Different strokes for different protestors

Operating on very different pieces of turf, the Occupy movement and the budding shareholder revolt are putting the status quo on notice: no more business as usual.

With May Day marches across the country earlier this month, the occupiers signaled they’re not going away. They intend to keep taking public space, protesting and reminding the country what our democracy has lost in a takeover by corporate powers.

Meanwhile, corporate shareholders appeared to be slumbering in the wake of the financial crisis, lulled by soothing predictions about economic recovery and buoyed by a stock market recovery.

But taking advantage of an advisory vote granted them in the Dodd-Frank financial reform legislation, shareholders have recently taken highly publicized swipes at excessive compensation plans for CEOs at Citibank and British Petroleum and several smaller banks.

At Citibank, 55 percent of shareholders rejected the notion that a company whose shares dropped 45 percent over the past year, wiping out $60 billion in shareholder equity, owed its CEO a $15 million salary hike. Citibank’s board said it would carefully consider the shareholders’ concerns.

CEO compensation plans narrowly won approval at General Electric, where the value of the stock has fallen 45 percent over the past 5 years, as well as at insurance giant Cigna, but not without noisy protests. At Credit Suisse and Barclays, a sizeable minority of shareholder voted against their executives’ compensation packages.

And excessive compensation is not the only thing shareholders are upset about. Some Cigna shareholders also expressed their opposition to the $1.8 million Cigna spent lobbying against health care reform in 2009.

At Wellpoint and Aetna insurance companies, shareholders want company officials to improve disclosure of their political spending, after the Center for Political Accountability found that both companies’ disclosure policies "leave significant room for serious misrepresentation of the company's political spending through trade associations."

Four of Wellpoint’s directors who are standing for reelection also face unusual no vote campaigns because the company has failed to live up to earlier commitments to improve disclosures of their political spending.

To be sure, these actions represent only a small number of corporations so far; most shareholders are approving without a fight the executive pay plans proposed by the board of directors’ compensation committees.

But like the occupiers protesting in the public square, the shareholders at these major corporations have driven a very large, sharp stake into their turf, and these first, highly publicized steps toward more accountability and transparency are likely to inspire more like them.

Occupiers, with their horizontal leaderless anarchist principles and drum circles, and shareholders, with their focus on the bottom line, might not seem to share much other than a desire for more accountability and a sense that the system as it is, isn’t working. But both groups are equally shut out of this political season, with neither party doing anything but paying the slightest lip service to their issues.

The occupiers and the shareholders are also carrying an important message for the rest of us: democracy isn’t just a matter of walking in to the ballot box and pulling the lever for our team every four years and waiting for the politicians to fix our problems.

 

 

 

 

Martin Column / Occupy / Outrage - 05/09/2012

Government Under the Influence

While the media’s grand poobahs have been poopooing the Occupy movement as a bunch of clueless hippies, the occupiers themselves couldn’t be more focused on the source of their frustration.

It’s a political system addicted to corporate cash, with politicians willing to do and say anything to keep it coming.

The occupiers communicate a keen sense of just how outrageously we have been betrayed by a government captured by corporate campaign contributions, lobbyists and the cozy swinging door between government and big business.

Though the occupiers have been criticized for not arriving with a full legislative agenda in tow, the homemade cardboard signs they carry pithily describe the world that has been too often, until now, left out of the political debate between our two parties, which, just like other kinds of addicts, are unable to have an honest conversation about their substance abuse, or to acknowledge the damage it’s done.

The issue of corporate influence peddling has also been largely left out of the media’s horse race political coverage, which focuses on philosophical differences between left and right rather than what the occupiers are focused on – the corporate might that has overwhelmed our politics.

The occupiers know that at the root of our financial collapse, bank bailout, jobless recovery and continuing housing crisis is one root cause – the undue influence of bankers and corporate titans over our political system.


So it’s left to the youth camped out in parks across the country to pose the tough questions.

They’re picking up on the strong rhetoric Barack Obama himself used back when he was a candidate about the need for fundamental change in our political system. But the president abandoned that quest, and now he’s got to raise $1 billion dollars to fund his reelection ambitions.

The occupiers have also picked up on Obama’s call for civility, with their own devotion to process and making sure everybody gets heard. The cynics are having a blast mocking the occupiers’ general assembly meetings. But the atmosphere at the occupations is a world away from the toxic cable talking point battles that have gotten the country nowhere. Let’s see who has the last laugh.

Here at WheresOurMoney, we’re offering a powerful antidote to the toxic flow of corporate money that is poisoning our democracy: a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s wrong-headed Citizens United ruling, which said that for purposes of political contributions, corporations are just like people. This terrible decision will only make a bad situation worse and we’ve got to start the fight against it now. You can read the amendment, get more background on Citizens United, and sign a petition here.

Citizens United / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 10/06/2011

Synthetic Tea

If you were looking for leadership of a real grass-roots movement for social change, Dick Armey might not be your first choice.

After he rose to become House Republican majority leader, he quit to cash in on his political connections with the top lobbying shop DLA Piper law firm. He’s also on the payroll of the Koch Brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity, one of the main sources of organizational backing of the Tea Party.

I’ve been critical of the Obama campaign’s hypocritical promises of a new kind of fundraising campaign that relies only on small donors, not fat cats, while he seeks donations from Wall Street.

But Obama’s nemeses in the Tea Party are no better, portraying themselves as a grassroots populist movement while relying on members of the Republican permanent government like Armey for leadership.

Armey actually had to quit his lobbying job because of his DLA  Piper clients favored Obama’s health care reform, after the president cut a deal to secure support from drug companies. The Tea Party, meanwhile, has been dead set against the Obama plan.

It’s not that somebody like Armey, with his vast knowledge gained from slithering through the corridors of power all these years, might not have something to offer an authentic grassroots movement. But wouldn’t he have to offer a renunciation of his past connections before he participate? Wouldn’t he have to acknowledge that he had been part of the problem before he could be part of the solution?

Whatever minor disagreements Armey’s former clients might have with the Tea Party agenda, their interests dovetail neatly. Demonizing government and railing against strong regulations will only mean fewer watchdogs for the drug companies and bankers DLA Piper serves, and fewer tools to hold them accountable.

 

Martin Column - 06/28/2011

Bad Government

In his weekly address last Saturday, President Obama said, “What’s being tested here is not just our ability to solve this one problem, but our ability to solve any problem.” Obama’s speech was about health care reform, but his point goes to the heart of the debate underway in this country – a debate that the Tea Party movement has given a sharp edge.

American’s have lost their confidence in the basic institutions of our democracy. It’s not just the President’s rating that is down in the polls, it’s Congress’s, the United States Supreme Court, even the college system.

There is more than ample justification for this stark collapse of trust. As I wrote last summer, I believe it all begins with the crash of the Money Industry after years of deregulation by federal officials who, quite simply, sold out – and then showered billions of taxpayer dollars to save the speculators while the rest of the economy, along with millions of people’s jobs and savings, went into the tank. Even now, the Wall Street execs whose greed and speculation caused the crash continue to call the shots in D.C.

After that pitiful performance by our government, who can blame people for distrusting Washington’s plan to fix the health care system?

Lately I’ve been pondering two other disasters that might have been averted had government done its job.

An appendix (PDF) to the 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission describes in agonizing detail how our government was unable to mount a defense of the nation that day despite trillions of dollars spent on defense and the military in preceding years. That morning, there were only fourteen jet fighters guarding the country. Flight controllers couldn’t connect the dots as the multiple hijackings unfolded; FAA officials failed to follow procedures to communicate with the military; scrambled fighters were too far away and sent to the wrong locations; the military never even knew how many or which commercial airplanes were involved until all four were down. A fateful order from the White House to shoot down any commercial planes that refused to land never even reached the fighter pilots who by then were flying combat cover over the East Coast.

On that horrible morning, it was only when individuals took matters into their own hands – the passengers of United 93 who fought the terrorists as their plane headed for a strike on he nation’s capitol, or an FAA manager who ignored protocols and unilaterally ordered all planes in the air to land – that more lives were spared.

Or, consider the case of Amy Bishop, the University of Alabama professor who shot six colleagues a few weeks ago. As rendered by the New York Times, her profile now, after the deed, reads like the description of “angry loner” we have grown familiar with from previous mass murders, but no one ever connected the dots of her obviously deranged life. In 1986, she killed her brother but claimed it was an accident and got off, perhaps due to political connections; in 1993, she was questioned in connection with a pipe bomb sent to one of her college professors; in 2002, she punched a women in the head at a House of Pancakes for taking the last booster seat.

What to do, then, about such profound failures by government? Do we follow the suggestion of Glenn Beck, who over the weekend blamed progressivism – the philosophy of engaged government championed by Theodore Roosevelt – for our nation’s ills?

I’m not one of those people who is offended by the eruption of angry Tea Party organizations around the country. To the contrary, the TP’rs are raising questions, pointing out problems and demanding answers from elected officials – just what an active citizenry is supposed to do.

But I disagree with their premise, which is that government is responsible for all that is wrong with our country, and that the solution therefore is a castrated federal government or no federal government at all.

That’s stupid.

We need police. We need the military. We also need a cop on the corporate beat in the executive suites of Wall Street. And we need rules and regulations to prevent health insurance companies from ripping us off or condemning us to death.

When our government institutions fail us, as they have, through incompetence and corruption, the answer is not to get rid of government, but to make it work better. How to do that? Read my next column.

Harvey Column / Outrage - 02/22/2010