrum are tired of what we've got, and that getting angry – and acting on that anger in the political arena – is what being a citizen is all about.
It's fertile ground for action. After all, Congress's approval rating is now at 9%, which is another way of saying that everyone who's not a lobbyist hates them and what they're doing. The big boys are, of course, counting on us simmering down; they're counting on us being cynical, on figuring there's no hope or benefit in fighting city hall. But if we're naïve enough to demand a country more like the one we were promised in high school civics class, then we have a shot.
A good time to take an initial stand comes later this month, when rallies outside every federal courthouse will mark the second anniversary of the Citizens United decision. That's the one where the US supreme court ruled that corporations had the right to spend whatever they wanted on campaigns.
To me, that decision was, in essence, corporate America saying, "We're not going to bother pretending any more. This country belongs to us." We need to say, loud and clear: "Sorry. Time to give it back."
Comments
5 January 2012 10:17PM
I agree it's also time to remove the City out of the Politcal parties here too, if they had a fixed amount out of a national funds and no oversea or private donors we could have a real democracy & a revolution in the democratic revolution .
5 January 2012 10:25PM
This is actually not what the Citizens United decision said. This is what it said|
The majority opinion,[19] authored by Justice Kennedy, found that 2 U.S.C. § 441(b)'s prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions was invalid and could not be applied to spending such as that in Hillary: The Movie.
Kennedy wrote: "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." He also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.[2] The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had previously held that a Michigan campaign finance act that prohibited corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that upheld BCRA's extension of the Federal Election Campaign Act's restrictions on independent corporate expenditures to include "electioneering communications".
The Court found that BCRA §§201 and 311 (provisions requiring disclosure of the funder) were valid as applied to the ads for Clinton and to the movie itself.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
5 January 2012 10:34PM
As ever the author makes the automatic assumption that groups they favor, who push ideas they support are 'different ' when they do the very same things , seek political influence through various 'means' , that those they attack use.
For if corporations aren't people nether are NOG's and other groups seeking to achieve their goals. Big green may come often with a charity sticker but their often there no different ,in reality, to big crop .
The bottom line really is the author can't get his desires meet through democracy, ans so being unable to deal with the notion that its down to these ideas in fact being poorly supported as to come up with some way that the 'democracy' itself is broken. Typical Green in action , they just know ever one thinks like them , its only evil 'crop, oil, pherm , coal , bank , little blue men etc etc that is stopping the progress to the Eco-utipia of their dreams .
5 January 2012 10:38PM
You've never heard a Welsh male voice choir, Bill.
But otherwise I agree. Molly Ivins wrote about it years ago: there's little point trying to improve environmental protection - or anything else - as long as the government permits financial lobbying: it has created a system of legalised bribery, which undermines representative democracy. It's no better than a nexus of courtly favours, where people do the bidding of the rich.
Agree with that. Americans deserve better, and need it. But what they can actually do about it is open to question. Outside of playing the same game - which they'll lose - what can they do?
5 January 2012 10:39PM
Shufflecarrot:
Seldom can anybody in the States: because politicians pander to those who give them money. That's not democracy.
5 January 2012 10:41PM
You're in favor of the federal government determing what you may say politically then?
5 January 2012 11:08PM
Continentaldivide:
Not sure how you gleaned that; however, if you mean do I think the government should determine policy without taking money from private sources, then yes. Absolutely. I would also take it further, and reform campaign finance: namely by allocating public funds to cover it - because that way, political candidates are beholden to the public; not to private donors.
5 January 2012 11:26PM
I mean are you in favor of the federal government regulating political speech? It's a simple question.
5 January 2012 11:26PM
Molly Ivins worked for a newspaper, which supposedly makes her and her ilk "special." If you disagree with the Molly Ivins' of the world, apparently the author and others think you don't and shouldn't have equal rights to establish and defend your positions.
Apparently, also, any system where you can't sell your case is rigged and should be corrected so that your case, which is obviously the only correct one extant, will always prevail. Any opposition is evil and must be quashed.
Is that pretty much how you see it?
5 January 2012 11:29PM
I totally agree with you on that maybe we should all start a Campaign?.
5 January 2012 11:30PM
Thanks for this article.
Although many people are aware of the influence of corporate lobby groups, it's probably less known how they legally operate.
You've highlighted this is your statement that 'corporations aren't people', yet they are legally treated as such.
A public education campaign spelling out clearly the legal means by which a corporation is treated as a person is also required alongside publically funded election campaigns.
That old chestnut of 'democracy', thereby the members of parliaments also representing a majority opinion also needs to be contested. Full exposure also needs to given to the process by which candidates are chosen by their particular parties for election.
Good luck with your public service campaigns.
5 January 2012 11:38PM
Sad, dispiriting and true !
5 January 2012 11:40PM
It's a bit like the Roman Third Century Crisis where military leaders auctioned off the Emperor's throne to the highest bidder. Rome only survived that period because Diocletian formed the Tetrarchy (smart man).
The US is not smart enough to survive the equivalent of the Roman Third Century Crisis. A lot of this popular democracy effort may be irrelevant if the US breaks up a la Rome (and for all the same reasons, too).
5 January 2012 11:40PM
Nice idea. If politicians were required to wear their sponsors' logos at all times in the House, it would show them up for the bought-and-paid-for lackeys they really are.
5 January 2012 11:42PM
Actually I'm in favor of a federal government rather than a corporate government, which is what we have. I might add that it's a thinly-veiled fascism, but Mussolini's "cigarette paper between industry and government" is too thick a divider.
5 January 2012 11:44PM
And I should, perhaps, point out that my comment refers to all politicians, not just American ones.
5 January 2012 11:50PM
Democracy is indeed threatened by corporatism, and the enormous financial power that transnational corporations in particular wield with ruthless efficiency.
The last word on this belongs to FDR:
That, sadly, is where America has ended up - with the best democracy money can buy.
6 January 2012 12:01AM
I think it's rather obvious that the US has become a fascism in everything but name.
6 January 2012 12:08AM
Just give corporations the vote, they are people after all. Even better, replace the electoral college with a corporatist system whereby corporations are assigned electoral weights according to their market capitalisation. The corporations own the politicians and the system is totally corrupted so just get the reality out in the open and welcome the future senators for Exxon and Boeing etc.
Heres a link to Romney stating that 'corporations are people'... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
6 January 2012 12:17AM
That, my friend, is a fascism.
It's interesting how the radical right wing (fascism) can only hold onto power via money, fear, and coercion. It's as if fascism was never intended to be a legitimate form of government.
6 January 2012 12:30AM
Bill McKibben: Time to get cash from people who do not agree with my views out of Congress
6 January 2012 12:38AM
Let's all sign a petition and then those big oil companies will obligingly go away and be good.
6 January 2012 12:39AM
Who ultimately benefits from all this campaign cash ?
The TV companies, who air the attack ads and biased news shows. They are therefore just as guilty as the donors and the recipients of bribery.
Money is not free speech, it is expensive speech. For speech to be free, everyone must be granted the same rights of access.
6 January 2012 12:42AM
Fascism on the march.
Some comparisons between Nazi Germany and the US
The Reichstag Fire = 911
Hitler's Enabling Act = Patriot Act
Invade Poland = Invade Iraq
Blitzkrieg = Shock and Awe
Concentration Camps = Guantanamo
Joseph Goebbels = Karl Rove
Lord Hawhaw = Bill O'Reilly
The SS = Blackwater Inc
V2 rockets = Drones
Torture and deportation = Water boarding and rendition
Persecute the Jews = Persecute Muslims
6 January 2012 12:44AM
For perspective, you might want to go back as far as the Roman Empire under Tiberius, Nero and Caligula for comparisons.
6 January 2012 12:53AM
How about big corporations out of the white house? This is an incredible list:
From Repo Men.
Is it surprising that no one has gone to jail for the 2008 meltdown?
6 January 2012 1:04AM
The secret donation of money is a huge problem, sure, by all means demand better disclosure rules, but the real underlying issue is that Congress is gerrymandered to maximise incumbency by both major political parties. As long as that is the case policies will largely be decided by people whose objective is to maintain the support of smaller, more extreme primary electorates, since for most Congressional seats it's a given that the nominee of one party or the other will win because the seat boundaries have been designed that way.
You don't hear much about it because gerrymandering actually suits partisans of both sides, so what you get is a lot of bleating about money whenever there's a suspicion that the other guys have more of it, but nobody wants to actually stop rigging the system. Public financing of the elections wouldn't alter that. Oh, and it would also increase the influence of free media coverage to the candidates aka Fox news, etcetc.
6 January 2012 1:23AM
One advantage of the internet is that it is relatively inexpensive to reach a huge audience.
Perhaps a website detailing the corporate financial support for each Senator or Congressman with a history of their voting should be set up as a site to predict outcomes of votes in Washington.
If it is a vote on a Bill likely to cost the oil industry, it seems obvious that many will vote against- and a website listing those most likely to do so, with link to oil campaign etc contributions from Big Oil might become a household name.
The Telegraph in publishing the 'Allowances & Expenses' of MPs has had a major effect on the Nation's perception of our legislators in the UK.
6 January 2012 1:26AM
I agree with Fulton that Gerrymandering is also a problem where the voice of democracy is squelched.
Let's not forget about public sector unions. They are among the biggest contributors to political machines. And their contributions are basically coming out of the public purse - a completely incestuous relationship which FDR said has no business in a democracy.
6 January 2012 1:27AM
You make several very valid points, not the least of which is that it is incumbency that is the bigger problem. After all there are corporations to support any and every political view and candidate, so much of it cancels corproartions supporting the other side out. Now if there were only corporations supporting one side, it would be a bigger problem. Plus, it's a speech issue. I'm not prepared to let the federal government determine what political speech is acceptable and when.
But on the incumbency problem, are term limits the answer?
6 January 2012 1:29AM
In the UK, we have a limit on a Parliamentary candidate's expenditure, which will approximate to less than £40,000 each, for the Constituency size the Boundaries Commission is to create of c. 76,000 + or - 5% in the year of the election.
A campaign to limit expenditure might be worth considering.
6 January 2012 1:29AM
Great idea if only a few people were receiving corporate support. But since they all are how would your website predict anything?
6 January 2012 1:30AM
A candidate spending is not the same as people donating to a candidate.
6 January 2012 1:50AM
I heard an interesting proposal on NPR the other day. Issue each voter a $50 voucher, paid for by public funds, to give to the candidate of his choice, and limit any other contributions to $100. This would actually increase the amount of money a campaign could potentially gain, and would take the huge contributions of the equation. Any candidate feels beholden to an entity donating millions of dollars, and feels pressured if those funds are threatened to be cut off. There could be no more extortive threats issued, and it would go far in leveling the field.
6 January 2012 2:06AM
WackOrpheus
Nice bit of spin.
I think the point was that we should get the cash from anyone out of congress.
Whether they happen to share a paticular view or not.
Some kind of standard and equal level of government funding per candidate seems fair to me.
OK - it's never that simple, but in essense the concept is perfectly reasonable and just.
That the parties and candidates who stand to lose the most just happen to be those currently shilling for the fossil fuel industry is irrelevant to the idea itself. If they have the courage of their convictions and manage to persuade the voting populace by virtue of their ideas, polemic and rhetoric then fairs fair - they'll get elected regardless that they only have the same level of funding as every other candidate.
How can that not be good for democracy?
6 January 2012 2:10AM
I liked RichardSeddon's post. Unfortuanately, he still doesn't understand that facism arises from the left like Obama's new powers to detain citizens indefinitely and the ever spreading use of "hate speech" laws to squelch free speech. I believe it was Obama who significantly expanded the drone war and used it knowingly to kill an American citizen.
And this from Mr. Seddon: "Persecute the Jews = Persecute Muslims"
I guess he doesn't realize that Jews in America are about 10 times more likely to be a victim of a hate crime than a Muslim. Also, a Muslim is N times, with N tending to infinity, more likely to be the perpetrator of a terrorist act in America than a Jew (because there were no terrorist acts perpetrated by Jews and 10 or 20 divided by zero is infinity).
But other points that Mr. Seddon raise are absolutely concerning, concern expressed by the Tea Party. Perhaps, Mr. Seddon will be at the next rally? I am quite sure that Mr. Seddon will be voting for Ron Paul.
6 January 2012 2:48AM
The only way that big money is going to leave politics and the Republican controlled Congress is to get the Republicans out of office by the droves.
Once that is done, the time will be ripe to get the Democrats out who have their pockets filled by the the same money.
When that second task is completed, a start will have been made on destroying the Landed Gentry Party of two wings, the Democrats and Republicans, and to beginning a new form of government that is of , by and for the people.
Presently, the Fascist Corporate Wolrd and equally Fascist Banks, and the totally Fascist Oil Oligarchy, combined with the lap-dog Congress that they have created, run the United States.
The average person in the streets who works for a living is nothing more than a worker-bee to the present Landed Gentry Party, and the soldiers and the unemployed millions, and the often PTSD veterans, are just so much chattel that are taking up space after their usefullness has been terminated.
Laying any of this on Obama is the same as saying that workers created their own problems because they wanted to be controlled by a Fascist Government.
Obama does what he is told to do, just as both moron bushes did, and the Gipper before him, back to the "I'm Not A Crook" Republcan nixon , who hated the Native Peoples fo the United States, and most everything else.
6 January 2012 2:53AM
What democracy?
6 January 2012 5:50AM
Ummm... It's been time for quite some time.
6 January 2012 6:22AM
All it needs is regulation, but which party - successfully voted in by the system as it stands - is then going to change the system?
6 January 2012 6:44AM
Why do you think the government is in the process of privatizing the NHS? It is because the companies that would stand to benefit, many of which are already closely linked with prominent members of the Tory (and other) party(ies), people like Andrew Lansley, the SoS for Health who previously rand a company specializing in that kind of thing and no doubt is looking for a seat on the baord of an even bigger one when he leaves. Also the party coffers would benefit from the large donations that are bound to flow from grateful health insurance and Crapita-like "service" providers, just as most of the current Tory party donations are from City firms and financiers who benefit most from tax avoidance, and nonTobin Tax; who do you think Cameron has been working for? It certainly isn't the British person-in-the-street.
Coming soon, to a health provider near you.
6 January 2012 7:27AM
One massive problem I have in life is understanding why the biggest political scandal of all time is NOT the way that certain organisations effectively buy policy. Unions, corporations, it doesn't matter, UK, US, it's beyond ridiculous. Health, bankers, oil - unions and NGO's too, if they fund candidates, there is no valid distinction in this case - should not run our countries. But the electorates? They just don't seem to care too much. This is beyond me.
6 January 2012 7:34AM
....or is it simply that the actual nature of democracy is not important to most people? Is it that most people, so long as they have representatives of what they perceive as their "tribe" in government, go along with it? I think most people see government as a body that, ideally, simply advances as best as possible, their own particular narrow interests. The idea of objective decision making to improve the lot of all on a long term basis is not what people see as an idealised case. The idealised case for most people is - more - for me and my immediate family - now - and screw everyone else (but screw people who look and believe like me a little bit less.)
6 January 2012 8:24AM
I say we hit 'em with a major, and I mean major, leafleting campaign.
6 January 2012 8:24AM
The propaganda is that government can't do things well, business and the free market can. They are one in the same. Government is owned fully by business and acts only in its interest. VOting does little good because candidates are already bought and paid for by business.
6 January 2012 8:32AM
Everyone will continue to get away with it for as long as they physically can until it becomes physically unsustainable.
Then there will be a revolution.
6 January 2012 8:49AM
I'm unsure about the authors conclusions on why his organisation failed to have his demands passed. From an independent perspective it seems that he failed to make his case and that the opposite case was stronger.
The author then makes the mistake of claiming that some form of underhand financial transcations were the catalyst for the decision to go ahead with the pipeline.
It also seems that the author cannot decide what the reason for his groups failure to win the argument was, he first says it was due to "big oil'' paying to get their project implemented, then he says it was a deliberate political attempt to put the President on the spot, who else or what other reason is the author going to use to rationalise the fact that he lost the argument?
The article smacks of sour grapes.
6 January 2012 8:56AM
This argument makes no sense, you claim on one hand that the government cannot perform, on the other hand you say that government is owned fully by business and acts in its interest.
If the government is in the pay of the corporate world, why then would these same companies be paying for propaganda to attack the government, especially if these companies have the government in the corporate back pocket?, that would be counter-productive and would be a very strange form of propaganda war to wage.
6 January 2012 9:36AM
So basically you want the government to listen to your lobbying and to ignore the lobbying of those you disagree with.
6 January 2012 10:23AM
A brilliant piece from Bill Mckibben, it really captures the frustration that many of us feel at the base character of the people that are chosen to lead us whether through the ballot box or tradition.
Many of us simply go "tut, it has always been like this and probably always will be", when we did not have politicians we has religious fanatics, warlords and kings to fulfil the role. The rest were expected to just tug on our forelocks. The introduction of industrial might through commercial practices has led to the ability of unelected oligarchs having the power to buy the politicians through the application of corporate wealth in favour of their own self interests, they even get their employees to come on these threads to lie and distort the reality of their venal acts.
The question is should we focus our wrath only on the dictators and the politicians or should we also go for the source? I favour going after both as they have each abused the system of governance in favour of their own self interests at the expense of all around them. Don't vote for the politicians and withdraw the funding from those enterprises that are seen to be involved in this behaviour. Take an interest in who is incharge locally and nationally, look out for instances of lobbyist influence and campaign actively against it. Join these threads and attack the lies and distortions of the shills who so frequently practice their social media manipulation before your eyes.
Wake up and kick the elephant out of the Senate, Congress, Commons, Lords or Palaces, you have nothing to lose and much to gain !