Sold to the Highest Bidder

As we approach the mid-term elections an unseen force begins to exert undue influence over our political process. This force, money, is not new to the political process nor is it new to undue influence over said process. However, what is now new is that moneyed interests now have a legal right to attempt to buy the outcome. Legal precedent established in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission case now make it lawful for corporations to put as much money as they desire into elections. Unlike individuals, corporations are able to donate as much as they would like and can even directly air advertising.

The Citizen's United ruling hinges on an even greater misrepresentation from the 1886 ruling in Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, in which corporations were granted personhood (see link elsewhere on this page for a review of the court case). As is commonly known, the case did not actually rule on that issue, but rather the clerk scribbled it after the fact on the document.

Of course it defies logic that corporations are people, but what defies logic even more is the ruling in Citizen's United that removes limits on political spending by corporations. Logically it would seem to follow that if limits can be placed on individuals who are actual people, then limits could also be imposed on corporations, which as people are legal fictions.

Beyond this egregious idea that corporations are people with the rights of individuals, is the other idea to emerge from the Citizen's United ruling that these groups can give money without identifying the source.

On Sunday, speaking on Face the Nation, presidential advisor David Axelrod stated that foreign corporations are involved in donating money through Republican groups to influence the election. The Democrats apparently are even rolling out an ad campaign around this idea.

"Foul!" cry the Republicans, "you can't prove it." Well obviously not. It is impossible to prove who anonymous donors are. That is completely the point. As long as donors are able to remain anonymous it will be impossible to know who is trying to buy our democracy. What is really strange is that the holier-than-thou Tea Party seems completely silent about this matter. Could it be that they are using this to their advantage? Witness Art Robinson, global warming denier and Oregon congressional candidate. Mysteriously, ads critical of Robinson's opponent have appeared allegedly without his knowledge as to the source of funding.

Back to the issue of foreign money. To think that corporations are giving money and there is no foreign involvement strains credibility as to how corporations are organized. Corporations, those large enough to give money on the scale that influences elections, are rarely single nation entities. Transnational corporations are the norm rather than the exception. Many of these global behemoths have financial resources greater than most nations, yet are treated as if they are individual American citizens. Is there anyone who believes that these entities are above trying to influence an election, or for that matter, all elections?

Without limits on corporate spending and without disclosure laws there is absolutely nothing to prevent foreign entities, corporate or state, from clandestinely providing resources in an attempt to buy a government. Our representatives are already beholden enough to moneyed interests. Without disclosure and limits, the government is up for auction.

Follow the money. Notice who defends this state of affairs that would allow for the unlimited flow of dollars from foreign companies, governments and individuals to influence U.S. elections. Will Exxon, China and Bin Laden decide who we elect next?

Dead in the Water

The Gulf Oil Spill is likely to continue its damage for many years. The amount of oil that has leaked will likely never be accurately known thanks to the actions of BP in obscuring the size of the leak to avoid fines. The number of fish and birds killed will never be fully counted. What is for sure is that oil is death to living things.

The Gulf of Mexico already has a huge dead zone where the Mississippi empties into the ocean. Industrial pollution is largely to blame. The BP spill should be put in perspective. The murder of animals and the destruction of the environment is the consequence of modern industrial society. In a larger sense, the BP spill is not unique. There has been oil seeping into the oceans off the coast of Africa for decades, Saudi Arabia had a massive spill a few years ago and there has even been another major spill in the Gulf of Mexico in the past. Not to mention the Exxon Valdez travesty, leaks in China, Russia, Nigeria, etc. Pipeline leaks throughout Africa, Alaska and apparently even Michigan as was learned yesterday. For details of these disasters, just enter the names above and "oil spill" or "oil leak" into a search engine.

We are killing the oceans. To paraphrase a Cree saying: "Only when the last fish has been killed will you learn that you can't eat money." Cheap oil is not worth the price. Turns out, its not so cheap.

Beyond Propaganda: BP Fails in Attempt to Stop Spill

British Petroleum (BP) failed in its effort to cap the ail spill dumping at least 5000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf of Mexico. The attempt to place what was essentially a concrete and steel box around the spill failed because the water is so cold down at the ocean floor and ice crystals formed on the equipment. BP is reportedly going to try to use a similar approach later today using a smaller container with the idea that it may not freeze because it's smaller. If that doesn't work they are reportedly considering an approach where they attempt to shoot debris into the opening to plug it.

It seems to me that BP has no earthly clue how to stop this spill. The current efforts seem less than haphazard and clearly indicates that the company had no contingency plan in place in the event of an emergency.

As it turns out, we really have no way to measure the scope of this disaster. The 5000 barrels a day figure that is commonly reported is at best a low estimate. The actual amount may be much greater. The spill is likely to surpass the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska as the largest in U.S. history. Eleven people died in the initial explosion and the Gulf fisheries industry is likely to be devastated for a generation. Yet, BP assures us it is doing all it can.

British Petroleum claims that it will pay the full costs of the spill. It remains to be seen at what level they will live up to that claim. In their advertising campaigns, talking a good game is something at which BP seems to excel, living up to it is an altogether different matter. From its poor record in maintaining its pipelines in Nigeria, to the explosion at a refinery in Texas in 2005 to the current disaster, BP has a long history of environmental damage. Mother Jones magazine has twice named BP one of the worst corporations on the planet in terms of its environmental record.

This leak in the Gulf is an accident that didn't need to happen. Proper safety equipment that already exists could have prevented this incident. The equipment was not installed because it was deemed too costly. The oil industry has essentially been allowed to regulate themselves and as a consequence safety concerns have taken a back seat. The costs of ignoring safety and environmental issues are now greater than the costs of addressing these concerns. The response to any suggestion of increased regulation and greater safeguards from BP and the rest of the oil industry is to step up their lobbying efforts.

Safety is about more than an advertising campaign.

British Petroleum: Killing the Planet by Cutting Corners