October 19, 2014
When Phil McLaughlin and Greg Smith held the office of Attorney General for the State of New Hampshire, each of them supported the death penalty. No more.
McLaughlin says it’s not primarily a moral issue for him. He says what changed his mind was the reaction of juries in two cases tried simultaneously in 2008. In one, John Brooks, a white millionaire businessman, was found guilty of capital murder of Jack Reid but spared the death penalty because jurors found in him something redeeming.
Twenty-eight days later another jury “decided to kill the black kid from Dorchester,” Michael Addison, who was found guilty of the murder of Michael Briggs and sentenced to be put to death by the State on behalf of its citizens. “I will not be part of that,” McLaughlin said.
That sounds like a moral argument to me, but I have no need to argue the point.
Greg Smith, who was not able to be present, also sent a statement citing racial bias in the way the death penalty is applied as a reason for his change of heart.
For their role as advocates for death penalty repeal, the two former AGs were honored Friday with the NH Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty’s annual Governor Badger Award, named for an 18th century governor who pushed for an end to capital punishment. The Badger awards, and others given to outstanding volunteers, were presented at the Coalition’s annual dinner in Concord.
Caplan began by describing how the legal process was “subverted” decades ago to bolster the constitutionality of capital punishment through the acceptance of dubious scholarship by the US Supreme Court.
Since then, legal and legislative support for executions has gradually faded. Since 2007 New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, New Mexico, and Illinois have repealed their death penalty statutes. It’s “a striking retreat” from the death penalty, Caplan says, if not an outright moratorium. A federal court ruling earlier this year in California, which declared that state’s death penalty to be unconstitutional, could prove to be another important step toward abolition, he suggested.
“In the end this is a moral issue,” Caplan said. It always has been. What is different now, he said, is “there is so much evidence about what a waste this is.”
New Hampshire’s legislature approved a repeal bill in 2000 only to have it vetoed. This year the NH House approved repeal by a two to one margin, but the measure died in the State Senate, which deadlocked 12 to 12.
Barbara Keshen, the Coalition’s chairperson, said repeal supporters have their attention on the upcoming election, in which all 400 House and 24 Senate seats are up for grabs.
“War is good business for those in the business of war,” write William Hartung and Stephen Miles in a recent Huffington Post article. Noting estimates of $12 million a day in outright waste, fraud, and abuse during the recent (or ongoing?) wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they suggest the new (renewed?) war in Iraq and Syria will be a “prime opportunity for outright corruption and malfeasance.”
What’s more, more war means higher profits for arms manufacturers like Raytheon, which makes “Tomahawk” cruise missiles. “The stock prices of the Pentagon’s top contractors have hit all-time highs since the recent wars in Iraq and Syria started two months ago,” Hartung and Miles report.
This is not some kind of coincidence. It’s Governing Under the Influence. #GUI
Take the example of Stephen Hadley, former National Security Advisor to President George W. Bush. He chairs the board of the US Institute of Peace (this is a true fact!).
Hadley also writes pro-war op-eds for the Washington Post, reports littlesis.org, and has backed Israel’s aggression in Gaza, where Raytheon profits from sales to the Israeli military.
Hadley’s connection to Raytheon is not disclosed in his bio at the Institute of Peace, nor was it revealed in various columns and interviews cited by Littlesis.org.
Littlesis.org calls this a “conflict of interest” for Hadley. It sounds to me that his interest is pretty straightforward.
(Disclosure: the author of this piece is a salaried employee of an anti-war organization.)
But will the debate over the influence of mega-corporations continue to animate political debate?
This article was first published in New Hampshire Business Review.
Passage last month of a bill to keep the federal government running also extended the life of the Export-Import Bank, a controversial federal agency, until June 2015. The measure may also extend the life of an inside-the-GOP debate over “corporate cronyism” and mega-corporations that succeed in business due more to their political connections than their entrepreneurial prowess. Such debate is welcome.
In case you haven’t paid attention to discussions going on among conservative members of Congress and in the conference rooms at conservative think-tanks, right-wingers have taken to denouncing the cozy ties between big government and big business. The Ex-Im Bank, which provides loan guarantees to U.S. corporations peddling their goods and services in other countries, may provide the political context, but the principles reach far into other sectors of the economy and federal policy.
Speaking about the Export Import Bank and the “conservative reform agenda” in April at the Heritage Foundation, Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a possible Republican
Senator Mike Lee at the “Freedom Summit” in Manchester
presidential candidate, denounced “America’s crisis of crony capitalism, corporate welfare and political privilege: In which government twists public policy to unfairly benefit favored special interests at the expense of everyone else.”
This is the stuff of fire-breathing populism, not what we expect to hear at Heritage.
But Senator Lee continued: “The more power government amasses, the more privileges are bestowed on the government’s friends, the more businesses invest in influence instead of innovation, the more advantages accrue to the biggest special interests with the most to spend on politics and the most to lose from fair competition.”
Sen. Marco Rubio, another conservative Republican considering a run for president, has made similar statements. “Big companies may not like big government, but they can afford to deal with it,” he said at a GOP fundraiser in New Hampshire.
The senators remind us of President Eisenhower warning the American people to “guard against the unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-complex.”
Take Boeing, the aerospace company that ranks second among Pentagon contractors and has also attracted the ire of Ex-Im Bank critics.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Boeing’s hangar houses 85 lobbyists. Its annual tab for lobbying runs to about $15 million a year, and more than $9 million already in 2014.
That amount may be understated. Political scientists believe actual lobbying expenses are three times the amount disclosed on official forms
There’s more to cronyism than money spent on lobbyists. There’s the issue of the “revolving door,” people who go from elected office and jobs on Capitol Hill or the Pentagon to more lucrative careers at lobbying firms. Boeing’s lobbyists include four former members of Congress plus a firm founded by former House Speaker Richard Gephardt. In Eisenhower’s terms, Boeing’s influence is definitely “sought.”
Big companies also grease the wheels through campaign contributions, especially to incumbent members of Congress in leadership roles.
CQ Roll Call reported last month that “four of the top five candidates for the chairmanships of the House Armed Services and Intelligence panels have raised considerably more money this election cycle than they did at a similar point in 2012. The same four have also raised much more money from the defense industry than before – in some cases, more than doubling their takes.”
Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, is a contender for the chairmanship of the House Armed Services Committee. According to CQ Roll Call, Thornberry has more than doubled his take from defense firms compared to the previous election cycle. Number five on Thornberry’s campaign committee donor list is Boeing.
The federal government and the Export-Import Bank have avoided shutdown for the time being. But the notion that mega-corporations have too much influence over federal policy has found new champions and should outlast the Ex-Im debate. Perhaps even the Democrats will join in.
Governing Under the Influence, #GUI
Writing in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall assembles an impressive array of facts that illuminate the realities of wealth inequality in America.
Citing Federal Reserve figures, Edsall reports that household net worth, corporate profits, and the value of real estate have been going up at an impressive pace. If you think that sounds like evidence of recovery you’d be mistaken, at least if you equate “recovery” with economic conditions that are improving for most workers.
“The September Federal Reserve Bulletin graphically demonstrates how wealth gains since 1989 have gone to the top 3 percent of the income distribution,” he writes. “The next 7 percent has stayed even, while the bottom 90 percent has experienced a steady decline in its share.”
It’s not just wealthy individuals getting wealthier; it’s also the corporations they own and run. Citing statistics from Goldman Sachs, Edsall says corporate profits rose five times faster than wages last year. And he quotes an article from Business Insider that stated,
“America’s companies and company owners — the small group of Americans who own and control America’s corporations — are hogging a record percentage of the country’s wealth for themselves.”
Edsall asks, “Why don’t we have redistributive mechanisms in place to deploy the trillions of dollars in new wealth our economy has created to shore up the standard of living of low- and moderate-income workers, to restore financial stability to Medicare and Social Security, to improve educational resources and to institute broader and more reliable forms of social insurance?”
It’s the right question.
For answers he turns to a bunch of economists, who provide data about tax rates, labor force participation, the declining growth of well-paying jobs, globalization, and the reduction of labor’s share of profit relative to capital in a time of rising productivity.
My answer is a bit more straightforward: America’s companies and company owners — the small group of Americans who own and control America’s corporations — are hogging the political system. This is nothing new, but in the legal environment created by recent Supreme Court decisions (Citizens United and McCutcheon in particular) it is becoming easier for corporate interests to wage class war and win. Simply put, the people who make the laws and set the policies have their receptors tuned to the frequency where the corporations are broadcasting.
Edsall notes survey data that reveal corporations are not so popular in the USA and other so-called “advanced countries.” He asks if the legitimacy of free market capitalism in America is facing fundamental challenges.
My gut response is to say “I hope so.” But the dynamics described by all those economists are not the workings of “the invisible hand.” The market is operating under a set of rules established by those who already have more than their fair share of power, wealth, and privilege. The legitimacy of our corporate-directed political system must be challenged as well.
My story about yesterday’s march in New York City is here.
REPORT FROM THE PEOPLE’S CLIMATE MARCH
“A healthy movement has lots of creativity,” Judy commented as we walked down New York’s 42nd Street toward the conclusion of the People’s Climate March. By that measure, the movement to reverse climate change is pretty healthy.
Today’s march featured lots of costumes, chants, street theatre, props, dances, puppets, and marching bands as well as slogans galore on banners and signs, many of them hand-made. Many marchers carried signs that read “I’m marching for…” with a blank space each person could fill. Organizations also brought printed placards for their members to carry to spread their own messages.
“To Change Everything We Need Everyone” was an official slogan printed on hand-hed silk-screened banners and large ones carried high above the marchers. Vanessa Simwerayi, for whom this was her first big march, said she was impressed with the big flat screen displays at several intersections showing solidarity marches taking place all across the world. “Climate is something everybody has to face,” said Vanessa’s brother, Addy. Marchers were more diverse in age than race, but it can certainly be said that the climate issue is getting significant attention from an aroused public.
Slogans and chants gave more attention to fracking and tar sands than any other issue, at least in the sections of the march I observed. I was glad to see a couple groups of marchers with banners calling attention to northern New England’s local tar sands threat, the prospect that the Portland-Montreal pipeline could be re-purposed to carry tar sands-derived oil for Montreal to South Portland, Maine.
Addy Simwerayi said he was pleased to see local community groups calling attention to other social justice issues.
Without a rally at the beginning or end of the march, it was impossible to see or feel the size of the crowd. It also meant that the march’s message was delivered through the aggregation of varied messages rather than the words of official spokespeople.
Stretching for blocks along Central Park West, marchers assembled in good spirits waiting for the procession’s late start. Our section of the march didn’t start to move until about 2 pm. Eventually the march started down the avenue and chugged along in high-spirited fits and starts for a couple of hours, down Central Park West, east on 59th Street, South on Sixth Avenue, and west on 42nd Street to its conclusion on 11th Ave. Volunteer ‘peacekeepers” wearing orange t-shirts were dispersed through the crowd to provide information and intervene in the case of unpleasantness. Unless you count a guy with a battery-powered P/A system haranguing marchers that they should be attending to homelessness and the perils of tobacco instead of the climate, I didn’t see any unpleasantness.
For most of the route marchers occupied the width of the major streets and avenues, with metal barricades separating marchers from pedestrians and onlookers. New York police were very much in evidence, but didn’t have much to do other than keep their barricades intact.
The New Hampshire contingent was organized largely by 350 NH, the local arm of the international action group. Riding back on the bus, fellow travelers with internet access reported march organizers were saying there had been more than 300,000 marchers. From her seat on the bus, Sarah Hubner commented, “I just hope somebody was listening.”