71.
Lobbying
The Prime Corporate Pastime
In his exhaustive book, ‘When Corporations Rule the World', David Korten identifies the Council of Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission as key historical institutions that shaped modern economic globalization.
These well funded, highly influential and often rather secretive institutions, brought together key government ministers, business leaders, educators and media representatives as early as 1939.
Together they created the necessary consensus for economic globalization and shaped public opinion to support the policies that were essential to their goal.
Eighty percent of all corporations reside in the US and EU, and through their lobbyists they enjoy privileged access to the government policy makers who partake in trade talks. Over 30,000 corporate lobbyists are based in Washington and Brussels, vastly outnumbering the US Congress and European Commission staff that they lobby.
The vast majority of lobby groups represent business interests who spend billions of dollars annually advocating their main cause, which is currently market access in emerging economies. In the US, corporations and their agencies spent $9.7 billion lobbying Congress between 1997 and 2000, about $4.5 million per year per member of Congress.
On the other hand, many developing countries do not have the resources to send enough, if any, representatives to argue for fairer trade practices that would benefit their own economic development. In addition, WTO negotiations are undemocratic, with the public denied access to, or information about, the discussions. The same is not true of corporate lobby groups such as the European Services Forum (ESF) and many US corporations who can directly affect and have access to Trade Committees.
Unsurprisingly then, the interests of rich nations and their corporations form the basis of WTO agreements and directly influence the global political and economic architecture. The corporate bottom line, espoused by the WTO, is to open market access in all countries to resources, services and intellectual property in an endless drive for greater profits.
These well funded, highly influential and often rather secretive institutions, brought together key government ministers, business leaders, educators and media representatives as early as 1939.
Together they created the necessary consensus for economic globalization and shaped public opinion to support the policies that were essential to their goal.
Eighty percent of all corporations reside in the US and EU, and through their lobbyists they enjoy privileged access to the government policy makers who partake in trade talks. Over 30,000 corporate lobbyists are based in Washington and Brussels, vastly outnumbering the US Congress and European Commission staff that they lobby.
The vast majority of lobby groups represent business interests who spend billions of dollars annually advocating their main cause, which is currently market access in emerging economies. In the US, corporations and their agencies spent $9.7 billion lobbying Congress between 1997 and 2000, about $4.5 million per year per member of Congress.
On the other hand, many developing countries do not have the resources to send enough, if any, representatives to argue for fairer trade practices that would benefit their own economic development. In addition, WTO negotiations are undemocratic, with the public denied access to, or information about, the discussions. The same is not true of corporate lobby groups such as the European Services Forum (ESF) and many US corporations who can directly affect and have access to Trade Committees.
Unsurprisingly then, the interests of rich nations and their corporations form the basis of WTO agreements and directly influence the global political and economic architecture. The corporate bottom line, espoused by the WTO, is to open market access in all countries to resources, services and intellectual property in an endless drive for greater profits.
The result of association with the qualities of passion and ignorance is that one becomes lusty and greedy. But when one is elevated to the platform of goodness, he is satisfied in any condition of life and is without lust and greed. This mentality indicates one's situation on the platform of goodness.
~ Srila Prabhupada (Srimad Bhagavatam 4.21.52)
Corporate Links to Government
In his book Captive State (2000), George Monbiot lists 43 individuals who, since the 1997 elections in the UK, have been appointed as ministers, heads, chairmen, and advisors to as many government departments and independent committees. In each case their previous corporate positions (mostly as directors, chairmen or chief executives) and existing links to industry present a direct conflict of interest with their governmental roles.
To take a random example, Lord Simon of Highbury, the previous chairman of oil giant BP and vice chairman of the European Roundtable of industrialists (a powerful corporate lobby group) was appointed minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe at the Department of Trade and Industry.
To take a random example, Lord Simon of Highbury, the previous chairman of oil giant BP and vice chairman of the European Roundtable of industrialists (a powerful corporate lobby group) was appointed minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Large swathes of Africa, Asia and South America do not have the resources to compete internationally even if the terms of trade were rendered fair and their debts forgiven. Within a system of sharing, resources that are considered essential to life would not be commoditized or controlled by business interests.
As expected, the same conflict of interest exists at the highest levels in the US government, only more openly and to greater detriment. The majority of President Bush's cabinet were multimillionaires. The President, Vice-President, Commerce Secretary and National Security Adviser all had strong ties to the oil industry. The Bush family had strong ties to Enron-which was President G. W. Bush's largest corporate source of funding.
Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed, and the list goes on, highlighting in particular a pronounced concentration of energy connections.
Unsurprisingly, US domestic and foreign policies are highly biased. The securing of Iraqi oil fields is a pertinent recent example. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, Halliburton, the Texas energy giant once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has seen its stock price more than triple in value. According to Halliburton Watch, Halliburton's contracts under the Bush administration grew by 600%.
To take a key aspect of the administration's tax plan, Bush's cabinet members, according to one estimate, saved between $5 million and $19 million each as the Bush administration repealed the Estate Tax. This will come at the cost of an estimated $1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years to the public.
Those who benefited from the tax cuts represent a fraction of 1% of the American public. It is this same elite section of US citizens that dominate and manipulate the entire political system. As such, a symbiotic relationship is established, with both the government and the corporate elite sustaining each others legitimacy.
Condoleezza Rice was a director of Chevron. Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans held stock valued between $5m and $25m in Tom Brown Inc, the oil and gas exploration company he headed, and the list goes on, highlighting in particular a pronounced concentration of energy connections.
Unsurprisingly, US domestic and foreign policies are highly biased. The securing of Iraqi oil fields is a pertinent recent example. Since the beginning of the Iraq war, Halliburton, the Texas energy giant once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, has seen its stock price more than triple in value. According to Halliburton Watch, Halliburton's contracts under the Bush administration grew by 600%.
To take a key aspect of the administration's tax plan, Bush's cabinet members, according to one estimate, saved between $5 million and $19 million each as the Bush administration repealed the Estate Tax. This will come at the cost of an estimated $1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years to the public.
Those who benefited from the tax cuts represent a fraction of 1% of the American public. It is this same elite section of US citizens that dominate and manipulate the entire political system. As such, a symbiotic relationship is established, with both the government and the corporate elite sustaining each others legitimacy.
tvam vartamanam nara-deva-dehesv
anupravrtto 'yam adharma-pugah
lobho 'nrtam cauryam anaryam amho
jyestha ca maya kalahas ca dambhah
If the personality of Kali, irreligion, is allowed to act as a man-god or an executive head, certainly irreligious principles like greed, falsehood, robbery, incivility, treachery, misfortune, cheating, quarrel and vanity will abound. This kind of government cannot check the resultant actions of sinful life, namely war, pestilence, famine, earthquakes and similar other disturbances.
~ Srila Prabhupada (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.17.32)
Winning Elections
Money is equated with political influence within global governance structures. Raising massive contributions for campaign spending is only open to those with very strong connections to wealthy individuals. Civil society simply cannot compete financially, and the current state of politics reflects this situation. This misused financial leverage and influence is also at the heart of global governance injustice. The IMF and World Bank operate on a ‘one dollar, one vote’ basis, denying the democratic rights of the majority of the world simply because they are not wealthy enough.
In US, corporations were allowed to finance elections in the mid 1970's when the US Supreme Court extended First Amendment Constitutional Rights to corporations, allowing them an extension of ‘free speech' rights originally intended for people. The 2004 US presidential elections were the most expensive ever; total campaign contributions were $880,500,000.
Even in the 2002 Congressional races, where money was much less a determinant of the victors than the 2000 elections, 95% of all House seats and 75% of Senate seats were won by the higher-spending candidate.
The coal industry donated $1.5 million during the 2002 election cycle, mostly to the Republicans, Enron gave $2 million between 1999 and 2002, and Eli Lilly and Company gave over $1 million. In return for these and countless other contributions, President Bush's policies during his administration clearly favoured the wealthy and corporate interests by awarding lucrative contracts and by adjusting policy and laws.
In US, corporations were allowed to finance elections in the mid 1970's when the US Supreme Court extended First Amendment Constitutional Rights to corporations, allowing them an extension of ‘free speech' rights originally intended for people. The 2004 US presidential elections were the most expensive ever; total campaign contributions were $880,500,000.
Even in the 2002 Congressional races, where money was much less a determinant of the victors than the 2000 elections, 95% of all House seats and 75% of Senate seats were won by the higher-spending candidate.
The coal industry donated $1.5 million during the 2002 election cycle, mostly to the Republicans, Enron gave $2 million between 1999 and 2002, and Eli Lilly and Company gave over $1 million. In return for these and countless other contributions, President Bush's policies during his administration clearly favoured the wealthy and corporate interests by awarding lucrative contracts and by adjusting policy and laws.
Is it not the desire to uphold outmoded systems of commerce and economy, based on competition and selfish, nationalistic foreign policy objectives, which is truly reactionary and conservative?
The need for far reaching reform of business structure and activity is apparent, as is the need for democratic participation to be re-established at the community level. Economic development must be a process which is not imposed from above, but secured locally, and then regionally. For this to occur, all necessary resources should be made available to the majority world who mainly live in isolated, rural communities in developing countries. We have a United Nations General Assembly, the only world body with the potential to bring about these reforms. We also have the technology to implement complex systems that can span the globe, and we have the infrastructure and capability to distribute resources anywhere. All this is required is a shift in priorities; the political will to share what we have.
