Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporations. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

ALEC=Sinking ship;
Corporate Members, (latest is McDonalds) = fleeing rodents;
Politicians = Crew, will they be staying, or bailing?

The list continues to grow of companies that are no longer pat of ALEC, who no longer support ALEC and the unpopular extreme right wing culture war legislation they promote.
It's getting hot for ALEC corporate members, and well it should be. This was an entity that needed the dark, and belonged in the shadows.  As with the uproar over the Kommen Foundation, as with the uproar over Rush Limbaugh who is still without the sponsors who have left him, as with the long and growing boycott that confronted Glenn Beck who has returned to the relative obscurity he dserves. 
The culture war is ugly, it is hurtful and demeaning, it is broadly unpopular outside a narrow segment of the base of the GOP  and Tea Party.

Corruption = abuse of public office for private gain

ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council........ metaphorically speaking


McDonald's as rats, 
for having ever been part of corrupt ALEC in the first place,
(but better late than never for leaving - than you, Mickey D's!)
That leaves us the OTHER part of ALEC, the part where the conservatives submit any and all
largely identical legislation that ALEC produces, TO BENEFIT SPECIAL INTERESTS.
We need to be shining the light on them, next.
We need to be identifying them to the electorate.
We need to be focusing the PUBLIC OUTRAGE on them next.
We need to find them, we need to vote them out of office in 2012.


When they aren't hiding behind their appearance of public service,
                        when they aren't hiding behind their suits and briefcases in our legislature,
                                                  they are effectively looting us like pirates, and
                                                                          they are getting their own reward for it.


Here is the latest story, the most recently available information on the departure of McDonald's from ALEC membership. It is informative specifically because it represents an effort to distance the corporate interest from the ultra-conservative agenda which is part of the seduction of the legislators side of membership in ALEC. It is in part the darkly secretive nature of ALEC which is the opposite of honest and transparent government. It is one thing to have conferences and committee meetings within legislatures behind closed doors in an effort to avoid them becoming a circus, in the interests of simple efficiency.  But those are meetings where the members of the legislature from all parties have equal access to information, and to the process.  All the parties participating are KNOWN.  The benefits if any they receive for their position are known and above board, and the identity of those who provide benefits are known, including donors.  There is accountability.

None of those things are true of meetings with exclusively conservative legislators meeting outside of the halls of government in secret, for a variety of benefits from campaign donations to the expenditure of PAC money. 

There are increased profits to those corporations and other special interests.  They get money out of this above and beyond what they put into ALEC, and PACs, and donations to campaigns.  They get legislation that benefits them --- and harms US.  It is a corrupt arrangement of greed.

From the Huff Po:
McDonald's Says It Left ALEC In March 2012 [UPDATE]        
Under pressure from a progressive campaign to abandon the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), McDonald's is insisting that it left the controversial conservative organization in March.
On Tuesday, the online advocacy group Color of Change called on the fast-food chain to withdraw its membership from the group due to its support for voter ID and "Stand Your Ground" gun laws. In response, McDonald's said that it had already done so.
"We’re trying to correct the misinformation. We were a member last year and made the business decision not to renew in 2012," McDonald's spokesperson Ashlee Yingling wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. "Unfortunately, information found on many websites is outdated."
However, a letter sent by McDonald's to Color of Change, dated February 29, 2012, defended the corporation's membership in the group.
"McDonald's is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)," it reads. "It is important to note that while McDonald's is a member of ALEC's Commerce Committee, we are not a member of ALEC's Private Enterprise Board which recently passed the "Voter ID" model legislation."
In response to HuffPost's request for clarification, Yingling said that the company’s decision to separate from ALEC was in fact made in March 2012.
Color of Change has led a public campaign that aims to get ALEC's members to withdraw. The group supports controversial "policies that limit voting rights, undermine our public schools, assault collective bargaining and weaken laws protecting our environment,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a progressive group also involved in the campaign.
Coca-Cola withdrew its membership April 5. A day later Kraft Foods Inc announced it would not renew its membership to ALEC when it expires this spring.
Campaigns to persuade corporations to end support for the conservative organization had foundered until the Trayvon Martin killing. George Zimmerman, the man who shot the 17-year-old boy, has not been charged yet because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law," which ALEC championed. For much of corporate America, apparently, that's a bridge too far.
Color of Change's press release that named McDonald's as an ALEC member also called out State Farm and Johnson & Johnson for their memberships. State Farm and Johnson & Johnson did not respond to The Huffington Post's requests for comment.
As of Thursday, HuffPost had confirmed that Pfizer, Bayer, American Bail Coalition, PhRMA and Reynolds American would all continue their memberships in ALEC.

(large type is my emphasis added - DG)

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

More on the F-35 Defense Contract Corruption and Conservatives: "Oh Canada......"
and U.S. Congressional Insider Trading

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.” ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Corruption: use of public office for private gain - World Bank definition
From the Republic Report 'Corruption Watch':

Corruption Watch: Congressmen Awarding Big Defense Contracts to Companies in Which They Own Stock

Congressmen Michael McCaul and Kenny Marchant of Texas and Richard Hanna of New York all have two things in common. One, according to their personal financial disclosures, they own stock in defense contractor Pratt and Whitney. Two, they are all members of the F-35 Caucus, a group of Congressmen dedicated to awarding more contracts to defense contractors like, well, Pratt and Whitney.
The Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, White House officials, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) all agree: Spending hundreds of millions for new F-35 engines are a waste of taxpayer money. The planes have already cost taxpayers over $56 billion in research and development. Constant cost overruns have turned a plane that was supposed to cost $69 million each into one that now comes with a $156 million price tag. Some suggest that the entire F-35 program could spiral out of control and cost taxpayers more than $1 trillion over fifty years.
Defense contractors are pushing back against proposed cuts aggressively. In addition to increased lobbying spending and pro-F-35 advertisements in the Metro stops of Washington D.C., members of Congress agreed to form a “F-35 Caucus” to keep the taxpayer money flowing to the companies. As the Center for Responsive Politics noted, the F-35 Caucus members collectively received over $325,400 in contributions from the companies that make the F-35, including Pratt & Whitney, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and BAE Systems.
Republic Report has reviewed the personal finance disclosures of F-35 caucus, and found that a number of the lawmakers are also personally invested in the companies that produce the F-35:
– F-35 Caucus Member Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) owns between $350,000 and $750,000 in stock in the parent company of Pratt & Whitney.
– F-35 Caucus Member Congressman Kenny Marchant (R-TX) over $11,000 in stock with Northrop Grumman, over $5,000 in stock with Lockheed Martin, and over $5,000 in stock with the parent company of Pratt & Whitney.
– F-35 Caucus Member Congressman Richard Hanna (R-NY) owns up to $50,000 in stock with Lockheed Martin, and up to $15,000 in stock with the parent company of Pratt & Whitney.
Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA), whose campaign committee is a top recipient of F-35 contractor cash, is helping to lead the F-35 Caucus along with Congresswoman Kay Granger (R-TX).
In February, Congress refused to attach Senator Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) strong reform amendment to the Stock Act that would have forced legislators to place their investments in a blind trust. So, this form of corruption goes on as perfectly legal.  (emphasis added is mine - DG)
This post was written with valuable research help from intern Haley Streibich.

From the Roll Call CQ, preceding an article on ALEC:

Gates Foundation Will Withdraw Support for ALEC Nonprofit By Janie Lorber

Related from CQ Today
Senate Judiciary Leaders Call for Conference on Insider Trading Measures
Senators Seek Vote on Insider Amendments Dropped by House
Senators Look to Reconcile Insider-Trading Bills With House
After Expected House Passage, Future of Insider-Trading Bill Uncertain
House GOP Considers Rolling Back Some Provisions in Insider-Trading Bill

And then we have this from Canada.com:
Cabinet knew F-35's $25 billion cost, says AG

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News

Published: Thursday, April 05, 2012
OTTAWA - Canada's auditor general dropped a bombshell Thursday when he said the Conservative government knew before the last election that the F-35 fighter jet program would cost at least $10 billion more than what National Defence was telling Parliament and the public.
The government says it did nothing wrong as it was simply reporting the cost of buying the stealth fighters, not the price of operating them or associated salary costs, which would have been incurred no matter which plane replaced the CF-18s.
The Conservative government would have known that the F-35 was estimated to cost $25 billion when the Defence Department provided Parliament with a $14.7-billion figure in the weeks before the last federal election, Auditor General Michael Ferguson says.

The Conservative government would have known that the F-35 was estimated to cost $25 billion when the Defence Department provided Parliament with a $14.7-billion figure in the weeks before the last federal election, Auditor General Michael Ferguson says.

Chris Wattie/Reuters
But while it has agreed to provide those full costs in the future, the revelation has thrown more fuel onto a raging fire that has already seen the opposition call for House Speaker Andrew Scheer to launch an investigation.

The issue goes back to March 2011, when Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page released a major report weeks before the last federal election that estimated the F-35 would cost taxpayers nearly $30 billion.

The Department of National Defence responded by telling Parliament - and Canadians - that the stealth fighter actually would cost even less than the $16 billion budgeted for the program, putting the figure at $14.7 billion.

But the military did not include a number of important costs in its response, and during the course of his own study, Ferguson found Defence actually had estimated as far back as June 2010 that the total cost would be at least $25 billion.

Most of the attention since Ferguson's report was released Tuesday has been on the bureaucrats responsible for the F-35 file.

But the auditor general told reporters Thursday that the Conservative government itself knew about the $10-billion discrepancy when National Defence put forward the $14.7-billion figure in March 2011 because the cost estimates were essential for long-term budget planning.

"I can't speak to sort of an exact date," Ferguson said. "(But) at the point in time, to respond to the Parliamentary Budget Office's office, it's my understanding that the government had that number."

The auditor general, who was appointed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in November, told reporters he could not say exactly who would have known the military's true cost estimates.

But he was clear that by "government" he was referring to the executive - namely, cabinet and other members of the Conservative government, not the bureaucracy.

Related Links
Just linking to a few of these related stories produced this little gem:

AG report reveals key players in troubled F-35 program

Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News

Published: Wednesday, April 04, 2012
OTTAWA - Auditor General Michael Ferguson's scathing report on the F-35 has put a rare spotlight on the coterie of senior officials - both civilian and military - who have been central to Canada's involvement in the troubled stealth fighter jet program over the years.
The list includes a former general now responsible for providing civilian oversight of military purchases, several former fighter pilots and a top official at the Public Works Department who previously managed communications at National Defence.
On Thursday, Ferguson will appear before a parliamentary committee to answer questions about his report, and Liberal MP Gerry Byrne will attempt to call the bureaucrats involved in F-35 procurement to testify at a future meeting.
In the context that the Canadian Conservatives circumvented - as in cheated - the required parliamentary process on the F-35 intended to protect the citizens from corruption.  The article from Canada.com above continues:
- Dan Ross, assistant deputy minister of materiel at the Department of National Defence - One of the most powerful bureaucrats in Ottawa, Ross is a retired general turned civilian charged with ensuring  the military gets the equipment it needs - not necessarily what it wants - at an affordable price. He has held his current position since 2005, during which time the number of military purchases made without a competitive process has increased. Ross would have been involved in most if not all key briefings and meetings leading up to the government's decision to purchase the F-35.(emphasis added is mine - DG)
Australia has joined Italy and the UK in delaying - possibly cancelling if the plane proves to be the turkey it is reported to be - their previous orders for the F-35.  Continuing the bird metaphor, it looks like the cost over runs combined with poor performance, despite the profits made in investments by members of Congress in companies receiving these lucrative defense contracts, might finally have killed the goose that laid their golden eggs.

More 'related' stories from Canada.com:
Related Links
F-35 replacement candidates in the wings
U.S. auditor slams F-35 overruns

From Canada.com

F-35 replacement candidates in the wings

Michael Den Tandt, Times Colonist Published: Thursday, March 22, 2012

As the Tories batten the hatches ahead of an auditor general's report expected to be highly critical of the F-35 fighter jet procurement,  indications are the government now intends to move into a holding pattern on the controversial project, awaiting further developments in the U.S. and internationally before making a final decision on a purchase, which could come between six months and a year from now.
Meantime, defence-industry players in Ottawa are quietly laying the table for what many now expect will be the eventual unwinding of the sole-sourced program, which has been plagued by delays, technical glitches and cost overruns, to be replaced by an international competition.  The likeliest contenders, should there be a competition, are U.S.-based Boeing, maker of the F-18 Super Hornet, and Dassault of France, maker of the Rafale.
Both are twin-engined aircraft, which adds an element of safety in the Far North that the single-engine F-35 does not have.  The Rafale, like the F-35, comes with radar-evading stealth technology, and, insiders say, could be built almost entirely in Canada. The Super Hornet has the advantage of being in wide use already around the world, and would be highly "interoperable" both with NATO air forces and with Canada's existing, aging fleet of CF-18 Hornet fighters.
Reading history from the 20th century, as a Senator, Harry Truman discovered horrific but very similar problems with defense spending, where the decisions about purchasing and the awarding of contracts was corrupt, and where the nation was being ripped off.
From the United States Senate, 'Historical Minutes Essays':

1941-1963
March 1, 1941
The Truman Committee

Image:Senator Harry Truman in his Senate Office Building suite.
Senator Harry Truman in his Senate Office Building suite. Senate Historical Office
No senator ever gained greater political benefits from chairing a special investigating committee than did Missouri's Harry S. Truman.
In 1940, as World War II tightened its grip on Europe, Congress prepared for eventual U.S. involvement by appropriating $10 billion in defense contracts. Early in 1941, stories of widespread contractor mismanagement reached Senator Truman. In typical fashion, he decided to go take a look. During his 10,000-mile tour of military bases, he discovered that contractors were being paid a fixed profit no matter how inefficient their operations proved to be. He also found that a handful of corporations headquartered in the East were receiving a disproportionately greater share of the contracts.
Convinced that waste and corruption were strangling the nation's efforts to mobilize itself for the war in Europe, Truman conceived the idea for a special Senate Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program. Senior military officials opposed the idea, recalling the Civil War-era problems that the congressional Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War created for President Lincoln. Robert E. Lee had once joked that he considered the joint committee's harassment of Union commanders to be worth at least two Confederate divisions. Truman had no intention of allowing that earlier committee to serve as his model.
Congressional leaders advised President Franklin Roosevelt that it would be better for such an inquiry to be in Truman's sympathetic hands than to let it fall to those who might use it as a way of attacking his administration. They also assured the president that the "Truman Committee" would not be able to cause much trouble with a budget of only $15,000 to investigate billions in defense spending.
By unanimous consent on March 1, 1941, the Senate created what proved to be one of the most productive investigating committees in its entire history.
During the three years of Truman's chairmanship, the committee held hundreds of hearings, traveled thousands of miles to conduct field inspections, and saved millions of dollars in cost overruns.

 And then there was President Eisenhower, who also warned about the problems associated with the 'military industrial complex'.  I can say that through the lens of history, "I Like Ike" (a motto during his presidential campaign).  I REALLY like Ike, who was a great general, and a better president - a conservative, moderate Republican president back when that stood for something.  The modern right, far more extreme, effectively worships Ronald Reagan, attributing qualities to him that he didn't have, and claims of aligning themselves with him in ways that are actually contrary to his positions.  I would argue that Eisenhower - aka 'Ike' - was a better president, and a better conservative, if much less flashy and charismatic.
A few of Ike's notable quotes that seem applicable in this context:
 “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Should any political party attempt to abolish social security unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group of course that believes you can do these things. Among them are a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“In most communities it is illegal to cry "fire" in a crowded assembly. Should it not be considered serious international misconduct to manufacture a general war scare in an effort to achieve local political aims? ”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

“Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
 (in other words, the entire 'Bush Doctrine', and the position of every current GOP presidential candidate except possibly Ron Paul - DG)

Coming full circle to the excerpted quote at the beginning of this post is the entire quote from President Dwight David Eisenhower:
“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Corruption, conservatives, and defense spending are all closely connected, not only in this country but in the governments of our allies.  We need to oppose it, we need to root it out.  We need to expose the corrupt connections between defense spending corruption and legislators - predominantly conservative legislators more than others at the moment - and between corrupt corporations and conservatives generally.  The right is not the party of fiscal responsibility; they are corrupt, and they have and will continue to sell out the country, sell out American citizens, all of us, to corporate interests and big money.  In the process they will trample our liberties as they have already shown they are willing to do in their culture wars, which are part backward bigotry and part an effort to retain power by a bunch of predominantly old white men. 

Corrupt conservative old white men. 

Corrupt conservative old white men making money off of  public office for private gain, like the F-35 caucus and ALEC.

Monday, September 26, 2011

Execute a Corporation

Remember when Romney claimed, at the Iowa Presidential Candidate Fair and Circus, that corporations were people, too?  I wonder how long it will be until Romney not only takes the money from corporations, but tries to get them the right to vote, as well?



via Job Sanger and
MikeB's blog: