With the Smoke of Partisanship in their Eyes, Are Americans Being Taken for a Ride?

By Randell A. Monaco
January 24, 2011


Corporations who don’t need prior shareholder approval to spend corporate money are about to become the Goliaths of political influence independent of traditional political parties. As corporations begin to surreptitiously take center stage for the 2012 election campaign festivities it’s time to have a look at what this new reality is beginning to look like.

At the outset, let’s not accept out-of-hand the false idea that policies based on what’s good for corporations are good for America. Consider first that a corporate leader who increases profits by slashing his work force is thought to be successful. Well, that’s more or less what has happened in America recently: employment is way down, but profits are hitting new records. Who, exactly, considers this economic success?

Now compare the highly regulated economies in Japan and Germany that did a much better job than the United States at sustaining employment in the face of the 2008 financial crisis.

If revenues are generated through income and sales tax revenues how are the interests of nominally “American” corporations and the interests of the nation, which were never the same, aligned? The reference to “nominally American” corporations should be clarified here. To illustrate, columnist and Nobel Memorial Prize recipient Paul Krugman suggests, General Electric’s fortunes have very little to do with U.S. prosperity. He explains as an example that fewer than half its workers are based in the United States and less than half its revenues come from U.S. operations.

The corporate ability to influence and singularly direct our nation far surpasses the voice of an individual who now shares the Freedom of Speech with these economic powerhouses thanks to the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Fair Election Commission which seems to have been in step with and strategically enabled over time by the Federalist Society and its membership.

Brook Jarvis noted in a November 2010 article that money really can buy votes! A report from Public Citizen found that, of 74 races in which a seat changed parties, 58 went to the candidate who had received the most money from outside groups empowered by Citizens United. Winning candidates received an average of $764,326 in outside money (not counting candidate or party funds), compared to $273,268 for losing candidates. In fact, some races were far more one-sided. In Illinois, for example, Republican Senate winner Mark Kirk benefited from $8 million more in outside money than his opponent, Alexander Giannoulias, who was targeted by funnels for corporate money such as American Crossroads, Crossoads GPS, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The challenge to understand why our politicians support policies that benefit corporations instead of citizens shouldn’t be as confusing to Americans as it may have been prior to this recent Supreme Court ruling. We don’t really need to keep wondering why big companies get bailed out, or why regulators look the other way at this point, do we?

The problem, as I see it, is that the there is a critical need for an increase in public investment and the real challenge is to overcome a thoroughly indoctrinated public perception that views government spending as a bad thing.

When we look at the aftermath of 2008 it is hard to disagree with Paul Krugman’s conclusion that we’re in a mess because we had a financial crisis - not because American companies have lost their ability to compete with foreign rivals.

The rhetoric of competitiveness for me seems to be the most frightening because of how easily it can be manipulated in the wrong direction for economic policy. Policies that lead to investment that’s actually about creating jobs now while promoting longer-term growth are easily susceptible to interpretations that we’ve been too tough on business, and that what America needs now is corporate tax cuts and across-the-board deregulation. There is no reason to believe that we should trust a market economy to regulate itself again. It is time to learn from our mistakes, don’t you think?

The state of discourse in our nation is pushing us further away from making a serious and much needed investment and spending increase on infrastructure and education. Election cycles in our nation seem to be getting in the way of making sustainable policy decisions that would meaningfully define a vision for our economic possibility. Worse, multi-national corporations and the ideology that brought economic disaster have been handed the keys to the bus with the smoke of partisanship in their eyes, Americans are being taken for a ride.

The Appearance in America - Brazen or Improper?

By Randell A. Monaco
January 22, 2011

A review of history beginning in 1980 would confirm that The Federalist Society has been in step with what has become the greatest assault on American freedom and prosperity in our lifetimes. More specifically, they have been the strategic enablers.

Understanding the full scope of that effort is beyond the scope of my purpose here as I want to focus on the brazen disregard of a long standing tenet of our legal profession and judiciary. I have long admired Chief Justice Earl Warren for many reasons. First is that it was by his hand that the commerce clause was used to facilitate the civil rights movement. Americans can be proud of our evolving to the point of having elected our first black president - something I personally am very proud to have been part of and witnessed. Also, as a nation we have taken for granted many of the freedoms and protections that were hard fought and won during the years of the Warren Court.

However, one of the reasons I admire Chief Justice Warren is because of the integrity that he brought to the high court. It may interest many to know that he was a Republican. He never campaigned for constituents; he terminated his campaign staffs rather than hire them once elected. He was ever vigilant to avoid the “appearance of impropriety” which is a concept lost on several current members of our United States Supreme Court.

There are three members of our current high court, including Chief Justice John Roberts, who belong to The Federalist Society. The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has now focused attention on Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as it appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by that decision.

A reasonable person would question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the 5-4 ruling of the Citizens United case based on their attendance at political strategy meetings sponsored by a corporation that raises and spends millions to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans. Both Justices are mentioned in Koch Brothers materials which raises concern about their impartiality. Whether there is an actual conflict of interest is a matter for the Department of Justice to decide. But the appearance of impropriety is a matter of public perception which taints the credibility of the entire court in the public eye.

In fact Justice Thomas’ wife, founder of Liberty Central - a conservative group funded by anonymous donors who endorsed candidates in numerous 2010 races, publicly said she’d accept corporate money in light of the Citizen United decision. Just how this would appear to the American public seems an obvious, if not a brazen, disregard for the integrity of our high court.

Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause submitted documentation to our Justice Department citing appearances of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Antonin Scalia at retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, a corporation run by two major Republican donors who helped finance some of the new GOP groups founded after the Citizens United ruling.

Isn’t the concept of avoiding the appearance of impropriety brazenly disregarded when a Supreme Court judge is “featured” at or attends closed door strategy meetings with political donors, corporate CEOs, candidates and political officials? Should they lend credibility and the prestige of their position to the political goals of those events? I would suggest that if the Honorable Chief Justice Earl Warren where here to rule on the appearance of impropriety the gavel would fall quickly against the reckless disregard for the integrity of our nation’s highest tribunal.

It is worth noting that in an interview with CNN, then House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he believed Senate Minority Leader Mitchell McConnell and now House Majority Speaker John Boehner deliberately snubbed a November invitation to an intimate dinner with the President in his private residence at the White House. As it turned out, Republicans collectively backed out of the dinner with Obama saying they were too busy. Instead, McConnell and Boehner attended a dinner held by The Federalist Society that featured as its keynote speaker Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Also in attendance was Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. and the son of Justice Scalia.

So, how does the schmoozing of our elected representatives that don’t have time to meet with our President to discuss jobs in America and their attending political speeches with the Federalist Society appear to the public - brazen or just improper?