Takes a majority on the Supreme Court to undo it..
Once upon a time, the state of Montana had a Corrupt Practices Act, prohibiting corporations from spending money to influence elections. Even after Citizens United, the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana’s political environment made it “especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government. Clearly Montana has unique and compelling interests to protect through preservation of this statute [prohibiting corporate expenditures in Montana state elections].”
SCOTUS reversed the Montana decision as inconsistent with the holding in Citizens United that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” The Court affirmed that its holding in Citizens United applies to the Montana statute, writing, “There can be no serious doubt that it does [apply to the Montana statute]…Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment [in this case] were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Bullock
Thank you Daniel for this enlightening explanation of the effect of Citizens United. The Robert's Supreme Court will go down in history (if we still have a history) as the most Unconstitutional court ever.
Fay, I hope we have a history, but we need to get the word out now about what kind of Court Roberts is running and how it is piece by piece undermining our democracy in ways it is hard to protest. It is happening now more quickly so the protests will be more and more ineffectual. It seems to me Congress should be voting to impeach Roberts and his crew. Every one of the Republican/conservative/ult right justices are complicit. We have means in our Constitution to do that, but since the corporations protected by Baby Johnny and crew have bought a bunch of members of Congress, I guess that won't happen. Heck, they couldn't even convict Trump whose crimes were so obvious. Keeping any witnesses from showing up at the trial, McConnell, hypocrite in chief made sure he wouldn't allow enough of his servants to see they should vote to convict. I am trying to be hopeful, but it is harder every time the SC says something ridiculous (nearly every day) that undercuts our democracy.
I agree with your summation Ruth, Maybe all of us who have Democratic Representatives in the House, need to email them insisting on impeachment of Supreme Court Justices who definitively defy the Constitution. I will Email my Congressman today.
I like that you call it unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly assigns legislative authority to Congress and the President, not to unelected judges. I think judges and justices are way out of their lane, violating so-called Separation of Powers doctrine, by effectively repealing Acts of Congress by declaring them unconstitutional. The judges and justices are not acting as a check and balance, but rather as dictatorial oligarchs.
IMO, the president should enforce all laws passed by Congress and signed by the president (or enacted by a two-thirds majority over a presidential veto), including campaign finance regulations and the Voting Rights Act, unless and until they are repealed by Congress.
Of course this is a real case of both-sidism. Remember the Warren court wreaking havoc on all those carefully constructed Jim Crow laws in the South?
And I do disagree with your idea that the President should enforce ALL laws passed by Congress etc. While Marbury v. Madison established the SC as the final arbiter of laws passed by the legislature, the Executive branch was created as an equal, not subordinate to both of the other branches. With that goes a certain amount of discretion on the part of the President. Congress can sue him if they want and it will go back to the SC. But there is prerogative residing with the Executive branch that doesn't lie with either of the others.
So it will be interesting to see what happens if Biden ignores the Debt Limit and keeps on paying the bills. Congress of course can sue him but then it goes back to the SC where IF 5 or more of the 9 should declare on the part of Congress, they will push the world into a financial cataclysm.
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial power grab, effectively amending the Constitution to confer on itself the power of legislation. There is a defined process for amending the Constitution, set forth in Article V, and judicial opinion is not it.
If Congress disagrees with an Executive Branch rule, the remedy is the Congressional Review Act, not a lawsuit.
Yes, the Supreme Court may have struck down some bad laws, but I maintain my position. It is up to the voters to elect members of Congress and presidents who will not enact bad laws. And those deleterious laws already on the books must constitutionally be repealed by Congress, not judges.
Once again, Daniel Solomon has identified the issue that escapes the dim wits in Congress.
MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL VOTES. Corporate contributions must be limited to balance the scales of justice. Citizen's United is an abomination. It is beyond time to recognize the harm being done to voters in a democracy when money contributions are favored over votes. In a small business The Articles of Incorporation protects the business owner from liability because the corporation is NOT A PERSON. It is simple corruption that the language of the law has been changed and used to give advantage to a corporate entity including the same rights as a voting person. I fear nothing will change until/unless enough like minded people in Congress act to challenge the Supreme Court to change Citizen's United. Daniel Solomon stated the case well and I agree.
The problem is that, whatever the origin of corporate personhood, in the Citziens United vs. FEC case the Supreme Court affirmed 1st amendment protection for corporations. That's not something Congress can repeal.
The remedy is a constitutional amendment, and there is a robust effort being made in that regard. Representative Pramila Jayapal is the lead sponsor of the We The People Amendment. To sign the petition (and become actively involved in the movement if you want to do more), visit the MoveToAmend.org website: https://www.movetoamend.org/
Here's what Justice Stevens said in dissent:
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
Jerry Weiss .... Great comment and clarification of the legislative problem. I support the WE the People Amendment and will give more attention to Pramila Jayapal. I will go to MoveToAmend.org. Also , great comment by Justice Stevens to frame the preposterous nature of such a ruling. Thank you for your comment
I've advocated for the principle of separation of corporation & state like separation of church & state. However, that seems futile in our corporatocracy, especially as our principle of separation of church & state also falls by the wayside.
If conservatives want something that a particular State doesn’t want, then they argue federal/constitutional law as determined by the US Supreme Court controls (Citizens United). If conservatives want something they believe the States are more likely to uphold, they argue States rights and the US Supreme Court follows suit. (Abortion). Conservatives are for States rights and small government, except when it suits their needs. Does anybody see any hypocrisy in this?
It always has been. On the right, hypocrisy is a core value. I learned that from a forensic psychologist who saw people very clearly.
They feel it's very important that you mouth the conservative values, but they don't expect anyone to really live up to them, ya know, that's too hard, and people are basically sinful. So that leaves them mouthing values they have no intention of living up to -- that is, hypocrites. On the other hand, they know that we expect people to live up to their values, so they delight in pointing it out when we don't -- not because they care, but because they know we do -- it's a reliable "gotcha" for them to use on us, but they are arguing in bad faith, and that's what we should point out to them when they do it.
that's why i favor letting the red states go. they take in far more of our tax dollars than they contribute, so let them do it on their own. sometimes ya gotta hit bottom....
As much as I dislike the Republican, conservative agenda, there are good liberal positive democratic people in those red states and even some reasonable Republicans. We just have to educate them and be more persuasive than the right wing of the Republican Party. You would think with people like Marjorie Taylor,Green, Matt, Gaetz and Jim Jordan and a host of other Republicans trying to destroy democracy who appear to be more Interested in self service than public service, they would not have the support of their own party, much less the voters. We are the United States, and just like the Civil War there is hope to bring our country together.
Robin O ; Yes. They want to 'win' and have legions of unethical lawyers to help them get what they want. Along with the stacked illegitimate 'Supreme' court.
On the other hand, if money is speech, and we are all supposed to have equal free speech, couldn't we use that to make the government seize all the money and distribute it evenly, as "free speech"? :-)
Kim Cooper : Nice work if we could get it ; but imagine MAGA rants from MTG and readings of'Green eggs and ham' from people like Ted Cruz...or worse. And how do we "make the government seize all the money and distribute it evenly" as "Free speech" ?! Scary thought these days!
Great job judge! Having lived in Montana this information surprises me a bit. Montana had very strong union sections and very strong right wing representation like many Rocky Mountain regions have. Montana has a lot of nut job factions. When I was a member of AFLCIO Aerospace workers and Machinist union, our leadership was based in Montana. Good for Montana! I’m sure the unions had something with this legislation. John Tester is a strong voice that could propose national legislation.
I've said this before and stand by it. As the human race, we simply don't have the political will to save our environment and thus ourselves. Likely Americans are the worst but certainly we're not alone. I really don't have hope that our corporations, politicians and 1% will have their 'come-to-jesus' moment just in time. Regardless of the color of their hats, they are not the good guys and not the cavalry coming to our planet's rescue.
Terry, do your really believe that? Are you sure there is only destruction in our future and a lot of death? When we speak so negatively all the time, a whole lot of people who look for hope become discouraged too. Maybe it would take just one or two corporations to stand up to the negativity and ignore what corporations always do, and go in a different direction. I don't know which it should or will be, but someone needs to start it. I would like to see parmaceutical corporations to stand up to the courts and keep selling and distributing abortion pills since we all know they are safe and effective, despite what a bunch of whate males want. Those men are ignorant misogynists as well as pseudo-Christians who want to control everyone's lives, beginning with women and people of color. They will come for white men who don't think like them soon if we don't stand up. They are fascists and we know it. Now it's time we the people demand our government work actively to stop it. The Department of Justice and other departments and agencies could perhaps offer incentives to corporations who actually do work to save our environment and want and value diversity in their corporate leadership and in our society. They need a group within our government who can identify those corporations and note the advances they have actually made in those areas, not just what they have said and written in their reports which usually are full of lies and unmet intentions.
Sadly I agree with Terry. Scientists have been warning us about climate change and the environmental consequences of business as usual for 70 years. And no one listened. Republicans seem to believe that the very same science they attack for alerting us to the coming doom will save us, or they just don’t care. Democrats simply don’t know how to fight against the right wing machine that runs this country. Now that the effects of unbridled capitalism are upon us--mega storms, blizzards, hurricanes, heat waves, droughts etc.--they refuse to do anything. Republicans have so weakened our government that it no longer works. And for what’s coming, we need a strong, functioning government. I feel sorry for children today because they are going to have to live in a world we all helped to destroy.
Miz ; I agree with Terry too. Anyone who cares about the climate, including the majority of voters, are not 'other' unless you want them to be, and then it will be your sad belief that they are 'other'. It would be great if we could all see each other as agreeing ; at least those of us who do not vote for those who promulgate climate denial , and care about ending climate disaster. We need to see, and respect each other. Then we can unite and work together. We could be an indomitable force! Against climate destruction!
You're arguments are always about "them". As Greta points out, "them" is "us". I will gain hope when I see the majority of people standing up for the planet and the future. I haven't seen that so far. Enough people aren't outraged enough yet to truly make a difference. One sign would be every politician against ...or just not-for the planet... being voted out of office. This would tell me that we the people have had enough and want to save the planet.
Terry Franzman ; The last two elections went to the party that cares about the planet the most. Your model is oversimplified because we don't get to vote just on climate mitigation..
Yes it is simplified. But we're faced with an either/or choice. And the sad fact is that human culture cannot keep up with human technological "advancement" Simply too many of us....probably a vast majority....that just want things to stop....or worse.....'go back' to yesterday. Meantime mother nature moves unrelentingly forward in vicious obedience to time.
There are those of us who are shouting about "we have to stop killing the planet" -- but there are also still a lot of people who still deny there is any climate change -- and some who will deny it to the end (Like that woman we all heard about who kept denying she had Covid -or that there was any such thing -- until she died of it.)
The corporations will never support the needs of the people, especially the pharmaceutical ones. They are the most evil causing major health injury and death and barely ever held accountable and never are with vaccine drugs given Bush's giving them Held Harmless status.
What will work is the people waking up and pushing back in an organized way. When Bush & Rumsfeld tried to mandate the super dangerous smallpox vaccine drug after 911, 30% of medical personnel refused and that put the cabbosh to that dangerous fiasco. When milk prices soared suddenly back in the '60's women refused to buy milk and prices dropped immediately. Unions work on this principle of collective organizing to force bargaining with company owners. And not to forget the Socialist and Communist movements in this country after the 1929 crash got us Social Security, Labor laws and banking laws. People need to learn from history and find the backbone to do what is needed. Whining will never make it.
Tanya Marquette ; Beware of blocking change by using words like 'never' .You used it quite a few times here, and I think this viewpoint could severely limit possibilities and perceptions in a way that can give an extremely bleak outlook. Yes; We all face an extreme challenge when people who are wrecking our government and busting civility illegitimately hold power. There are more of US than there are them. We will win. Look at the last two elections. I think the right actions (not the right wing) , will prevail.
I have done this. What we must really consider is whether human culture and technology (including the arts and expressions) can (or should) be saved. We can look at what we know of the past - the earth has already survived almost unimaginable transformations of the atmosphere, land and seas. Life has survived through the less violent transformations of the recent 2 billion years. The projections for the future, prior to the Sun exploding, are that unimaginably violent transformations will take place and some forms of life will survive all that. As an ethical, moral, contemplative species, and worrying that we can't at all be sure there is any other such species any where in the extant universe, mustn't we decide and act on the preservation of intelligence in the universe? Can't we hope that some future generation will learn to preserve the material world sufficiently that a high form of intelligence can continue to create art, technology, beauty and life?
A realistic scenario? Well, that it will continue to get hotter and dry places will get drier and wet places will get wetter and storms will get stronger and more and more pandemics will happen, until there are only a few thousand humans left, living in a primitive state because there aren't enough alive to support technology. We will start over. As the earth slowly cools, civilization may build back up. If we have saved some of the knowledge we had gained, it will help us, but it will not be the same -- we will not be able to go through the ages of coal and oil because there won't be enough left that is easily accessible, so some form of renewables that doesn't take too much sophisticated manufacturing will be required. If we carefully save the knowledge, maybe we will do better next time. Or, we won't make it in time, and the Earth will get completely uninhabitable before we get our act together, and no one but the cockroaches will survive. I see this scenario because I have heard that if we quit putting CO2 into the atmosphere today, 100% quit, the warming would continue for a hundred years because of what's already there, in the oceans and the air.
Yes Ruth; I agree that we need to see each other . It is the only way to have respect for each other and know where each one of us is coming from. Respect must be mutual, and on the level.
Well, let's unpack this a little bit. What was the human population of the planet when the Egyptian dynasties were building pyramids with slave labor, when the Aztecs ran their economy and empire on slavery and war, etc.? Human population should be 2 billion, yes, per the carrying capacity theory, but population will not eliminate voracity, cruelty, marketocracy, tyranny, and self-interest above the planet. So what else do we have? Personally, I hope that young voters of color around the earth who have no stake in corporations yet will do some good.
Martha Ture ; yes : there is value in living culture that has not been compartmentalized, and is human sized. For example, food production is done locally, and is less processed. Life is lived at a pace that is not impersonal and even frantic. Communities are closer. It is not always idyllic, but life on a human scale does have something to say for it. Has value.
Its certainly A problem but can't blame it for everything. Even with less people, say 1/2, with the current mindset of the world's population and its growing and sophisticated technological ability to degrade our environment, it would just take longer but eventually we'd get there just the same.
Tom tonelli; Yes, it is , also over 'incorporation'. It keeps people 'compartmentalized', and blind to each other. The value is in the money and nothing else matters; especially pesky environmental concerns. The gold makes the rules, and this bottom line is everythng.
The solution to that is Worker-owned workplaces (WOW). they are businesses that are democratically run, owned by the workers, which means at the end of the year when they compute the profits, you get your share of them. No highly paid CEOs stealing the money, no outside stockholders who don't care about the company or the community, just community members with a stake in the success of the business, while still being good local citizens. It's still "Capitalism" in the sense that the company still competes in the marketplace, but the workers don't compete, they cooperate.
Tom tonelli ; Funny and sad; even frustrating. That they would use that knowledge/belief as a cudgel with which they can attack anyone with whom they disagree.
This vicious cycle of American entropy exists because Republicans are not conservative, they are #CORPservative - in servitude to their corporate and billionaire donors.
That dark money relationship always insures that regulation dwindles to nothing, hidden tax breaks will always be available, and the dependency of media on boosting the right wing agenda will never waver.
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats - it's all politicians. No point it blaming it on either side, they're all taking the money as the system currently makes it incredible hard for them to compete if they don't. One way to attack this broken system might be by clamping down on TIME and AIR TIME. Let's say a new rule that says that an election cycle shall be no more than six weeks - before then, no campaigns, no rallies, no ads ... I think that in itself would bring a bit of sanity back into the system.
Both siding isn't doing any good. There are many democrats trying to do the right thing but no republicans. To equate them is a favor to the republican party.
You're right that it's not about Republicans or Democrats or any Organization really. It's about all of us and us not demanding corrective action.... and us not taking corrective action in our lives. To solve this problem we have to lead. If we were all Gretas this shit wouldn't be happening.
I have an old Toles cartoon on my refrigerator that has gone yellow, but stays there because it sums things up- an old Uncle Sam is sitting on a stool in the middle of a completely denuded wasteland at a spinning wheel- the caption is "I've spun the world into money, now what?"
Daniel M. I like your idea of shortening elections. I am already bombarded with beg emails for the 2024 election. That is insane! I would love to see a shorter election season, perhaps 2 months for the primaries which would all be the same day for federal elections and another 2 months for the general election and 3 weeks for any run-offs. With all primaries the same day, there isn't a chance for one state's victory or defeat of candidates to impact that of other states. That would cut down on the money required for elections significantly. There should be major fines for anyone with ads either supporting a candidate or covertly supporting a candidate, showing him/her while discussing an issue. It's cute but a cheat. In fact, issue ads for candidate positions should be included in the campaign time limits. Big fines should be charged for anyone or group or corporation that violates on air or social media or in print. I am sure the details could be worked out and should be. I really like this idea.
One big problem. The Media et al will absolutely throw a fit. The tons of $$ you're talking about saving all go to their bottom line. Not that I disagree... I wish you well.... I just don't think cutting back on speech is going to sell.
My favorite is full and complete disclosure ....across the board. That and getting rid of the silly notion that corporations are people. I say if you can't detain them or incarcerate them they aren't people and don't have "people" rights. After all, corporations are theoretically immortal.
Two solutions to the problems you posed: Make the media give free air time to all candidates equally (that will make the media beg for shorter elections!), and Make corporations mortal: When they reach 60 (or some number: it was originally 23) years old they cease to exist. Yes, at the beginning of our country all corporations had to have a single purpose, it had to be for the common good, and they could not exist longer than 23 years -- if those guys who claim to be originalists really were, we would go back to that.
Love the idea of free air time and yes, media corporations would then be the first to lobby for very short elections. Good one! Now we just have to get legislators to pass such a law ... sigh.
I didn't know about the 23 years - would love to know more, can you direct me to a link where I can read up on this? As for mortal, I don't know, if the the HPs of the world who practice something like The HP Way, why sunset them? I'd opt for size (anything goes beyond a certain size, it must be split) and regulation (which, at this point, seems near impossible).
After Independence, American corporations, like the British companies before them, were chartered to perform specific public functions - digging canals, building bridges. Their charters lasted between 10 and 40 years, often requiring the termination of the corporation on completion of a specific task, setting limits on commercial interests and prohibiting any corporate participation in the political process.
Corporations as we know them came to being in Britain with an 1844 Act allowing them to define their own purpose. The power to control them thus passed from the government to the courts. In 1855, shareholders were awarded limited liability: their personal assets were protected from the consequences of their corporate behaviour.
In 1886 a landmark decision by a US court recognized the corporation as a 'natural person' under law. The 14th amendment to the Constitution: 'no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property' - adopted to protect emancipated slaves in the hostile South - was used to defend corporations and strike down regulations.
Unfortunately, I do not have a reference for that. I have heard it from more than one source, but I don't know where. Maybe ask Heather Cox Richardson next time she has a question session. Now you have me wondering about it, but I am really bad at googling.
I think the electorate are disgusted with the corruption in our government and our businesses. If someone were to lead a big anti-corruption campaign, and could keep it from devolving into partisanship, it might be successful. Someone with a big platform or standing or fame. This is one of my favorite quotes: "...neither libertarianism nor socialism make places good places. What makes them good places or bad places is whether or not they have honest journalists, honest judges, and honest accountants." Brad Hicks paraphrasing P.J. O’Rourke
As was mentioned, sensible solutions like brief election cycles and campaign financing reform are distant hopes, but total transparency of campaign contributions may be possible. Alas, even that would be a step, it irks me to no end that even low-hanging fruit seem impossible to grab. Makes you think - just how low must we be if we can't grab hold of low-hanging fruit?
Yes, I like it as well. But it's too egalitarian for our politicians. Levels too much. Everyone is looking for an edge. And it would likely raise taxes.
Entirely with you. Short campaigns are an ideal for the US and ideals hardly ever come about. Still, other countries do offer good examples that come with all the required brevity and sanity. The main obstacle, of course, is once again money. Yes, networks are corporate powerhouses and they most certainly would do everything in their lobbying power to stop their precious advertising revenue from disappearing.
Agreed. I'll buy into the idea of corporations as people when we see major religions trying to convert them, baptizing them, and explaining their "plan of salvation" for corporations. At the same time, would anyone want to spend eternity with BP, Exxon, General Motors or Eli Lilly as neighbors?
It works in other countries. When campaigning is limited to a couple months prior to the election, pouring billions of dollars into campaign coffers is futile. It also means that legislatures can stay focused on doing their jobs. Instead, we're now in perpetual campaign mode, where politicians begin their next campaign and fund raising before they've even taken the oath of office for the current term.
Todd Telford; yes, the media wants to keep us distracted. The focus on the confusion and mess in our government, and keep the serious questions unasked. Billionaires are installing Congresspeople who are illegitimate. And working for the oligarchs.
Yes Todd Telford ; I was watching some recorded shows on MSNBC, and could not believe the faster than ever barrage of negative 'news' (much of it as old as any soap opera) , and could not help but think what you just posted. They want us absolutely sick with anger about abortion, and George Santos (and 3 other Congress people who took money from him and also have questionable 'resumes').and on and on about DeSatan and the whole s#it $#ow that is our government and the 4th estate's coverage of same.
If only we could get over the notion of shareholders being the beneficiaries of corporate capitalism, we could see the real problem more clearly. Managerial capitalism. Share buybacks and contortions to make quarterly Street expectations cannot be separated from non-cash compensation in the form of options. These devices are justified on the basis that a firm must be "competitive to attract top talent." The talent consists too often not in innovations in the conduct of the business, but in acting as influencers of Street opinion. Share price is, after all, only the collective opinion of everyone else's opinion of what a stock is worth as an asset. The better the C-Suite is at encouraging a favorable opinion by force of personality and pulling the numberless levers of permissible accounting and tax judgments that affect timing of recognition of income and losses.
The C-suiter and the Street, along with hot-money customers, are those who bid up valuation independent of actual business operations. This is a trader mentality, not an investor mentality. Traders look for angles, technicalities, and, ultimately. the greater fool.
I was something of a Wall Street lawyer in the mortgage backed securities way, and my opinion here is among the gentlest I hold.
Listening to Professor Reich's podcast and reading your response, I was reminded of this teaching from my youth "What does the Bible say about building a house on sand? In Matthew 7, Jesus said everyone who hears his words and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Then he went on to say everyone who hears his words and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand (Matthew 7:24-26).4 July 2020."
Wall Street and its affiliated inhabitants have demonstrated time and again that they are nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme, using assumption, hubris, collusion, and other questionable management practices under the guise of a Professionally managed business when it’s more akin to a regulated licensed casino.
Heather, I like the building on sand analogy for Wall Street and business these days. How can we the People make it better, less of a casino? I do not know enough of how this racket works to even begin to know how it could be fixed. I know a lot of rich older white men are involved and want to keep themselves in charge of this scheme, so it will be hard to change. Where could we possibly start?
Yes Ruth, there are no easy fixes no matter what dilemma we all face, and it won't be easy or comfortable along the way, so we start the same way as any 'wall or process' is built, bit by bit!
Mr. Careaga, shareholders' rights should be preeminent but instant gratification should not be permitted to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Research and reinvestment were supposed to be hallmarks of good corporate governance.
What happened was the corporations got in there and rewrote the laws. the reason there was so much research and re-investment in the 50s and sixties is that the tax structure was set up to make it cheaper to do research and reinvestment than not. If they didn't do the R&D, they got to pay that money in taxes. the top tax rate was 91%, and R&D was exempt.
Daniel, I just had to laugh at the idea of corporate reinvestment these days. These guys would rather do stock buybacks instead. I don't understand that because it is really stupid.
Yep, just look at the SWA meltdown over Christmas’22. Squeezing blood out of a turnip since 1971 and not investing in its own infrastructure brought us that mess. Thank God I’m on the downside of my career there. I’ll hit 30 years in June. And just to be clear I’m not disparaging my company because I could be fired for that by posting anything negative on social media. I’m just stating facts.
We prided ourselves on doing things on the cheap to keep fares low for many years, but we’re not the maverick start up company anymore! As a major airline it needs to reinvest in its own infrastructure.
I think Professor Reich is partially correct, but I don't accept his absolutist rhetoric, painting every company as evil just as much as I reject this Republican Anti-Wokism. Of course, the Republican movement is highly influenced by the evil geniuses of The Heritage Foundation and others. In fact what we are hearing is those 1 percenters, who are aligned with Friedman, running scared because it is starting to work. The EU Security Regulators, recently approved legislation requiring the standardized and independently audited ESG reporting, linked to a companies financial returns and subject to the same regulatory penalties as financial reporting fraud (12,000 companies are affected.) The US SEC has completed its public review of similar regulations and is poised to publish something in the next months... to be implemented next year (if now not blocked politically.) It is also true that approximately $35 Trillion dollars of invested Assets Under Management are directed to financial instruments guided by a focus on ESG/Impact investing (this is about a third of the assets under management in the world.) 400 companies with over 9m employees have taken the climate pledge. These are signals are starting to cause concern, perhaps fear with the Anti-Woke, xenophobic racists who would destroy our planet to protect their vested interests.
I am not speaking from the sidelines, I am a senior business executive who has run large companies and serves on corporate boards and I am 'Woke' and at 65 currently enrolled in masters program in Sustainability Science at Harvard. I personally don't think we will solve the Environmental, or many of the Social problems of the world without corporations contributing and in fact in many areas there are significant profits to be made in doing so. If you step back and look at it, corporations can organize and scale solutions that can have a positive outcome. For example, the pending energy transition from fossil fuels is the largest business opportunity in the next 100 years, but perhaps not for the Koch Brothers or Heritage Foundation cabal but for other companies and investors who are seeing an gusher of capital at very high valuations. But there are very few 'WIN / WIN' choices and outcomes, so there is always some bad mixed with some good, even when we try hard so you have to look through the noise to demystify trends.
Although I may sound Pollyanna, I too am cynical. Of course there will be failures, setbacks and very bad examples of corporations acting horribly. But I'd like to invest my energy from a perspective of positive change not more polarizing rhetoric, which wastes energy and time that we do not have.
And there are positive proof points that abound, supported by rationale government regulation that enables stakeholders to have a seat at the table and places the economic costs on the externalities. I would suggest reviewing the long term performance of Denmark, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Costa Rica, Switzerland, even France would provide better (and profitable) models. Investing in social goods, such as universal healthcare, education, recognizing environmental costs and the costs of social injustice combined with smarter collaborative business policies/regulation (and yes laws) do lead to much better outcomes than the US has experienced. Here I agree with Reich, we need stronger laws, and regulations, but that are enabling successful outcomes for all stakeholders.
Following the false gospel of Milton Friedman and sellout to the evil geniuses behind the Heritage Foundation and examples like Citizens United have caused significant harm to our society (and the world); I think we should put our shoulder behind positive change to reverse that and avoid painting every company and business person with the same brush. It is not perfect, but it can improve.
I am worried and rail against this politization of ESG, I think they evil geniuses are running scared. At the same time, I think we are running out of time to avoid the worst effects of our climate problems and falling into a culture war on this is extremely poor timing. I wish I knew how to resolve this polarizing dissent, most people (and most corporations) want a better, inclusive outcome and we are being prevented from discussing and progressing it rationally by the deepening absolutist divisive rhetoric from both sides.
I reiterate that many of these companies are not really "American" and therefore can't be expected to consider our national interests -- like national security.
Domestic corporations exist because they have charters from state governments. IMHO the rule of law has to be expanded to require them to act "human." I haven't looked at the proposed SEC regs. but I'm still hoping for a rule to disclose all political contributions as a start.
Daniel Solomon, Here are some references for you to look into if you would like to. I believe the EU Security Regs, also cover international companies trading and or doing business in the EU (but you can check me on that.) I also believe the Governance Reporting Standards include disclosing political contributions. Where this is often mucked up is if they give through an non-profit or PAC, like the Heritage Foundation or the Petroleum Industry Association.
I agree with your comment but I think Professor Reich is wise enough to know there are companies that try to do the right things. Unfortunately, I do believe he is right about the most powerful corporations.
I've sern first hand how this corporate ceo's take profits by judicializing clean energy intent to make the enviroment more sustainable at the sane time indebting cities to invest in this skeemes and make them pay for decades of badly planned enviromenraly not sustainable proyecs it's all buissnesse all for profits that are not traceble to them bit the goverment debt is left there they win winnpeople loose loose .
Yes i saw how 40'000,000 cubic mts where exported from our streams for profits ,or a 4,500'000,000 billions masive transportation proyect badly planned left my state and city indebt suposely to make it more eficient but instead of benefiting 500,000 people only serve ceos profits and 500 people ir's unbelibeable this greed and governors mayors inside their pockets are trusted again and again and people geting tire seek other ootions of goverment worst than the best way to solve this corporate int'l greed.we need to act now today one way is to keep and eye on this racketers with the intent to put them under investigation if needed
U r right, I was borrowing liberally from Kurt Anderson's Book. That is the only positive adjective that he used (perhaps sarcastically) the whole text.
Obviously, I agree with you, Robert. The problem is HOW? How do we get a bunch of reprobate politicians, to cut their personal incomes from graft? How do we get these same reprobates to lessen their power? How do we get the general public to see the need for reform? There are so many needs facing us. We Need to have campaign reform, to lessen the amount of time spent campaigning for re-election and power. We need to get corporate money OUT of politics,, We need to get rid of ALL lobbyists. All this, while saving our planet from the pending doom of global warming, a plan for how to support, 10 billion humans at a responsible level and find necessary things to keep them busy in the face of Artificial Intelligence. How to improve the way we educate our children. How top convince these 10 billion future humans that we are all the same animal and that appearance, loves, dislikes, are superficial and we don't all have to look the same, believe the same, love the same. At the same time we have to honor and respect all others who are not criminally insane.
Fay Reid ; When it becomes evident that to prioritize the health of our planet and its inhabitants, there could be necessary changes reflecting the realization that things have to be done right : from intelligent management of resources to education and family planning. There is not enough money to 'solve' the coming disaster of climate destruction. Wealth is a relative thing when seen through this lens. Billions and trillions will be useless. "No place to run and no place to hide."
When I think about things in a global, non-personal sense all I can think of is the mess we humans are making of a world in which our population is far too big & without any religious justifications we are in fact the 'plague on the planet' that is likely to destroy our own home in the end. Way too many of us already. We have prevented out natural culling by managing to stop many diseases that would have kept us under control, but I think in the end the planet & the natural world will win - we cannot survive carrying on the way we are ! If you think of this planet without humans, it is only critters like dogs who would have a hard time initially figuring out how to eat without their 'masters' - all else would quickly adjust ! I think it's high time to admit that the 'space' industry is irrelevant & our focus should be entirely on sorting out our own home !
All of us need to look objectively at how we may knowingly or unknowing contribute to the system and “mindset” of both lack and greed. I’m sure there is an uncomfortable inverse desire in people who may depend upon passive income to support themselves, to examine these tendencies but there it is. Investing with our eyes open is absolutely necessary for a change in society’s core way of thinking about how we support ourselves, whether it be from direct employment or indirect investment in companies who employ. Without a fundamental change in our basic values as a people, we will continue to en masse stand by and wring our hands in helplessness. Change begins from the ground up.
How do you change the values of an entire culture? If we even just changed the values of the conservative half of the country, we could do something about climate. How do you do that? You can do it, but not quickly. The Republicans started trying to turn America "conservative" in 1964 at a meeting at their convention. They have been working on a whole program since then -- committing time, money, organization, and efforts to it. They started with think tanks to plan what they needed to do. they made a whole plan (it was published publicly -- it's out there. It's called the Lewis Powell memo.) It included taking over large chunks of media to project their message 24/7, endowing conservative chairs at major universities, taking over a major economics school and teaching conservative (and incorrect) economics, Getting conservatives onto local school boards everywhere, Getting conservative candidates into all local offices that they could. Taking over statehouses. And more -- it was a huge plan, and they committed a lot of money to it.
Fay, OMG, that is a huge menu of things we need to do. I am on board with all of it, now, who can we get to write it into a plan, who do we get to get the information out to the public, who do we get to bring it up in Congress and state legislatures, even in the blue states, who will educate the children and young people about the plan and get them on board, who will lead the rallies in support of such a plan? I would love to help, but I am not an organizer. It would be so exciting and I think we could get a lot of people to support it because it could give them something to do that would matter. People want to matter and to know that what they are doing matters.
Maybe start right here? The majority of this community has what it takes to do that and get it up and running. This is the clean ‘slate’ that is needed, not rebuilding on the bones of the past.
Someone who has big picture, mind maps come to mind, fill in the gaps then get the environmental heavy weights and visionaries to come on board i.e. Greta Thunberg, David Suzuki, Richard Attenborough, what's Al Gore doing these days? What's Jarrod Diamond doing these days? Diamond is known for drawing from a variety of fields, including anthropology, ecology, geography, and evolutionary biology. He is a professor of geography at UCLA.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond renewable powerhouses and of course Professor Robert Reich to run the policy and budget to achieve it all in addition to Heather Lofthouse with her media savvy! Sort out the IMF, World Bank, Central Banks and the dark side of Stock Exchanges.
Radical times for call radical solutions and it’s up to us, this is how we claim back our power.
Daniel Solomon to legislate it properly from a National, State and Global level, with colleagues that are of similar thought to support the vast work that this will demand, and also means sorting out the complications that constrict the UN in the Global arena.
Jimmy Carter had the right idea with 'Habitat' for Humanity, https://www.habitat.org/ap it’s now a global organisation in addition to the Amish know how to work collectively, they can build a barn in a day.....the leadership and knowledge is here, harness it for the sake of the Planet, environment, animals and what remains, many hands make light work.
Heather, I want to sign up. I like all the people you suggest and there are so many more if we could just find a way to get them to all work together. I was hoping Biden would be on board too, but he is too worried these days about soothing the Republicans in Congress and everywhere else to really take the big steps needed, like declaring a climate emergency and putting a whole lot less money in the military budget for next year and putting the difference directly into dealing with stopping global warming. I am not sure how to shake any of the world leaders out of their complacency or their greed to take over more land where the people don't want to be taken over, but we need to do that if we would be successful. I want to try, though!
Well, maybe that can be achieved with doing a 'Meet N Greet' via Zoom, most people have that app on their systems since COVID-19 and it would be an administrative thing for Professor Reich to organise as he has the mailing list of subscribers after all, along with Heather Lofthouse.
The mind mapping part will be huge, not just USA........along with all the other intricacies that will need to be included and keeping in mind that many community organisations already exist to do this work which have wider affiliations as well.......'regulations and vested interests' are why we are where we are....
Heather, I like your idea of a Zoom conference for folks on this thread and beyond to consider ways we can do something to wake the people up to what we are really facing on our planet. No one is going to care if a president wants to be Peter the Great or some other such archaic figure if the planet warms beyond what human beings can live with. No one is going to care if someone is more white than someone else when the sea levels rise enough to cover Florida. There must be a way to curb male need to control stuff, even things that are local and give pleasure to folks like Drag and that help people like providing care to trans folks. In short, we the people are letting Republican small-mindedness and Russian/Chinese megalomania to keep the world from pulling together to stop the destruction. That is just plain crazy!
Once again you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Corporations caused the climate crisis and most of our environmental problems. Can they be relied upon to solve these problems without being forced to? No! They should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. They should be required to pay for the damage they have done (or financed). They’re not going to do anything of their own volition.
They CAN'T do anything of their own volition: if being "green" costs them money, then they can't compete against non-green companies. By making regulations that they all have to abide by, it protects the ones who want to do good from the others out-competing them. This is why cheating hurts everyone. Of course, some companies have found that going green saves them money, but it depends...
Such efforts at "self regulation" flop because they are usually platitudes rather than regulation grounded in policy.
None of the "club" proposing ESG actually wants governance to be mandated. Further, the E part of ESG ends up in opposition to the S part over issues of global population.
A conservative neighbor expressed how his peer group would resolve the tension by "doing something" about the issue of too many people on the planet. I can only imagine what a complete telling of this group's ideas would look like.
There is a good solution to the population problem: if we make birth control and abortion available to all women everywhere, they will use it. Women are more interested in quality than quantity in their children: they know when having too many to feed hurts the others.
GrrlScientist ; The hope is that the 'smart money' will comprise a large enough number of the rich, and realize that it is in their best interest to 'husband' the Earth more carefully, and treat workers more fairly. Really and actually doing it and not pretending to. It could become a trend!
What is not stated is that we don't exist in a vacuum and many of "our" corporations are international conglomerates or have foreign ownership or management. I keep repeating that we have national security interests involved and have been played by some of our "allies" like Saudi Arabia since we let the dollar float. 1973.
I think there's an important thread to add to your conversation which would change it. "B" corporations. These are corporations designed to honor the triple bottom line and having to prove it. Shareholders know this when they buy into them.
* This is creating a better contract for corporations.
* This is humans finding a way to channel deeper values into corporations.
Can you see how that would shift what you are saying?
AND Considering this and in general, I don't think it's WRONG to allow "retirement plan managers to include E.S.G. considerations in their investment plans." It isn't always green washing. It can be authentic. It can be a start.
Most importantly, it relieves one of the pressure points that keeps corporations only serving money. To free them up a little from that pressure. To make them a little less vulnerable to punishment if they make this choice.
So yes let's take on the CURRENT corporate model. But also leave room for those experimenting with NEW AND BETTER MODELS.
And note that I know very high integrity people who are using this structure in authentic ways. It allows the benefits of a corporate structure, reinvented to better serve people and planet.
Our refusal to dispense with or even temper corporate capitalism has led many to somehow believe that a humanist capitalism model is not possible, nor will it change anything in American society or politics for the better. The river has irrevocably breached the dam, the horses have bolted, whatever metaphor you wish. We have learned one thing with certainty: corporations will not change behaviour or policy until the level of financial punishment for their unlimited pursuit of greed exceeds their ability to achieve exorbitant profit.
Robin Cordoza : I agree. If only there could be truthful labels/tags on merchandise telling us how it is produced, like the Fair market things we see in ads. It would be reassuring to know if it's really 'fair trade' with workers paid a living wage and also not harming the environment as well. For instance I have seen articles about 'Wayfair' which is promoted as one of these 'fair trade' businesses, that say it should be 'Way unfair' for the way it does things like underpaying their workers.
I suggest we all view the film Network, and focus on Ned Beatty's Oscar nominated speech in the board of directors room. If it were made today the subject would be antisocial media.
Let me suggest David Webber's The Rise of the Working-Class Shareholder, Labor's Last Best Weapon, (Harvard University Press, 2018). We have the power if we use it but you can't use power you don't know you have.
There is a new book The Big Myth, by the authors of Merchants of Doubt. I haven't. read it, but it looks like a worthwhile investment. If you don't know Merchants of Doubt see the video.
Sigh ... it always comes back to the corporate capitalism focusing on maximizing their profits in the short term. As long as they can buy politicians, it'll never change. And how can laws come about when they should be crafted and passed by those same politicians.
We get what is - we understand what you're talking about. But what you suggest as possible remedies/actions are leaves in the wind, whereas corporate powers are solid walls. If past disasters, bubbles and collapses haven't changed anything, a mere supporting of putting money into politics most certainly won't put holes in those walls.
Things are most likely to see dramatic change when something dramatic happens. In one of Kim Stanley Robinson's cli-fi novels, "New York 2140" - that shift away from greed eventually comes, but only after several climate tipping points change our world ... Unfortunately, as a species, as a whole, we are a gigantic dumb mass of inertia. Still, one seismic change, such as a global disaster or another world war, will put that mass into action and that mass absolutely does have the power to topple corporate walls ... but at what cost, at what cost.
The only way to have a successful revolution is to know before you start what you want to do after, otherwise you will just re-start what you had before. When there is a power vacuum, power-mad people jump into it, which you do not want. The reason the American revolution worked is that all the colonies had their own governments and courts that could go on working under American rule, without much interruption.
The most socially responsible action pension plans and corporations can take to allay environmental and social problems is to refrain from putting money into politics, and to support campaign finance reform" Does anybody in their right mind think that corporations and pension plans will ever stop putting money into politics or support campaign finance reform? Even if we can get laws passed providing stiff penalties against corporations putting money into politics, which is possible WHEN THERE ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS OWNING BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, big money will find its way into politics. The same is true about campaign finance reform. I've been hearing about stopping those evils for decades, and what has happened? Nothing. It's time to fight the fight on another level. That doesn't mean we give up on them, but we must fight fire with fire. I'd love nothing better than to never have to see another email or ad begging me for money that I don't have, most of us don't have. The only ones who benefit from this system are media companies, and many other business that generate funds through political ads. Limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend to get elected can be capped. That's a fight worth fighting.
As for ESG, it shouldn't be fought through corporations. I don't even want them involved in this area. These should be fought for through legislation and from public pressure. Corporation have to be mandated by law to stop poisoning the environment. We've seen that they will never self correct. They have to be forced to treat their workers right, pay them fairly, and not overcharge their customers. What is becoming clearer to me is that we must work toward a managed form of capitalism. I'm talking about a severely managed form. Managed by all the stakeholders, workers, customers, the general public and stock holders. Nothing short of this will be satisfactory. Time has proven this to be true. Put on your seat belts, people; we are in for a ride, and a war like this country hasn't seen in a long time.....
Here's a quote for you: “Capitalism is like fire — it can produce great good or great harm, but to be good it must be carefully, scrupulously, and completely controlled.”
It always seems to boil down to "Citizens United," does it not?
Takes a majority on the Supreme Court to undo it..
Once upon a time, the state of Montana had a Corrupt Practices Act, prohibiting corporations from spending money to influence elections. Even after Citizens United, the Montana Supreme Court held that Montana’s political environment made it “especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government. Clearly Montana has unique and compelling interests to protect through preservation of this statute [prohibiting corporate expenditures in Montana state elections].”
SCOTUS reversed the Montana decision as inconsistent with the holding in Citizens United that “political speech does not lose First Amendment protection simply because its source is a corporation.” The Court affirmed that its holding in Citizens United applies to the Montana statute, writing, “There can be no serious doubt that it does [apply to the Montana statute]…Montana’s arguments in support of the judgment [in this case] were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tradition_Partnership,_Inc._v._Bullock
As I probably said earlier, the entire notion that speech equals money is based on a miscarriage of justice via a headnote, that corporations are considered persons under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.. https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad_Company#:~:text=Southern%20Pacific%20Railroad%20Company%20was,14th%20Amendment's%20Equal%20Protection%20Clause.
Democrats control the Senate and have the capacity to hold a hearing on the error.
Thank you Daniel for this enlightening explanation of the effect of Citizens United. The Robert's Supreme Court will go down in history (if we still have a history) as the most Unconstitutional court ever.
Fay, I hope we have a history, but we need to get the word out now about what kind of Court Roberts is running and how it is piece by piece undermining our democracy in ways it is hard to protest. It is happening now more quickly so the protests will be more and more ineffectual. It seems to me Congress should be voting to impeach Roberts and his crew. Every one of the Republican/conservative/ult right justices are complicit. We have means in our Constitution to do that, but since the corporations protected by Baby Johnny and crew have bought a bunch of members of Congress, I guess that won't happen. Heck, they couldn't even convict Trump whose crimes were so obvious. Keeping any witnesses from showing up at the trial, McConnell, hypocrite in chief made sure he wouldn't allow enough of his servants to see they should vote to convict. I am trying to be hopeful, but it is harder every time the SC says something ridiculous (nearly every day) that undercuts our democracy.
I agree with your summation Ruth, Maybe all of us who have Democratic Representatives in the House, need to email them insisting on impeachment of Supreme Court Justices who definitively defy the Constitution. I will Email my Congressman today.
I like that you call it unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly assigns legislative authority to Congress and the President, not to unelected judges. I think judges and justices are way out of their lane, violating so-called Separation of Powers doctrine, by effectively repealing Acts of Congress by declaring them unconstitutional. The judges and justices are not acting as a check and balance, but rather as dictatorial oligarchs.
IMO, the president should enforce all laws passed by Congress and signed by the president (or enacted by a two-thirds majority over a presidential veto), including campaign finance regulations and the Voting Rights Act, unless and until they are repealed by Congress.
Of course this is a real case of both-sidism. Remember the Warren court wreaking havoc on all those carefully constructed Jim Crow laws in the South?
And I do disagree with your idea that the President should enforce ALL laws passed by Congress etc. While Marbury v. Madison established the SC as the final arbiter of laws passed by the legislature, the Executive branch was created as an equal, not subordinate to both of the other branches. With that goes a certain amount of discretion on the part of the President. Congress can sue him if they want and it will go back to the SC. But there is prerogative residing with the Executive branch that doesn't lie with either of the others.
So it will be interesting to see what happens if Biden ignores the Debt Limit and keeps on paying the bills. Congress of course can sue him but then it goes back to the SC where IF 5 or more of the 9 should declare on the part of Congress, they will push the world into a financial cataclysm.
Marbury v. Madison was a judicial power grab, effectively amending the Constitution to confer on itself the power of legislation. There is a defined process for amending the Constitution, set forth in Article V, and judicial opinion is not it.
If Congress disagrees with an Executive Branch rule, the remedy is the Congressional Review Act, not a lawsuit.
Yes, the Supreme Court may have struck down some bad laws, but I maintain my position. It is up to the voters to elect members of Congress and presidents who will not enact bad laws. And those deleterious laws already on the books must constitutionally be repealed by Congress, not judges.
If congress has to go that route it seems to put the executive in a stronger position, right?
Once again, Daniel Solomon has identified the issue that escapes the dim wits in Congress.
MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL VOTES. Corporate contributions must be limited to balance the scales of justice. Citizen's United is an abomination. It is beyond time to recognize the harm being done to voters in a democracy when money contributions are favored over votes. In a small business The Articles of Incorporation protects the business owner from liability because the corporation is NOT A PERSON. It is simple corruption that the language of the law has been changed and used to give advantage to a corporate entity including the same rights as a voting person. I fear nothing will change until/unless enough like minded people in Congress act to challenge the Supreme Court to change Citizen's United. Daniel Solomon stated the case well and I agree.
The problem is that, whatever the origin of corporate personhood, in the Citziens United vs. FEC case the Supreme Court affirmed 1st amendment protection for corporations. That's not something Congress can repeal.
The remedy is a constitutional amendment, and there is a robust effort being made in that regard. Representative Pramila Jayapal is the lead sponsor of the We The People Amendment. To sign the petition (and become actively involved in the movement if you want to do more), visit the MoveToAmend.org website: https://www.movetoamend.org/
Here's what Justice Stevens said in dissent:
". . . corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
Again, the MoveToAmend.org website is: https://www.movetoamend.org/
.
Jerry Weiss .... Great comment and clarification of the legislative problem. I support the WE the People Amendment and will give more attention to Pramila Jayapal. I will go to MoveToAmend.org. Also , great comment by Justice Stevens to frame the preposterous nature of such a ruling. Thank you for your comment
Thank you, Robert. And if you'd like to help unseat Kevin McCarthy from the Speakership, check out "Feathers of Hope": jerryweiss.substack.com
.
It is something that SCOTUS can reverse.
IMHO is it possible to allege mistake of fact and law. The underlying assumption that corporations are people under the 14th amendment is a mistake.
Really good point about the Articles of Incorporation, Robert.
Daniel Solomon : I bet the Democrats are not interested in holding such hearing because they are beholden to their corporate 'persons' beneficence!
It's not Democrats or Republicans, it's any and every elected official.
I've advocated for the principle of separation of corporation & state like separation of church & state. However, that seems futile in our corporatocracy, especially as our principle of separation of church & state also falls by the wayside.
Jaime Ramirez ; The Republican party is trashing our country and violating every rule of law it seems.
If conservatives want something that a particular State doesn’t want, then they argue federal/constitutional law as determined by the US Supreme Court controls (Citizens United). If conservatives want something they believe the States are more likely to uphold, they argue States rights and the US Supreme Court follows suit. (Abortion). Conservatives are for States rights and small government, except when it suits their needs. Does anybody see any hypocrisy in this?
Hypocrisy is part of who Republicans are these days.
It always has been. On the right, hypocrisy is a core value. I learned that from a forensic psychologist who saw people very clearly.
They feel it's very important that you mouth the conservative values, but they don't expect anyone to really live up to them, ya know, that's too hard, and people are basically sinful. So that leaves them mouthing values they have no intention of living up to -- that is, hypocrites. On the other hand, they know that we expect people to live up to their values, so they delight in pointing it out when we don't -- not because they care, but because they know we do -- it's a reliable "gotcha" for them to use on us, but they are arguing in bad faith, and that's what we should point out to them when they do it.
I think that is an apt & accurate analysis of Republican hypocrisy.
YES
that's why i favor letting the red states go. they take in far more of our tax dollars than they contribute, so let them do it on their own. sometimes ya gotta hit bottom....
They think we will pay alimony and child support after the divorce.
I don't think separating is very practical, but, right now, I'm ready to kick out Florida and take away the citizenship of anyone who stays there. :-)
As much as I dislike the Republican, conservative agenda, there are good liberal positive democratic people in those red states and even some reasonable Republicans. We just have to educate them and be more persuasive than the right wing of the Republican Party. You would think with people like Marjorie Taylor,Green, Matt, Gaetz and Jim Jordan and a host of other Republicans trying to destroy democracy who appear to be more Interested in self service than public service, they would not have the support of their own party, much less the voters. We are the United States, and just like the Civil War there is hope to bring our country together.
Robin O ; Yes. They want to 'win' and have legions of unethical lawyers to help them get what they want. Along with the stacked illegitimate 'Supreme' court.
AGREED>. Unfortunately errors uncorrected become facts.
Unfortunately.
However, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/after-discovered_evidence
On the other hand, if money is speech, and we are all supposed to have equal free speech, couldn't we use that to make the government seize all the money and distribute it evenly, as "free speech"? :-)
Love the concept Kim! LOL, but would the government also have to pay for loud mouthed, blabberers like trump, jordan and greene?
Kim Cooper : Nice work if we could get it ; but imagine MAGA rants from MTG and readings of'Green eggs and ham' from people like Ted Cruz...or worse. And how do we "make the government seize all the money and distribute it evenly" as "Free speech" ?! Scary thought these days!
Great job judge! Having lived in Montana this information surprises me a bit. Montana had very strong union sections and very strong right wing representation like many Rocky Mountain regions have. Montana has a lot of nut job factions. When I was a member of AFLCIO Aerospace workers and Machinist union, our leadership was based in Montana. Good for Montana! I’m sure the unions had something with this legislation. John Tester is a strong voice that could propose national legislation.
democrats don't hold the senate, calling themselves democrats don't make it so, corporations control the senate
I think that is really the point. We have become the United States of Corporate America and the people have been evicted!
Tanya, Then we will have to be squatters and reclaim it, and do it right this time around.
But they won't as they actually support the free flow of corporate money just as the GOP!
Always interesting Daniel. Thank you.
Citizens united, the Supreme Court , the Republican Party the mob. In that order
we need no vote no money
I've said this before and stand by it. As the human race, we simply don't have the political will to save our environment and thus ourselves. Likely Americans are the worst but certainly we're not alone. I really don't have hope that our corporations, politicians and 1% will have their 'come-to-jesus' moment just in time. Regardless of the color of their hats, they are not the good guys and not the cavalry coming to our planet's rescue.
Terry, do your really believe that? Are you sure there is only destruction in our future and a lot of death? When we speak so negatively all the time, a whole lot of people who look for hope become discouraged too. Maybe it would take just one or two corporations to stand up to the negativity and ignore what corporations always do, and go in a different direction. I don't know which it should or will be, but someone needs to start it. I would like to see parmaceutical corporations to stand up to the courts and keep selling and distributing abortion pills since we all know they are safe and effective, despite what a bunch of whate males want. Those men are ignorant misogynists as well as pseudo-Christians who want to control everyone's lives, beginning with women and people of color. They will come for white men who don't think like them soon if we don't stand up. They are fascists and we know it. Now it's time we the people demand our government work actively to stop it. The Department of Justice and other departments and agencies could perhaps offer incentives to corporations who actually do work to save our environment and want and value diversity in their corporate leadership and in our society. They need a group within our government who can identify those corporations and note the advances they have actually made in those areas, not just what they have said and written in their reports which usually are full of lies and unmet intentions.
Sadly I agree with Terry. Scientists have been warning us about climate change and the environmental consequences of business as usual for 70 years. And no one listened. Republicans seem to believe that the very same science they attack for alerting us to the coming doom will save us, or they just don’t care. Democrats simply don’t know how to fight against the right wing machine that runs this country. Now that the effects of unbridled capitalism are upon us--mega storms, blizzards, hurricanes, heat waves, droughts etc.--they refuse to do anything. Republicans have so weakened our government that it no longer works. And for what’s coming, we need a strong, functioning government. I feel sorry for children today because they are going to have to live in a world we all helped to destroy.
Miz ; I agree with Terry too. Anyone who cares about the climate, including the majority of voters, are not 'other' unless you want them to be, and then it will be your sad belief that they are 'other'. It would be great if we could all see each other as agreeing ; at least those of us who do not vote for those who promulgate climate denial , and care about ending climate disaster. We need to see, and respect each other. Then we can unite and work together. We could be an indomitable force! Against climate destruction!
You're arguments are always about "them". As Greta points out, "them" is "us". I will gain hope when I see the majority of people standing up for the planet and the future. I haven't seen that so far. Enough people aren't outraged enough yet to truly make a difference. One sign would be every politician against ...or just not-for the planet... being voted out of office. This would tell me that we the people have had enough and want to save the planet.
Terry Franzman ; The last two elections went to the party that cares about the planet the most. Your model is oversimplified because we don't get to vote just on climate mitigation..
Yes it is simplified. But we're faced with an either/or choice. And the sad fact is that human culture cannot keep up with human technological "advancement" Simply too many of us....probably a vast majority....that just want things to stop....or worse.....'go back' to yesterday. Meantime mother nature moves unrelentingly forward in vicious obedience to time.
There are those of us who are shouting about "we have to stop killing the planet" -- but there are also still a lot of people who still deny there is any climate change -- and some who will deny it to the end (Like that woman we all heard about who kept denying she had Covid -or that there was any such thing -- until she died of it.)
The corporations will never support the needs of the people, especially the pharmaceutical ones. They are the most evil causing major health injury and death and barely ever held accountable and never are with vaccine drugs given Bush's giving them Held Harmless status.
What will work is the people waking up and pushing back in an organized way. When Bush & Rumsfeld tried to mandate the super dangerous smallpox vaccine drug after 911, 30% of medical personnel refused and that put the cabbosh to that dangerous fiasco. When milk prices soared suddenly back in the '60's women refused to buy milk and prices dropped immediately. Unions work on this principle of collective organizing to force bargaining with company owners. And not to forget the Socialist and Communist movements in this country after the 1929 crash got us Social Security, Labor laws and banking laws. People need to learn from history and find the backbone to do what is needed. Whining will never make it.
Tanya Marquette ; Beware of blocking change by using words like 'never' .You used it quite a few times here, and I think this viewpoint could severely limit possibilities and perceptions in a way that can give an extremely bleak outlook. Yes; We all face an extreme challenge when people who are wrecking our government and busting civility illegitimately hold power. There are more of US than there are them. We will win. Look at the last two elections. I think the right actions (not the right wing) , will prevail.
Ruth, let's do the thought experiment in which all the negative projections are accurate. What then are the realistic bases for hope for the planet?
I have done this. What we must really consider is whether human culture and technology (including the arts and expressions) can (or should) be saved. We can look at what we know of the past - the earth has already survived almost unimaginable transformations of the atmosphere, land and seas. Life has survived through the less violent transformations of the recent 2 billion years. The projections for the future, prior to the Sun exploding, are that unimaginably violent transformations will take place and some forms of life will survive all that. As an ethical, moral, contemplative species, and worrying that we can't at all be sure there is any other such species any where in the extant universe, mustn't we decide and act on the preservation of intelligence in the universe? Can't we hope that some future generation will learn to preserve the material world sufficiently that a high form of intelligence can continue to create art, technology, beauty and life?
A realistic scenario? Well, that it will continue to get hotter and dry places will get drier and wet places will get wetter and storms will get stronger and more and more pandemics will happen, until there are only a few thousand humans left, living in a primitive state because there aren't enough alive to support technology. We will start over. As the earth slowly cools, civilization may build back up. If we have saved some of the knowledge we had gained, it will help us, but it will not be the same -- we will not be able to go through the ages of coal and oil because there won't be enough left that is easily accessible, so some form of renewables that doesn't take too much sophisticated manufacturing will be required. If we carefully save the knowledge, maybe we will do better next time. Or, we won't make it in time, and the Earth will get completely uninhabitable before we get our act together, and no one but the cockroaches will survive. I see this scenario because I have heard that if we quit putting CO2 into the atmosphere today, 100% quit, the warming would continue for a hundred years because of what's already there, in the oceans and the air.
Yes Ruth; I agree that we need to see each other . It is the only way to have respect for each other and know where each one of us is coming from. Respect must be mutual, and on the level.
.
Over population is the real problem
Well, let's unpack this a little bit. What was the human population of the planet when the Egyptian dynasties were building pyramids with slave labor, when the Aztecs ran their economy and empire on slavery and war, etc.? Human population should be 2 billion, yes, per the carrying capacity theory, but population will not eliminate voracity, cruelty, marketocracy, tyranny, and self-interest above the planet. So what else do we have? Personally, I hope that young voters of color around the earth who have no stake in corporations yet will do some good.
Martha Ture ; yes : there is value in living culture that has not been compartmentalized, and is human sized. For example, food production is done locally, and is less processed. Life is lived at a pace that is not impersonal and even frantic. Communities are closer. It is not always idyllic, but life on a human scale does have something to say for it. Has value.
Part of the problem, but human behavior is key, especially by the corporate & political powers that be, which have failed us.
Its certainly A problem but can't blame it for everything. Even with less people, say 1/2, with the current mindset of the world's population and its growing and sophisticated technological ability to degrade our environment, it would just take longer but eventually we'd get there just the same.
Tom tonelli; Yes, it is , also over 'incorporation'. It keeps people 'compartmentalized', and blind to each other. The value is in the money and nothing else matters; especially pesky environmental concerns. The gold makes the rules, and this bottom line is everythng.
The solution to that is Worker-owned workplaces (WOW). they are businesses that are democratically run, owned by the workers, which means at the end of the year when they compute the profits, you get your share of them. No highly paid CEOs stealing the money, no outside stockholders who don't care about the company or the community, just community members with a stake in the success of the business, while still being good local citizens. It's still "Capitalism" in the sense that the company still competes in the marketplace, but the workers don't compete, they cooperate.
Baloney
Astute.
Right-o. Next: where you going to run to when the world's on fire? To quote the old gospel song.
Funny how the bible keeps getting it right and the right are the bible people and they get it wrong.
Tom tonelli ; Funny and sad; even frustrating. That they would use that knowledge/belief as a cudgel with which they can attack anyone with whom they disagree.
Planet B is all booked up.....
Then I guess we're going to have some miserable years leading up to miserable deaths and there won't be anyone to read our minority reports.
Amen, Terry.
This vicious cycle of American entropy exists because Republicans are not conservative, they are #CORPservative - in servitude to their corporate and billionaire donors.
That dark money relationship always insures that regulation dwindles to nothing, hidden tax breaks will always be available, and the dependency of media on boosting the right wing agenda will never waver.
This isn't about Republicans or Democrats - it's all politicians. No point it blaming it on either side, they're all taking the money as the system currently makes it incredible hard for them to compete if they don't. One way to attack this broken system might be by clamping down on TIME and AIR TIME. Let's say a new rule that says that an election cycle shall be no more than six weeks - before then, no campaigns, no rallies, no ads ... I think that in itself would bring a bit of sanity back into the system.
Both siding isn't doing any good. There are many democrats trying to do the right thing but no republicans. To equate them is a favor to the republican party.
You're right that it's not about Republicans or Democrats or any Organization really. It's about all of us and us not demanding corrective action.... and us not taking corrective action in our lives. To solve this problem we have to lead. If we were all Gretas this shit wouldn't be happening.
Her new book tells the story in unflinching detail. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/greta-thunberg-book-climate-action
I have an old Toles cartoon on my refrigerator that has gone yellow, but stays there because it sums things up- an old Uncle Sam is sitting on a stool in the middle of a completely denuded wasteland at a spinning wheel- the caption is "I've spun the world into money, now what?"
Daniel M. I like your idea of shortening elections. I am already bombarded with beg emails for the 2024 election. That is insane! I would love to see a shorter election season, perhaps 2 months for the primaries which would all be the same day for federal elections and another 2 months for the general election and 3 weeks for any run-offs. With all primaries the same day, there isn't a chance for one state's victory or defeat of candidates to impact that of other states. That would cut down on the money required for elections significantly. There should be major fines for anyone with ads either supporting a candidate or covertly supporting a candidate, showing him/her while discussing an issue. It's cute but a cheat. In fact, issue ads for candidate positions should be included in the campaign time limits. Big fines should be charged for anyone or group or corporation that violates on air or social media or in print. I am sure the details could be worked out and should be. I really like this idea.
One big problem. The Media et al will absolutely throw a fit. The tons of $$ you're talking about saving all go to their bottom line. Not that I disagree... I wish you well.... I just don't think cutting back on speech is going to sell.
My favorite is full and complete disclosure ....across the board. That and getting rid of the silly notion that corporations are people. I say if you can't detain them or incarcerate them they aren't people and don't have "people" rights. After all, corporations are theoretically immortal.
Two solutions to the problems you posed: Make the media give free air time to all candidates equally (that will make the media beg for shorter elections!), and Make corporations mortal: When they reach 60 (or some number: it was originally 23) years old they cease to exist. Yes, at the beginning of our country all corporations had to have a single purpose, it had to be for the common good, and they could not exist longer than 23 years -- if those guys who claim to be originalists really were, we would go back to that.
Love the idea of free air time and yes, media corporations would then be the first to lobby for very short elections. Good one! Now we just have to get legislators to pass such a law ... sigh.
I didn't know about the 23 years - would love to know more, can you direct me to a link where I can read up on this? As for mortal, I don't know, if the the HPs of the world who practice something like The HP Way, why sunset them? I'd opt for size (anything goes beyond a certain size, it must be split) and regulation (which, at this point, seems near impossible).
After Independence, American corporations, like the British companies before them, were chartered to perform specific public functions - digging canals, building bridges. Their charters lasted between 10 and 40 years, often requiring the termination of the corporation on completion of a specific task, setting limits on commercial interests and prohibiting any corporate participation in the political process.
Corporations as we know them came to being in Britain with an 1844 Act allowing them to define their own purpose. The power to control them thus passed from the government to the courts. In 1855, shareholders were awarded limited liability: their personal assets were protected from the consequences of their corporate behaviour.
In 1886 a landmark decision by a US court recognized the corporation as a 'natural person' under law. The 14th amendment to the Constitution: 'no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property' - adopted to protect emancipated slaves in the hostile South - was used to defend corporations and strike down regulations.
Unfortunately, I do not have a reference for that. I have heard it from more than one source, but I don't know where. Maybe ask Heather Cox Richardson next time she has a question session. Now you have me wondering about it, but I am really bad at googling.
Love your solutions. But I fear corporations, like our politicians and their parties are too entrenched.
As I said at the beginning, there is no political will on the part of the people (the electorate) to change.
I think the electorate are disgusted with the corruption in our government and our businesses. If someone were to lead a big anti-corruption campaign, and could keep it from devolving into partisanship, it might be successful. Someone with a big platform or standing or fame. This is one of my favorite quotes: "...neither libertarianism nor socialism make places good places. What makes them good places or bad places is whether or not they have honest journalists, honest judges, and honest accountants." Brad Hicks paraphrasing P.J. O’Rourke
I like the idea of public financing but I know the politicians, corporations and the media would oppose it.
As was mentioned, sensible solutions like brief election cycles and campaign financing reform are distant hopes, but total transparency of campaign contributions may be possible. Alas, even that would be a step, it irks me to no end that even low-hanging fruit seem impossible to grab. Makes you think - just how low must we be if we can't grab hold of low-hanging fruit?
Yes, I like it as well. But it's too egalitarian for our politicians. Levels too much. Everyone is looking for an edge. And it would likely raise taxes.
It might raise taxes but, in the long run, I think it'd save us a lot of money.
Entirely with you. Short campaigns are an ideal for the US and ideals hardly ever come about. Still, other countries do offer good examples that come with all the required brevity and sanity. The main obstacle, of course, is once again money. Yes, networks are corporate powerhouses and they most certainly would do everything in their lobbying power to stop their precious advertising revenue from disappearing.
Agreed. I'll buy into the idea of corporations as people when we see major religions trying to convert them, baptizing them, and explaining their "plan of salvation" for corporations. At the same time, would anyone want to spend eternity with BP, Exxon, General Motors or Eli Lilly as neighbors?
I like the religious angle. Probably more room to grow that one.
As to your last question about spending eternity..... I believe some of the major stockholders are planning on it.....moving to Planet Z
It works in other countries. When campaigning is limited to a couple months prior to the election, pouring billions of dollars into campaign coffers is futile. It also means that legislatures can stay focused on doing their jobs. Instead, we're now in perpetual campaign mode, where politicians begin their next campaign and fund raising before they've even taken the oath of office for the current term.
Gross exaggeration.
Todd Telford : The Obscenely wealthy are robbing US blind and wrecking our government. Congress is full of thieves.
Todd Telford; yes, the media wants to keep us distracted. The focus on the confusion and mess in our government, and keep the serious questions unasked. Billionaires are installing Congresspeople who are illegitimate. And working for the oligarchs.
Yes Todd Telford ; I was watching some recorded shows on MSNBC, and could not believe the faster than ever barrage of negative 'news' (much of it as old as any soap opera) , and could not help but think what you just posted. They want us absolutely sick with anger about abortion, and George Santos (and 3 other Congress people who took money from him and also have questionable 'resumes').and on and on about DeSatan and the whole s#it $#ow that is our government and the 4th estate's coverage of same.
If only we could get over the notion of shareholders being the beneficiaries of corporate capitalism, we could see the real problem more clearly. Managerial capitalism. Share buybacks and contortions to make quarterly Street expectations cannot be separated from non-cash compensation in the form of options. These devices are justified on the basis that a firm must be "competitive to attract top talent." The talent consists too often not in innovations in the conduct of the business, but in acting as influencers of Street opinion. Share price is, after all, only the collective opinion of everyone else's opinion of what a stock is worth as an asset. The better the C-Suite is at encouraging a favorable opinion by force of personality and pulling the numberless levers of permissible accounting and tax judgments that affect timing of recognition of income and losses.
The C-suiter and the Street, along with hot-money customers, are those who bid up valuation independent of actual business operations. This is a trader mentality, not an investor mentality. Traders look for angles, technicalities, and, ultimately. the greater fool.
I was something of a Wall Street lawyer in the mortgage backed securities way, and my opinion here is among the gentlest I hold.
Listening to Professor Reich's podcast and reading your response, I was reminded of this teaching from my youth "What does the Bible say about building a house on sand? In Matthew 7, Jesus said everyone who hears his words and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. Then he went on to say everyone who hears his words and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand (Matthew 7:24-26).4 July 2020."
Wall Street and its affiliated inhabitants have demonstrated time and again that they are nothing more than a giant ponzi scheme, using assumption, hubris, collusion, and other questionable management practices under the guise of a Professionally managed business when it’s more akin to a regulated licensed casino.
Heather Macauley ; To their (and everyone else's) detriment.
Heather, I like the building on sand analogy for Wall Street and business these days. How can we the People make it better, less of a casino? I do not know enough of how this racket works to even begin to know how it could be fixed. I know a lot of rich older white men are involved and want to keep themselves in charge of this scheme, so it will be hard to change. Where could we possibly start?
Yes Ruth, there are no easy fixes no matter what dilemma we all face, and it won't be easy or comfortable along the way, so we start the same way as any 'wall or process' is built, bit by bit!
I wrote this article in 2016 and it still has resonance today........How to Demolish a Wall https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-demolish-wall-heather-macauley/
Mr. Careaga, shareholders' rights should be preeminent but instant gratification should not be permitted to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Research and reinvestment were supposed to be hallmarks of good corporate governance.
What happened was the corporations got in there and rewrote the laws. the reason there was so much research and re-investment in the 50s and sixties is that the tax structure was set up to make it cheaper to do research and reinvestment than not. If they didn't do the R&D, they got to pay that money in taxes. the top tax rate was 91%, and R&D was exempt.
Alas....
Daniel, I just had to laugh at the idea of corporate reinvestment these days. These guys would rather do stock buybacks instead. I don't understand that because it is really stupid.
Yep, just look at the SWA meltdown over Christmas’22. Squeezing blood out of a turnip since 1971 and not investing in its own infrastructure brought us that mess. Thank God I’m on the downside of my career there. I’ll hit 30 years in June. And just to be clear I’m not disparaging my company because I could be fired for that by posting anything negative on social media. I’m just stating facts.
We prided ourselves on doing things on the cheap to keep fares low for many years, but we’re not the maverick start up company anymore! As a major airline it needs to reinvest in its own infrastructure.
So nostalgic.....
What we need to do is just disband the stock market altogether.
I think Professor Reich is partially correct, but I don't accept his absolutist rhetoric, painting every company as evil just as much as I reject this Republican Anti-Wokism. Of course, the Republican movement is highly influenced by the evil geniuses of The Heritage Foundation and others. In fact what we are hearing is those 1 percenters, who are aligned with Friedman, running scared because it is starting to work. The EU Security Regulators, recently approved legislation requiring the standardized and independently audited ESG reporting, linked to a companies financial returns and subject to the same regulatory penalties as financial reporting fraud (12,000 companies are affected.) The US SEC has completed its public review of similar regulations and is poised to publish something in the next months... to be implemented next year (if now not blocked politically.) It is also true that approximately $35 Trillion dollars of invested Assets Under Management are directed to financial instruments guided by a focus on ESG/Impact investing (this is about a third of the assets under management in the world.) 400 companies with over 9m employees have taken the climate pledge. These are signals are starting to cause concern, perhaps fear with the Anti-Woke, xenophobic racists who would destroy our planet to protect their vested interests.
I am not speaking from the sidelines, I am a senior business executive who has run large companies and serves on corporate boards and I am 'Woke' and at 65 currently enrolled in masters program in Sustainability Science at Harvard. I personally don't think we will solve the Environmental, or many of the Social problems of the world without corporations contributing and in fact in many areas there are significant profits to be made in doing so. If you step back and look at it, corporations can organize and scale solutions that can have a positive outcome. For example, the pending energy transition from fossil fuels is the largest business opportunity in the next 100 years, but perhaps not for the Koch Brothers or Heritage Foundation cabal but for other companies and investors who are seeing an gusher of capital at very high valuations. But there are very few 'WIN / WIN' choices and outcomes, so there is always some bad mixed with some good, even when we try hard so you have to look through the noise to demystify trends.
Although I may sound Pollyanna, I too am cynical. Of course there will be failures, setbacks and very bad examples of corporations acting horribly. But I'd like to invest my energy from a perspective of positive change not more polarizing rhetoric, which wastes energy and time that we do not have.
And there are positive proof points that abound, supported by rationale government regulation that enables stakeholders to have a seat at the table and places the economic costs on the externalities. I would suggest reviewing the long term performance of Denmark, Norway, Germany, Singapore, Costa Rica, Switzerland, even France would provide better (and profitable) models. Investing in social goods, such as universal healthcare, education, recognizing environmental costs and the costs of social injustice combined with smarter collaborative business policies/regulation (and yes laws) do lead to much better outcomes than the US has experienced. Here I agree with Reich, we need stronger laws, and regulations, but that are enabling successful outcomes for all stakeholders.
Following the false gospel of Milton Friedman and sellout to the evil geniuses behind the Heritage Foundation and examples like Citizens United have caused significant harm to our society (and the world); I think we should put our shoulder behind positive change to reverse that and avoid painting every company and business person with the same brush. It is not perfect, but it can improve.
I am worried and rail against this politization of ESG, I think they evil geniuses are running scared. At the same time, I think we are running out of time to avoid the worst effects of our climate problems and falling into a culture war on this is extremely poor timing. I wish I knew how to resolve this polarizing dissent, most people (and most corporations) want a better, inclusive outcome and we are being prevented from discussing and progressing it rationally by the deepening absolutist divisive rhetoric from both sides.
SJK. Thanks.
I reiterate that many of these companies are not really "American" and therefore can't be expected to consider our national interests -- like national security.
Domestic corporations exist because they have charters from state governments. IMHO the rule of law has to be expanded to require them to act "human." I haven't looked at the proposed SEC regs. but I'm still hoping for a rule to disclose all political contributions as a start.
Daniel Solomon, Here are some references for you to look into if you would like to. I believe the EU Security Regs, also cover international companies trading and or doing business in the EU (but you can check me on that.) I also believe the Governance Reporting Standards include disclosing political contributions. Where this is often mucked up is if they give through an non-profit or PAC, like the Heritage Foundation or the Petroleum Industry Association.
https://www.esgtoday.com/ifrs-sustainability-and-climate-reporting-standards-to-take-effect-in-2024/Links to an external site.
https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/general-sustainability-related-disclosures/Links to an external site.
https://www.sec.gov/files/33-11042-fact-sheet.pdfLinks to an external site.
https://www.globalreporting.org/how-to-use-the-gri-standards/Links to an external site.
https://www.sasb.org/about/Links to an external site.
https://www.theclimatepledge.com/us/en/Signatories#main-navigationLinks to an external site.
I agree with your comment but I think Professor Reich is wise enough to know there are companies that try to do the right things. Unfortunately, I do believe he is right about the most powerful corporations.
I've sern first hand how this corporate ceo's take profits by judicializing clean energy intent to make the enviroment more sustainable at the sane time indebting cities to invest in this skeemes and make them pay for decades of badly planned enviromenraly not sustainable proyecs it's all buissnesse all for profits that are not traceble to them bit the goverment debt is left there they win winnpeople loose loose .
Jorge Gomez; Yes. They use environmental concerns as a weapon, or a profiteering racket, depending on how much they gain from it.
Yes i saw how 40'000,000 cubic mts where exported from our streams for profits ,or a 4,500'000,000 billions masive transportation proyect badly planned left my state and city indebt suposely to make it more eficient but instead of benefiting 500,000 people only serve ceos profits and 500 people ir's unbelibeable this greed and governors mayors inside their pockets are trusted again and again and people geting tire seek other ootions of goverment worst than the best way to solve this corporate int'l greed.we need to act now today one way is to keep and eye on this racketers with the intent to put them under investigation if needed
Jorge Gomez ; Yes; Real laws with adequate penalties including fines and even jail are needed.
SJK : A true genius is not evil. No matter which "side they are on."
Friedman was no genius. He was pure evil. Ask Argentinians and Chileans for a start.
Robin Cordoza : Yes ; some can be shrewd tacticians, but a Real Genius will see the long game and care about results and future consequences.
U r right, I was borrowing liberally from Kurt Anderson's Book. That is the only positive adjective that he used (perhaps sarcastically) the whole text.
Thanks
Obviously, I agree with you, Robert. The problem is HOW? How do we get a bunch of reprobate politicians, to cut their personal incomes from graft? How do we get these same reprobates to lessen their power? How do we get the general public to see the need for reform? There are so many needs facing us. We Need to have campaign reform, to lessen the amount of time spent campaigning for re-election and power. We need to get corporate money OUT of politics,, We need to get rid of ALL lobbyists. All this, while saving our planet from the pending doom of global warming, a plan for how to support, 10 billion humans at a responsible level and find necessary things to keep them busy in the face of Artificial Intelligence. How to improve the way we educate our children. How top convince these 10 billion future humans that we are all the same animal and that appearance, loves, dislikes, are superficial and we don't all have to look the same, believe the same, love the same. At the same time we have to honor and respect all others who are not criminally insane.
Fay Reid ; When it becomes evident that to prioritize the health of our planet and its inhabitants, there could be necessary changes reflecting the realization that things have to be done right : from intelligent management of resources to education and family planning. There is not enough money to 'solve' the coming disaster of climate destruction. Wealth is a relative thing when seen through this lens. Billions and trillions will be useless. "No place to run and no place to hide."
When I think about things in a global, non-personal sense all I can think of is the mess we humans are making of a world in which our population is far too big & without any religious justifications we are in fact the 'plague on the planet' that is likely to destroy our own home in the end. Way too many of us already. We have prevented out natural culling by managing to stop many diseases that would have kept us under control, but I think in the end the planet & the natural world will win - we cannot survive carrying on the way we are ! If you think of this planet without humans, it is only critters like dogs who would have a hard time initially figuring out how to eat without their 'masters' - all else would quickly adjust ! I think it's high time to admit that the 'space' industry is irrelevant & our focus should be entirely on sorting out our own home !
All of us need to look objectively at how we may knowingly or unknowing contribute to the system and “mindset” of both lack and greed. I’m sure there is an uncomfortable inverse desire in people who may depend upon passive income to support themselves, to examine these tendencies but there it is. Investing with our eyes open is absolutely necessary for a change in society’s core way of thinking about how we support ourselves, whether it be from direct employment or indirect investment in companies who employ. Without a fundamental change in our basic values as a people, we will continue to en masse stand by and wring our hands in helplessness. Change begins from the ground up.
How do you change the values of an entire culture? If we even just changed the values of the conservative half of the country, we could do something about climate. How do you do that? You can do it, but not quickly. The Republicans started trying to turn America "conservative" in 1964 at a meeting at their convention. They have been working on a whole program since then -- committing time, money, organization, and efforts to it. They started with think tanks to plan what they needed to do. they made a whole plan (it was published publicly -- it's out there. It's called the Lewis Powell memo.) It included taking over large chunks of media to project their message 24/7, endowing conservative chairs at major universities, taking over a major economics school and teaching conservative (and incorrect) economics, Getting conservatives onto local school boards everywhere, Getting conservative candidates into all local offices that they could. Taking over statehouses. And more -- it was a huge plan, and they committed a lot of money to it.
Fay, OMG, that is a huge menu of things we need to do. I am on board with all of it, now, who can we get to write it into a plan, who do we get to get the information out to the public, who do we get to bring it up in Congress and state legislatures, even in the blue states, who will educate the children and young people about the plan and get them on board, who will lead the rallies in support of such a plan? I would love to help, but I am not an organizer. It would be so exciting and I think we could get a lot of people to support it because it could give them something to do that would matter. People want to matter and to know that what they are doing matters.
Maybe start right here? The majority of this community has what it takes to do that and get it up and running. This is the clean ‘slate’ that is needed, not rebuilding on the bones of the past.
Someone who has big picture, mind maps come to mind, fill in the gaps then get the environmental heavy weights and visionaries to come on board i.e. Greta Thunberg, David Suzuki, Richard Attenborough, what's Al Gore doing these days? What's Jarrod Diamond doing these days? Diamond is known for drawing from a variety of fields, including anthropology, ecology, geography, and evolutionary biology. He is a professor of geography at UCLA.[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond renewable powerhouses and of course Professor Robert Reich to run the policy and budget to achieve it all in addition to Heather Lofthouse with her media savvy! Sort out the IMF, World Bank, Central Banks and the dark side of Stock Exchanges.
Radical times for call radical solutions and it’s up to us, this is how we claim back our power.
Daniel Solomon to legislate it properly from a National, State and Global level, with colleagues that are of similar thought to support the vast work that this will demand, and also means sorting out the complications that constrict the UN in the Global arena.
Jimmy Carter had the right idea with 'Habitat' for Humanity, https://www.habitat.org/ap it’s now a global organisation in addition to the Amish know how to work collectively, they can build a barn in a day.....the leadership and knowledge is here, harness it for the sake of the Planet, environment, animals and what remains, many hands make light work.
Heather, I want to sign up. I like all the people you suggest and there are so many more if we could just find a way to get them to all work together. I was hoping Biden would be on board too, but he is too worried these days about soothing the Republicans in Congress and everywhere else to really take the big steps needed, like declaring a climate emergency and putting a whole lot less money in the military budget for next year and putting the difference directly into dealing with stopping global warming. I am not sure how to shake any of the world leaders out of their complacency or their greed to take over more land where the people don't want to be taken over, but we need to do that if we would be successful. I want to try, though!
Well, maybe that can be achieved with doing a 'Meet N Greet' via Zoom, most people have that app on their systems since COVID-19 and it would be an administrative thing for Professor Reich to organise as he has the mailing list of subscribers after all, along with Heather Lofthouse.
The mind mapping part will be huge, not just USA........along with all the other intricacies that will need to be included and keeping in mind that many community organisations already exist to do this work which have wider affiliations as well.......'regulations and vested interests' are why we are where we are....
Heather, I like your idea of a Zoom conference for folks on this thread and beyond to consider ways we can do something to wake the people up to what we are really facing on our planet. No one is going to care if a president wants to be Peter the Great or some other such archaic figure if the planet warms beyond what human beings can live with. No one is going to care if someone is more white than someone else when the sea levels rise enough to cover Florida. There must be a way to curb male need to control stuff, even things that are local and give pleasure to folks like Drag and that help people like providing care to trans folks. In short, we the people are letting Republican small-mindedness and Russian/Chinese megalomania to keep the world from pulling together to stop the destruction. That is just plain crazy!
Exactly!
The biggest factor that causes divide and conquer is FOG - Fear. Obligagtion. Guilt. that's what keeps the whole Military/Industrial complex running.
Once again you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Corporations caused the climate crisis and most of our environmental problems. Can they be relied upon to solve these problems without being forced to? No! They should be forced to pay their fair share of taxes. They should be required to pay for the damage they have done (or financed). They’re not going to do anything of their own volition.
They CAN'T do anything of their own volition: if being "green" costs them money, then they can't compete against non-green companies. By making regulations that they all have to abide by, it protects the ones who want to do good from the others out-competing them. This is why cheating hurts everyone. Of course, some companies have found that going green saves them money, but it depends...
ESG has become a hot mess, likely by design.
Such efforts at "self regulation" flop because they are usually platitudes rather than regulation grounded in policy.
None of the "club" proposing ESG actually wants governance to be mandated. Further, the E part of ESG ends up in opposition to the S part over issues of global population.
A conservative neighbor expressed how his peer group would resolve the tension by "doing something" about the issue of too many people on the planet. I can only imagine what a complete telling of this group's ideas would look like.
Dr. Doug Gilbert ; Yikes! Things are bad enough without their 'solutions'.
There is a good solution to the population problem: if we make birth control and abortion available to all women everywhere, they will use it. Women are more interested in quality than quantity in their children: they know when having too many to feed hurts the others.
no corporate money for politics ... sounds good, but how to convince the greedmasters to go along with this?
GrrlScientist ; The hope is that the 'smart money' will comprise a large enough number of the rich, and realize that it is in their best interest to 'husband' the Earth more carefully, and treat workers more fairly. Really and actually doing it and not pretending to. It could become a trend!
What is not stated is that we don't exist in a vacuum and many of "our" corporations are international conglomerates or have foreign ownership or management. I keep repeating that we have national security interests involved and have been played by some of our "allies" like Saudi Arabia since we let the dollar float. 1973.
For example, the Rockefeller family lost the battle over global warming within Exxon long ago. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/27/rockefeller-family-tried-and-failed-exxonmobil-accept-climate-change
IMHO the reason we have had untoward inflation can be directly traced to OPEC, Saudi and Russia.
IMHO when Exxon gives a political donation, it is a proxy for Saudi money. Lock them up!
I think there's an important thread to add to your conversation which would change it. "B" corporations. These are corporations designed to honor the triple bottom line and having to prove it. Shareholders know this when they buy into them.
* This is creating a better contract for corporations.
* This is humans finding a way to channel deeper values into corporations.
Can you see how that would shift what you are saying?
AND Considering this and in general, I don't think it's WRONG to allow "retirement plan managers to include E.S.G. considerations in their investment plans." It isn't always green washing. It can be authentic. It can be a start.
Most importantly, it relieves one of the pressure points that keeps corporations only serving money. To free them up a little from that pressure. To make them a little less vulnerable to punishment if they make this choice.
So yes let's take on the CURRENT corporate model. But also leave room for those experimenting with NEW AND BETTER MODELS.
For more information on B corporations, see https://www.bcorporation.net/en-us.
And note that I know very high integrity people who are using this structure in authentic ways. It allows the benefits of a corporate structure, reinvented to better serve people and planet.
Even better is the Public Benefit Corporation (look up 'Veeva Systems')...
Patricia Dines : Well said! Sustainable models that are new and better sounds so hopeful and problem solving.
My dad always said “there is more devil in man than God”
Thanks for the reminder. :)
Our refusal to dispense with or even temper corporate capitalism has led many to somehow believe that a humanist capitalism model is not possible, nor will it change anything in American society or politics for the better. The river has irrevocably breached the dam, the horses have bolted, whatever metaphor you wish. We have learned one thing with certainty: corporations will not change behaviour or policy until the level of financial punishment for their unlimited pursuit of greed exceeds their ability to achieve exorbitant profit.
Agree 100%. People need to stop being blind consumers.
Robin Cordoza : I agree. If only there could be truthful labels/tags on merchandise telling us how it is produced, like the Fair market things we see in ads. It would be reassuring to know if it's really 'fair trade' with workers paid a living wage and also not harming the environment as well. For instance I have seen articles about 'Wayfair' which is promoted as one of these 'fair trade' businesses, that say it should be 'Way unfair' for the way it does things like underpaying their workers.
Here's the Fair Trade organisations that I am aware of:
https://www.fairtrade.net/about/fairtrade-organizations
Cheers
I suggest we all view the film Network, and focus on Ned Beatty's Oscar nominated speech in the board of directors room. If it were made today the subject would be antisocial media.
Let me suggest David Webber's The Rise of the Working-Class Shareholder, Labor's Last Best Weapon, (Harvard University Press, 2018). We have the power if we use it but you can't use power you don't know you have.
There is a new book The Big Myth, by the authors of Merchants of Doubt. I haven't. read it, but it looks like a worthwhile investment. If you don't know Merchants of Doubt see the video.
Sigh ... it always comes back to the corporate capitalism focusing on maximizing their profits in the short term. As long as they can buy politicians, it'll never change. And how can laws come about when they should be crafted and passed by those same politicians.
We get what is - we understand what you're talking about. But what you suggest as possible remedies/actions are leaves in the wind, whereas corporate powers are solid walls. If past disasters, bubbles and collapses haven't changed anything, a mere supporting of putting money into politics most certainly won't put holes in those walls.
Things are most likely to see dramatic change when something dramatic happens. In one of Kim Stanley Robinson's cli-fi novels, "New York 2140" - that shift away from greed eventually comes, but only after several climate tipping points change our world ... Unfortunately, as a species, as a whole, we are a gigantic dumb mass of inertia. Still, one seismic change, such as a global disaster or another world war, will put that mass into action and that mass absolutely does have the power to topple corporate walls ... but at what cost, at what cost.
The only way to have a successful revolution is to know before you start what you want to do after, otherwise you will just re-start what you had before. When there is a power vacuum, power-mad people jump into it, which you do not want. The reason the American revolution worked is that all the colonies had their own governments and courts that could go on working under American rule, without much interruption.
"
The most socially responsible action pension plans and corporations can take to allay environmental and social problems is to refrain from putting money into politics, and to support campaign finance reform" Does anybody in their right mind think that corporations and pension plans will ever stop putting money into politics or support campaign finance reform? Even if we can get laws passed providing stiff penalties against corporations putting money into politics, which is possible WHEN THERE ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS OWNING BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT IN THE OVAL OFFICE, big money will find its way into politics. The same is true about campaign finance reform. I've been hearing about stopping those evils for decades, and what has happened? Nothing. It's time to fight the fight on another level. That doesn't mean we give up on them, but we must fight fire with fire. I'd love nothing better than to never have to see another email or ad begging me for money that I don't have, most of us don't have. The only ones who benefit from this system are media companies, and many other business that generate funds through political ads. Limiting the amount of money a candidate can spend to get elected can be capped. That's a fight worth fighting.
As for ESG, it shouldn't be fought through corporations. I don't even want them involved in this area. These should be fought for through legislation and from public pressure. Corporation have to be mandated by law to stop poisoning the environment. We've seen that they will never self correct. They have to be forced to treat their workers right, pay them fairly, and not overcharge their customers. What is becoming clearer to me is that we must work toward a managed form of capitalism. I'm talking about a severely managed form. Managed by all the stakeholders, workers, customers, the general public and stock holders. Nothing short of this will be satisfactory. Time has proven this to be true. Put on your seat belts, people; we are in for a ride, and a war like this country hasn't seen in a long time.....
Here's a quote for you: “Capitalism is like fire — it can produce great good or great harm, but to be good it must be carefully, scrupulously, and completely controlled.”
Corporate Social Responsibility has to be one of the best OXYMORONS ever coined to date ...