Musk vs. Trump: American Business and Government at Loggerheads?

When the wealthiest person in the world and the President of the United States cross swords, people are bound to notice. Such a very public clash between billionaires, one of whom is the most politically powerful person in the U.S., should not lead the rest of us to infer that the interests of large corporations and the U.S. Government, including the respective executives and elected representatives, typically conflict. Corporate and individual mega-donations to political campaigns, the proverbial “revolving door” between working in government and at a corporation, the reliance of regulatory agencies on information from the regulated companies invite the exploit of conflicts of interest such that legislation and regulations are even written by corporate lawyers for their respective companies’ financial interest. Furthermore, that many very large American-based corporations have interlocking boards of directors gives corporate America considerable unified force in seeing to it that Congress and the federal president remain friendly to business interests. That both benefit from the status quo and have de jure or de facto vetoes of reform proposals reinforces the staying power of the club. Even as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders enjoyed considerable media attention and crowds in his speaking tour against oligopoly (i.e., consolidation within an industry such that companies can set prices at will and can thus extract extra profit beyond that which would accrue in a competitive market), it would be wildly optimistic to hope for an onslaught of anti-trust enforcement from a Republican or Democratic administration.

Even though U.S. President Trump claimed in early June, 2025, that he had told Elon Musk to leave the Administration because Musk was “wearing thin,” and Secretary of State Rubio would doubtless attest to that, it should not be forgotten that Musk had spent more than $250 million “helping President Donald Trump win a second White House term.”[1] Musk “also spent more than $19 million in the final weeks of the 2024 election cycle to help Republicans win narrow majorities in Congress.”[2] Even though Musk was the richest person in the world at the time, to spend so much money and yet be inattentive to how his companies could benefit from government contracts and electric-car subsidies defies human nature. Indeed, even though Musk denied opposing Trump’s tax and government spending “Big Beautiful Bill” because of the cuts to EV subsidies, Trump had a point that the negative financial impact on Tesla was not a point in the bill’s favor to Musk. To be sure, Musk’s complaint about too much “pork” and thus deficit spending being major problems in the bill that the U.S. House had recently passed by a single vote is valid. Nevertheless, lest it be assumed that a dispute on public policy between two billionaires is in the interest of the poor and middle-class, Musk registered no complaint about the cuts to Medicaid, which finances healthcare for the poor who cannot afford private health-insurance, and food assistance for the poor.

Even in the midst of an argument between billionaires in business and government, we cannot assume that the conflict of political-economic interests among the elite results in the enactment of public policy that is in the public interest. In Trump’s bill, for example, even though less money would subsidize electric vehicles, there were no reductions of subsidies in the bill that passed the House for coal and oil companies. The grip of those companies in Congress and the Trump Administration could be assumed to be tight in spite of the global average temperature having reached 1.5C degrees, which the Paris Accord of 2016 set as a threshold. The cozy relationship amid climate change puts in stark relief the distinction between private interests and the public interest.

When asked at the Qatar Economic Forum in 2025 whether he would continue making political donations as he had in 2024, Musk replied, “I think I’ve done enough.”[3] It should not be missed that he added, “Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it.”[4] It would be of value to the American political economy if he would do contribute to political campaigns aimed at breaking up the cosy relationship that CEO’s and (and the corporations) have with elected officials and regulators at both the state and federal systems of government in the U.S.; by “breaking up,” I mean something more substantial and structural than barring government officials and employees from being hired by corporations that have benefitted from the work of the officials and employees.

Instead, I recommend a return to competitive markets and even possibly limiting political-campaign contributions of corporations and the ultra-rich, for the financial influence of large concentrations of wealth on elected officials and appointees tilts the political economy away from being oriented to the public interest, which is not arrived at by the entanglement of certain powerful private interests. To be sure, going so far as trying to eliminate the gravitas of wealth politically would be utopian and thus a fool’s errand, but public policy could be formulated and enacted that is aimed at reversing or countering at least some of the self-interested tilt of the American political economy that so benefits members of the club—Trump and Musk included. Nor is Socialism necessarily the answer to protecting the poor and middle-class from the self-interested endeavors of the interlaced economic and political elites, for Adam Smith’s invisible hand can do wonders to regulate price if only competition is restored to oligopolistic industries, which includes even social-media companies.

Trump’s threat to cut off Musk’s SpaceX from government contracts and Musk’s acknowledgement that he might make sizable political donations even though he was disappointed in Trump’s bill for its pork and probable significant addition to the U.S. federal debt indicate that politicians have considerable discretion being able to benefit companies financially and that CEO’s can make use of such discretion by legally paying off political candidates and those office-holders who are up for re-election and would all too easy exploit a personal conflict of interest by bending public duty to private campaign-interest. Using ambition to check ambition is part of the genius of the American political system of checks and balances, but as the ambitions are solely among the wealthy, it cannot be assumed that the public interest is necessarily being served by the resulting public policies, for collusion even between contending ambitions does indeed exist even if the publicly-aired arguments among the elite of the political economy are more titillating.

1. Kevin Breuninger, “Elon Musk Says He Will Spend ‘A Lot Less’ on Future Campaign Donations,” CNBC.com, May 20, 2025.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.

The 2012 U.S. Presidential Election: Fueled by Leadership or Money?

The 2012 U.S. presidential election was the first in which neither of the major-party candidates participated in the campaign-matching system that imposes campaign spending limits in return for federal financing. It was also the first presidential election since the Citizens United case in 2010. That U.S. Supreme Court ruling was a significant factor in the election because corporations and unions could dip into their respective treasuries directly, rather than only through employee or member contributions, spend an unlimited amount on political ads by making donations to “social welfare” organizations. Without disclosing their donor lists, these non-profit organizations could create political ads that in turn could favor or criticize a particular candidate, albeit with no formal approval from the favored candidate. Faced with formidable super PACs pumping some $800 million or more in favor of Mitt Romney, Obama’s money-machine went into high-gear in a sort of “rich man’s” arms-race. Some rich donors had spent millions of dollars to push the massive ship of state a discernible distance in their direction. Hardly anyone expected that the contending high monies would virtually cancel each other out. Hardly anyone thought the Obama campaign’s scientifically-based “ground game” oriented to getting new voters registered would trump Romney’s financial advantage. To be sure, Wall Street was also behind Obama; Goldman Sachs had donated $1 million in 2008, and Obama in turn gave the big banks federal money (TARP) without strings, including on bonuses (which the bankers abused).

Subtly missing in the 2012 presidential election season among all the financial fire-power and Obama’s grass-roots operation and even all the presidential “debates” were ideas and a sustained societal discussion of a few basic principles of political economy and governance. The result, in spite of all the money, time and effort, was a continuance of the political status-quo because few minds were changed in the process. If ideas and rational argument are not absolutely required for a basic shift in a body politic worth the name vision, at least they provide for a basis for leadership and real change.  

Unfortunately, The New York Times reported afterwards that “the overall cost of the campaign rose accordingly, with all candidates for federal office, their parties and their supportive ‘super PACs’ spending more than $6 billion combined.” The grand result for all that money was that the U.S. House remained in Republican hands, the U.S. Senate continued with a slim Democratic majority, and the Democrats held the White House. Even the deal-makers—the major players—notably John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Barak Obama—remained in place. The difficulty they had had as a group in coming to agreement on major policy items before the election was essentially unchanged.

On Thursday, November 8^tth The New York Times summed up the previous year and a half as follows: “After $6 billion, two dozen presidential primary election days, a pair of national conventions, four general election debates, hundreds of Congressional contests and more television advertisements than anyone would ever want to watch, the two major political parties in America essentially fought to a standstill. When all the shouting was done, the American people on Tuesday more or less ratified the status quo that existed at the start of the day: they returned President Obama to the White House for another four years, reaffirmed Republican control of the House and kept the Senate in Democratic hands. As of Wednesday, the margins in the House and the Senate had each changed by just two or three seats.” For all the money, time and effort spent kicking up dirt and picking fights, when the dust settled it was clear that the American electorate had not moved much at all.

It is not that the American electorate intentionally voted for continued divided government or gridlock. Rather, the American body politic contained voters of diametrically-opposed political, economic and social ideologies. In spite of the length of the campaign “season,” neither camp had budged by election-day. The resulting continuance of the status quo meant the continuance of the political constellation in Washington that had led to gridlock. Besides gridlock being more generally etched into the very design of the federal lawmaking apparatus in part to check power as well as unwelcome encroachments of the General Government on to the turf of the state governments, the various stalemates on the Hill in 2011 and 2012 were a manifestation, or symptom, of where the People as an aggregate stood then politically—that is, divided and even polarized ideologically. As a result of the stark ideological differences between citizens and the multiple points of access available in the U.S. Government, both major parties had sufficient electoral support and accessibility to the federal law-making machinery to grind policy-making and legislative activity to a halt on major problems desperately in need of solutions.

A story in The New York Times on the day after the election had as a headline, “Electorate Reverts to a Familiar Divide as Obama’s Support Narrows.” He “garnered just 50 percent of the popular vote, three percentage points lower than in 2008, in a sign of just how divided” the electorate was “over his leadership.” In spite of Obama having lost some of his base, the mere two-percentage-point difference in the popular vote between the two major candidates meant that among the electorate neither “side” had budged much. To find a “verdict” on the president’s first term beyond the vested opinions of the two bases, one must look to how the independents. Even there, the “verdict” was muted.

Referring to the independents, the New York Times reported that the vote was “very close.” In some swing states, including Ohio and Virginia, Romney received a slight majority of such voters (53 and 54 percent, respectively), while Obama received similar majorities in a few others (Iowa and New Hampshire). However, Obama received 45 percent of the independents over all (Romney got 50 percent), and in 2008 Obama had received 52 percent. This means that Obama lost some of the independents he had had in 2008. As a “verdict” of the relatively neutral “jury” segment within the electorate, the loss of 8 percent suggests something less than a vindication for the president.

Moreover, that Obama received 50% of the popular vote over all while Romney got 48% suggests that the contest ended unchanged as a virtual draw. Put another way, only about 3 million Americans out of 310 million residents in the U.S. separated the two candidates in the popular vote. About 1% of the entire population hardly constitutes a mandate, as if “the American people” has swung around en mass to support the incumbent after a long and hard-fought campaign.

To be sure, some general movement can be discerned, as most counties had shifted in the Democratic direction in 2008 to vote for Obama only to shift back in a Republican direction in 2012. It could be said that the country had returned to its native center-right position. That Obama’s narrower base came out in sufficient force to counter the general shift in a Republican direction in most counties and a slight shift away by some independents accounts for his slight majority in the popular vote (and his wins in almost all of the swing states). Even so, such wan movement does not constitute the sort that is associated with an idea or mandate. Put another way, even the shift toward “Obamania” of 2008 was short-lived—the ideational shortfall rendering the “movement” as akin to a short-lived energy spirt from cotton-candy rather than new muscle from rich protein.

Accordingly, “(t)he bottom-line scorecard [from the 2012 federal election] left Washington as divided as ever,” according to the Times, “with no resolution of most of the fundamental issues at stake. The profound debate that has raged over the size and role of government, the balance between stimulus spending and austerity and the proper level of taxation has not been settled in the least.” The ideas had not changed because the hyperactive campaigns had been relatively bereft of new ones or even serious discussion of the central principles.

For all of the money, ads, and “debates,” one might say that talking points rather than novel arguments or ideas took center-stage during the long campaign “season.” In an interview on CBS’s Sixty Minutes broadcast shortly before the election, David McCullough, who had written several books on American political history (and who spoke at my doctoral graduation ceremony!), said he doubted that any words from the two major presidential candidates would stand the test of time. In fact, nothing said or written during even the “debates” was worthy of being retained past the news cycle of the day. The historian went on to contrast the contemporary talking-points with the authenticity in Truman’s “Give ‘em hell Harry!” campaign of 1942. In 2012, talking points backed up by fund-raising and the application of empirical political science to getting elected punctuated the candidates’ trajectories along paths of political-least resistance.

Considering the sheer duration of the primaries and general campaign, the opportunity-cost of shallow campaigning is in terms of foregone governance not only during the duration, but afterward as well. Moreover, the empty-form of a superficial campaign-mode exacerbates the fundamental flaw in having extended the campaign “season” further and further:  Taking a means—that of selecting office-holders to govern—as more important than its end, governance. The eclipse of governance at the federal level in the U.S. is from not only gridlock, but also the enabling ideational emptiness of the modern campaign elongated into a sustained void of sorts that the electorate allowed to take on a life of its own. 

For the body politic to shift as a body having a will from the status quo such that political leadership evincing a direction could replace gridlock and stasis, some ideational-ideological change would have to have occurred in enough voters that the contours of the body itself will have changed. Sadly, the experience of having gone through the financial crisis of 2008—rather than any new idea or exchange of ideas—led an unusually high 51% of the presidential voters in 2008 to favor more government intervention in the economy while only 43% wanted more things to be left to business. The unusually high percentage was a result of economic fear and perhaps even greater hardship due to the crisis, rather than from a national debate centered on a reconsideration of old ideas.

That even powerful people can reflect on the level of fundamental ideas and come to different conclusions genuinely rather than in a political calculation (e.g., Obama’s “change” on gay marriage during his re-election campaign) suggests that citizens too can allow themselves to be more open ideologically and thus shift. An empirical crisis, for instance, can jar loose even fundamental paradigms. For example, Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, admitted in Congressional testimony after the financial crisis of 2008 that the freezing-up of the commercial paper market in September 2008 had shown him that his free-market, or laissez-faire economic paradigm had a fundamental flaw. He marveled before a panel of lawmakers that forty years of observing markets had done nothing to point to the flaw. Specifically, the market mechanism itself can freeze-up rather than make pricing adjustments under conditions of high volatility involving high uncertainty and risk. In September 2008 as banks lost trust in each other, they stopped lending rather than adjust their rates of interest upward to compensate for the additional risk. High risk, especially if occurring all of a sudden, can paralyze a market’s mechanism. Hence, the former central banker could suddenly discern a rationale for regulation by the government because of the “fatal flaw” in the “market-alone” paradigm.

Had the ideas behind Greenspan’s paradigmatic shift percolated through the electorate during the presidential election of 2008 or even 2010 in place of “Obama as the flavor of the month,” the percentages on the question would not have subsequently flipped back in 2012 back to “center-right” on the question of the role of government in regulating business. Rather, a fundamental shift similar to that which ushered in the New Deal in the 1930s would have been realized. That Greenspan’s “ideational moment” had not registered in the campaigns or the electorate itself at least by 2012 can be seen from the fact that Romney called for financial deregulation even though the lack of regulation of mortgage-based securities had played a significant role in the financial crisis. Absent a sustained paradigmatic reflection from a shared experience of the financial crisis, the electorate was vulnerable to the financial-political power of Wall Street as it continued as though legitimately along its familiar trajectory of profit and self-interest. It is significant that even though Obama came out slightly ahead in 2012, the electorate as a body evinced a shift back to its pre-2008 center-right position on government intervention in business.

Absent new ideas and a sustained reflection on the continued viability of extant paradigms, an electorate succumbs to the status quo. More money—much more money—and more time—much more time—does not necessarily mean that an election-cycle makes a dent in the judgment of the popular sovereign—the We the People—come election day. An election-campaign season should be a rather brief yet poignant opportunity for a genuine societal reflection that results in the body politic being in a new place—that is, changed in some way that will reflect on the ensuing governance. I contend that the way Americans elect the president of the Union was by 2012 not only flawed, but also rather ineffectual and even impotent. It is as though a runner were running in circles only to end up panting where he had begun. To use another analogy, it is as though the voters woke up the day after election day still hungry in spite of having eaten so much cotton-candy. The sacrifice of governance alone, not to mention the value in the popular sovereign (the We the People) making its judgment on general policy and candidates, suggests that elections should include new ideas and substantive arguments rather than each side hammering in more of the same through an eternally-repeated stump-speech and “debate” talking-points.

If there is one thing we can discern concerning the voters almost without exception on the morning after voting, according to the Times, “they were glad that the strident and polarizing contest between President Obama and Mitt Romney was ending.” Beyond the proliferation of negative ads, especially in the “swing states,” and the sheer length of the primary and general campaigns, the voter-frustration may reflect a still-unsatisfied hunger for ideas and authentic, substantive discussion of them and the paradigms we construct out of them and what can be termed, ideational values. I suspect that the want of ideas and genuine discourse had existed for so long that few if any Americans realized what was at the core of their discontent regarding the election cycle. The root may go far deeper than Citizens United and even the serial elongation of campaigning at the expense of governance. It may be asked whether a starving man will eat if he does not realize he is starving.

Sources:

Jackie Calmes and Megan Thee-Brenan, “Electorate Reverts to a Familiar Partisan Divide,” The New York Times, November 7, 2012.

Susan Saulny, “The Most Sought-After Voters Were No Longer Flattered by the Attention,” The New York Times, November 7, 2012.

Jeff Zeleny and Jim Rutenberg, “Focus Is On Economy As Voters Choose,” The New York Times, November 7, 2012.

Michael Shear, “As Electorate Changes, Fresh Worry for G.O.P.” The New York Times, November 8, 2012.

Peter Baker, “Obama Wins a Clear Victory, but Balance of Power Is Unchanged in Washington,” The New York Times, November 8, 2012.

Sara Murray and Patrick O’Connor, “How The Race Slipped Away From Romney,” The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2012.

Citizens United: A U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Ensconced in the Status Quo?

According to Rodell Molineau, executive director of the Democratic super PAC American Bridge in 2012, "The meta-lesson from [the 2012] election cycle is that showing up and participating in the process is key, which is something that we didn't do in 2010. I think a lot of Democrats ceded the field on super PACs because most people in progressive circles didn't believe in the Citizens United ruling."[1] The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United ruling on January 21, 2010 opened up unlimited corporate and union spending on political campaigns. The fact is, sometimes you have to play by rules you don’t agree with in order to compete. The obvious danger is that one gets coopted by those rules in the process, even having a financial disincentive to push for a repeal of the problematic ruling. In other words, the ruling accrues the benefit of being the status quo and thus becomes extremely difficult to dislodge.

In 2010, the Huffington Post reported, “conservative outside groups held a three-to-one advantage in spending on House races and a slightly more than two-to-one advantage in Senate races, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The formation of the Democratic super PACs and their coordination with traditional liberal groups—labor, environmental and women's groups—helped cut that advantage to less than two-to-one in both House and Senate races in 2012, according to Federal Election Commission data. . . . In the end, conservative groups reported spending $102 million on House races, compared with $79 million for Democratic groups. In Senate races, conservatives spent $135 million, compared with $89 million for Democrats.”[2] However, former U.S. senator Russ Feingold, co-author of the 2003 campaign finance reform act, said, “I don’t think we won because of this thing.”[3] This remark is crucial, should it be necessary to ween Democratic Congressional leaders off an addiction to the saccarine superPAC money.

One other major factor Feingold could have been referring to was the impact on Congressional races of the Obama campaign’s ground-game and related systematic data-collection efforts in 2012. Specifically, the campaign was able to identify new voters, track their opinions, and get them out to vote. Congressional campaigns and even groups such as MoveOn were able to tap into that resource in getting out the vote too. Getting out the base made all the difference in the 2012 election, particularly as most counties in most states shifted back in a Republican direction after having tilted blue for Obama in 2008.

We should also consider the mistakes that Congressional candidates themselves made, such as Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate in Indiana for the U.S. Senate seat formerly held by Dick Lugar. Mourdock claimed that a rape victim getting pregnant is “God’s will.” It is questionable whether any amount of superPAC money could undo such a gaffe.  A similar though less outlandish case involved Mitt Romney’s comment made in private to a group of rich potential donors that it would not be his job as president to worry about the 47 percent of Americans who did not pay income taxes (but paid other taxes) in 2011. I wonder whether voters are capable of ignoring the plethera of superPac-funded political ads in such cases and voting instead on the basis of what they have reason to believe more accurately depicts the candidate’s judgment and opinions (i.e., via the gaffes). One would like to think that voters could see through the slickly marketed political ads on television in every case, but having the ad edge can indeed help even a pathetic candidate, particularly in reducing the opponent’s support.

Sadly, having a lot of money counts a lot in Congressional elections. In the constitutional convention in 1787, some delegates worried that Congress, unlike the state legislatures, would be an aristocratic body—even the U.S. House, which was to be the repository of democracy in the new federal government. By the twenty-first century, the populations of the states had become much more than they were in 1787, including relative to the number of members of Congress. The U.S. as a whole reached 300 million around the year 2000, with only 535 members of Congress. The aristocratic element can be seen in these numbers alone. It should be no surprise that candidates for those offices would attract a great amount of money, and with it private influence over public policy. Even were Citizens United upended by a future decision or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it would be difficult to hold back the flood of money attracted to all the power that Congress has amassed since the Great Depression in the 1930’s. In other words, the sound of money is simply a reverberation of the nature of power in an increasingly consolidated political empire.

---

1. Paul Blumenthal, “Democratic Super PACs Trim Conservative Advantage in Congressional Races,” The Huffington Post, November 10, 2012.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

CEO Compensation: How Much Is Too Much?

From the previous year, the medium value of salaries, bonuses and long-term-incentive awards for the CEOs of 350 major American companies increased by 11% in 2010 to $9.3 million, according to the Hay Group.  Corporate net income increased by a medium of 17% and shareholders medium returns, including dividends, increased by 18 percent. Share prices also increased more than the CEO compensation. However, bonuses increased 19.7%, which is just barely more than the percentage increases in corporate profit and shareholder returns.
Of course, comparing percentages can be misleading because the base amounts can differ markedly. Ten percent of 100, for example, is less than ten percent of 1000. The issue regarding CEO compensation may have less to do with comparisons to corporate net income and stockholder returns, as these are different categories, than to the absolute amount of the compensation.
One might compare, for example, the amounts earned by a typical CEO and a typical worker. In 2000, on average, CEOs at 365 of the largest publicly traded U.S. companies earned $13.1 million, or 531 times what the typical hourly employee earned. The corresponding ratio in 1990 was 85 and in 1980 it was only 42, according to Finfacts. It is unlikely that the contributions, and thus value, of CEOs to corporate bottom lines were increasing accordingly--both in absolute terms and relative to the sweat of hourly employees. In fact, Sarah Anderson points out that many of the executives responsible for the financial crisis of 2008 used it as a springboard financially. Specifically, at ten of the financial firms that received bailout money, executives were awarded stock options when the market was at bottom. After the taxpayer funds helped lift the price of the stocks, "the executives who brought the global economy to the brink of disaster" saw their portfolios increase in value by $90 million. This surely violates the maxim of justice as fairness, especially as theorized by John Rawls.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that American CEOs are more talented than those in Europe and Asia. According to Finfact, income inequality in the U.S. was, as of 2003, greater than anywhere else in the industrialized world. One could be excused for asking whether the highest CEO figures are beyond even what one person could reasonably spend (without giving tens of millions away at a time without a thought) even in a very comfortable life of luxury.
Viacom CEO Philippe Dauman, for example, topped the list at $84.3 million, more than double his 2009 pay. Even if a significant portion of this figure are stock options that cannot be sold for several years, the total amount is so far beyond what a person can use even for luxuries that one might wonder what impact it could have on the CEO. Moreover, the amount dwarfs by many times the salaries even of middle level managers, not to mention workers. The amount itself is sufficient to raise some questions.
For example, can the worth of a particular CEO to a corporation really be worth $84 million?  Is that amount necessary to motivate or sufficiently reward a manager who happens to be the CEO? Is the potential CEO labor market really so limited? Is corporate governance itself at issue? Given the influence that CEOs can have over the boards tasked with overseeing them as well as setting executive compensation, the obscene numbers may be indicative of the conflict of interest.  Where a CEO is chairman of the board too (i.e., duality), the conflict of interest is structural and bears on corporate governance itself. That American CEOs get paid more on average than European CEOs suggests that the American compensation amounts may be due to arrangements pertaining to American corporate governance rather than occurring naturally from a competitive labor market.
From a governmental standpoint in a republic, the high CEO compensation signifies concentrated private power. Such power may be an inherent threat to representative democracy wherein each citizen able to vote has one vote. In other words, the pay may incur systemic risk to the republic itself as a representative democracy. Such concerns can and should constrain even private contracts, for individual transations should not be allowed to put the whole at risk.Yet if concentrated wealth already has bought the mainstream candidates and government officials such that they are in its grip, the high compensation amounts are effectively protected and the republic can be expected to run without contradicting this particular powerful vested interest. The only way out of this negative feedback group is for the people to recognize the manipulation and corruption in the halls of their government and vote accordingly. The problem is that such action is apt to be decentralized unless candidates outside the vested interests can raise above the din of the party lines.

Sources:

Joann Slublin, “CEO Pay in 2010 Jumped 11%” The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2011, p. B1.

Michael Hennigan, "Executive Pay and Inequality in the Winner-Take-All Society," Finfacts, August 7, 2005.

Sarah Anderson, "Can Europe Pop the U.S. CEO Pay Bubble?" CommonDreams.org, September 2, 2009.

See related essay: "Wall Street Bonuses and TARP: A Tale of Two Cities"

Constricting Debate in the Public Square: The Case of Gun Control

The managements of large corporations attempt and, I submit, often succeed at keeping the most financially threatening alternatives in public policy off the public’s radar by pressuring media and using public relations campaigns. As U.S. president Obama’s health-insurance proposal was being debated in Congress, health insurance companies deftly either kept the single-payer proposal off the media’s discussion or relegated the policy as radical. This term, if stuck to a proposed policy, is the kiss of death in a society of incremental change. Such change, if the only game in town, can unfortunately come to be viewed as constituting major change. The gun-control debate in February, 2018 after the shooting of 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Florida is a case in point.

In step with the National Rifle Association, U.S. president Trump supported “efforts to strengthen the  federal background-check system for firearms.”[1] He also supported a ban on “bump stocks,” which enable a gun to shoot hundreds of rounds  per minute. Congress had considered such a ban, but could not in the end resist pressure from the NRA. So in terms of political viability, going beyond tightening background checks and banning bump stocks to ban the assault weapons themselves could easily be perceived as radical and thus a waste of time to include in the debate. Yet such a course ignores the possibility that the debate could render the infeasible, feasible. Moreover, restricting debate to the politically feasible gives the impression that at least some of the alternatives being considered are major rather than tertiary in nature. Banning bump stocks and tightening checks could seem like solutions rather than things that should have been done long before the shooting in Florida.

Putting the alternatives being considered as part of the debate in the media into perspective can be accomplished by including the stance of Al Hoffman, a prominent Republican donor. In the wake of  the  shooting, he had had enough. He demanded that the Republican Party, which at the time controlled the governments of Florida and the U.S., “pass legislation to restrict access to guns.” He “vowed not to contribute to any candidates or electioneering groups that did not support a ban on the sale of military-style firearms to civilians. ”[2] He was saying that his monetary support would go behind a ban on assault weapons.

With the debate restricted to background checks and bump stocks, Hoffman could be perceived as advocating something radical and politically infeasible. The artificially restricted debate ensured the continuance of such infeasibility as well as the perception of the ban being radical in nature rather than reasonable. It is no accident that the NRA’s management declared that a ban on assault weapons was not debatable. For the organization to have been able to keep such an option off the table and perceived societally as radical and infeasible suggests that the news media was not operating in the public interest. So too, I submit, does the media restrict or contort reporting and discussing matters of public policy relevant to corporations. Like the NRA, large companies can effectively steer public discourse on to less threatening alternatives as if they are central  rather than secondary in importance.

---

[1] July Bykowicz and Srobhan Hughes, “Trump Open to Tighter Gun Checks,” The Wall Street Journal, February 20, 2018.

[2] Alexander Burns, “”GOP Donor’s Ultimatum: Guns or Money,” The New York Times, February 18, 2018.

Banning Corporate Earmarks: Too Broad?

In March 2010, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee banned earmarks to for-profit companies. Had such a ban been in place in 2009, it would have meant the elimination of about 1,000 awards worth a total of about $1.7 billion. Many of those earmarks went to military contractors for projects in lawmakers’ home districts. The committee seemingly meant to end a practice that has steered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to companies and set off corruption scandals. However, it is also possible that the vote was a “dog and pony show” not meant to result in any eventual law. Such a show would give the American public the illusion of Congressional effort to reduce the impact of business on the elected representatives.

Most likely as the House Committee anticipated, the U.S. Senate balked. The allure of earmarks is simply too great for a ban to have survived intact. The confluence of projects being in representatives’ respective districts and corporate campaign donors being reinforced is too hard for reform-minded legislators to crack. According to the Office of Congressional Ethics, there is a “widespread perception” among the private-sector recipients of earmarks that giving political contributions to lawmakers helps secure appropriations.

I contend that banning earmarks misses the mark in thwarting the corruption that naturally stems from corporate political campaign donors being able to receive Congressional largess. The root of the problem is a conflict of interest wherein campaign contributors are allowed to benefit financially from government appropriations. To ban all projects in a district does not target this conflict of interest. It would be interesting to see whether corporations would contribute to political campaigns if there could be no financial benefit from the public purse from the legislative body..

 Source:

 Eric Lichtblau, “Leaders in House Block Earmarks to Corporations,” The New York Times, March 10, 2010.

The E.U. Goes After Google: Where Was the U.S.?

In fining Google a record 2.4 billion euros (2.7 billion dollars) in June, 2017, for unfairly favoring its advertisers in its online shopping service, E.U. officials went “significantly further than their American counterparts.”[1] At the time, Google held more than 90 percent of the online search market in the E.U. Why would the E.U. go further than the U.S. in pressing anti-trust violations against a technology company that could be expected to gain monopoly profits? Presumably Google was favoring its advertisers on searches in the U.S. as well. Americans would mind too when an advertiser’s higher-price product comes up rather than a comparable product at a better deal. Was the E.U. more interested in protecting consumers and less concerned about pleasing a large company? The company’s sordid, self-serving practice nullifies any contending claim that the government’s motive was to go after a foreign company. I submit that the E.U. government’s action unwittingly points to a pro-business bias in the corresponding American government.

With the demand that Apple repay $14.5 billion in back taxes in the E.U. state of Ireland, an investigation into Amazon’s tax practices in the E.U., and “concerns about Facebook’s gathering and handling of data,” the E.U.’s anti-trust division was “laying down a marker for more hands-on control of how the digital world operates.”[2] Why no such marker in the U.S.’s anti-trust division? Clearly, concerns about Facebook were not uncommon there. The E.U. “is setting the agenda,” Nicolas Petit said at a European university.[3] Suddenly America looks like the Old World.

Especially after the Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 allowing unlimited spending by companies on political campaigns, the question of the power of large companies in the halls of Congress as well as in the White House at the expense of consumers became more important even if the media kept the issue largely off the public’s radar screen. Is what is good for GM good for America? The fallacy that what is good for a part is necessarily good for the whole is enough to settle that question. The problem, therefore, lies in certain parts having inordinate influence over the whole—more specifically, on the rules by which the whole operates. Insufficient regard for the public good by public officials who don’t want to risk offending corporate chieftains is like the captain of a ship steering according to the desires of certain wealthy passengers instead of looking out ahead.

So it is telling, I submit, that the E.U.’s anti-trust division essentially shamed its American counterpart in being willing to stand up to very powerful private interests. The “proof in the pudding” lies, I suppose, in the dearth of cases in which the U.S.’s government (and those of the member states) has spoken truth to the powers behind the throne and gone on to act on that truth in enacting laws and regulations that protect the public. All too often, American regulatory agencies are captured by the very companies that are to be regulated. Beyond the agencies’ reliance on their respective regulatees for market information and the regulatees’ ability to hire former regulators for lucrative jobs, a company’s monetary influence in electoral campaigns gives elected representatives a powerful incentive to pressure the regulatory agencies to go easy on even an entire industry. From a company’s standpoint, unwanted regulations can be softened or averted outright, or new regulations can be used strategically at the expense of typically smaller competitors that are less able monetarily to comply with stiffer mandates. So it is not simply more regulations that attest to a willingness to “speak truth to power.” Government officials with the courage (and fortitude) to protect the public cannot simply enact laws and regulations that are in a dominant company’s interest. Clearly, the E.U. passed this test in being willing to stand up to Google.

---

[i] Mark Scott, “Google Fined Record $2.7 Billion in E.U. Antitrust Ruling,” The New York Times, June 27, 2017.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid.

Corporate Money in Politics: Undue Influence and Conflicts of Interest

Indications of “the pervasive influence of corporate cash in the democratic process, and the extraordinary lengths to which politicians, lobbyists and even judges go to solicit money” can be seen in sealed but leaked court documents in Wisconsin.[1] This glimpse in to the real money-game in business and government shows just how much corporate money is in play. “The files open a window on a world that is very rarely glimpsed by the public, in which millions of dollars are secretly donated by major corporations and super-wealthy individuals to third-party groups in an attempt to sway elections.”[2] In addition, the files show just how easy it is for public officials to deny having been subject to conflicts of interest. The combination of a lot of money and the ability to get away with exploiting a conflict of interest is toxic to a viable representative democracy (i.e., a republic).

The full essay is at Institutional Conflicts of Interest, available in print and as an ebook at Amazon.

Fewer Blue-Collar Lawmakers in Maine’s Legislature: Public Financing Cut by the U.S. Supreme Court on Free Speech Grounds

In 1996, Maine became the first American state to enact a public financing system for statewide elections. Voters passed a referendum by which the government provides money to candidates who meet a threshold of fundraising in $5 increments from voters in their districts. Before 2011, candidates got matching funds from the government if an opponent was funding his or her campaign with their own money, or if an outside group was spending money on the race over a certain amount.[1] The reason for the discontinuance of the matching funds and the subsequent impact on the number of blue-collar people running for office and being in the legislature demonstrate that the public financing of political campaigns can have a huge impact on both political campaigns and representation in a legislative chamber.

By 2008, 85 percent of lawmakers in the Maine legislature were running with public funds. Passage of the referendum allowed waitresses, teachers, firefighters, convenience store clerks and others to run for office and win. Women benefited especially, running in greater numbers than had been possible before. Thanks to public funding, Maine soon had the most blue-collar legislature in the U.S. The gap between Maine’s citizens and their representatives was effectively narrowed.

Historically, the American Founding Fathers knew that the legislatures of the member-states were closer to the people—and not just geographically—than the U.S. House of Representatives. Hence, some delegates at the Constitutional Convention decried the aristocratic nature of the proposed U.S. House. For one thing, the legislative districts of a state representative are smaller. Partly for this reason, citizen-legislators would be more likely. By design, the total number of legislators at the state level dwarfs the number of representatives in the U.S. House. The Founders thus understood that the vast repository of self-governance in the “extended republic” and the republics within would be mostly in the state legislatures. Hence, most authority over domestic matters was constitutionally assigned to the states, with the governmental institutions at the federal level enjoying only limited, or enumerated, powers. The impact of Maine’s referendum suggests that representative democracy has greater potential at the state level than at the federal level. To be sure, Madison’s theory that political minorities are less protected in smaller republics represents a downside to state government relative to federal. However, the greater presence of blue-collar people in Maine’s legislature may mean that Madison’s theory need not apply, at least concerning economic minorities. Unfortunately, the Maine experiment was rather severely clipped in 2011.

Specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that providing public funds to match outside groups and self-funding candidates was a limit on their free-speech rights. Participation in Maine's public funding system dropped to 51 percent by the 2014 election. How increasing the money-as-speech of one person limits the free-speech of others is utterly perplexing to me, unless the context is of two people in close proximity using loudspeakers. At the very least, the American doctrine of free-speech had traversed a few curves—the 2010 Citizens United case being a major case in point.

Moreover, the court’s decision may point to a basic bias in the American political elite in favor of great wealth. Corporate donors would quite naturally want to squash the influx of blue-collar lawmakers—preferring instead “professional” politicians intent on being re-elected. My basic point is that public financing can have a huge impact not only on campaigns, but also on the composition of legislatures. That is to say, Americans need not assume that “deep pockets” entrenched in the status quo necessarily enjoy the overwhelming advantage in representative democracy.

---

[1] Paul Blumenthal, “Maine Voters Hope to Restore Their Revolutionary Election System,” The Huffington Post, September 4, 2015.