How Corporations Own the US Congress
September 17, 2010
by Shamus Cooke
With the November elections quickly approaching, the majority of Americans will be thinking one thing: "Who cares?” This apathy isn't due to ignorance, as some accuse. Rather, working people's disinterest in the two party system implies intelligence: millions of people understand that both the Democrats and Republicans will not represent their interests in Congress.隨著十一月中期選舉即臨近，多數美國人將會思考著一件事：“誰會在乎呢？”這種冷漠不是因為無知，正如一些指責，反之，勞動人民對兩個政黨制度乏興趣暗示著智慧：數百萬的人理解，無論是民主黨和共和黨將不會在國會中代表他們的利益。
This begs the question: Whom does the two party system work for? The answer was recently given by the mainstream The New York Times, who gave the nation an insiders peek on how corporations "lobby" (buy) congressmen. The article explains how giant corporations — from Wall-mart to weapons manufacturers — are planning on shifting their hiring practices for lobbyists, from Democratic to Republican ex-congressmen in preparation for the Republicans gaining seats in the upcoming November elections:
這就引出一個問題：兩個政黨制度究竟為誰工作？答案最近由主流的紐約時報提供，它給予國家一次內部人士的偷看，企業如何“游說”（收買）國會議員。文章解釋巨大公司如何 - 從沃爾瑪至武器製造商 - 計劃改變它們僱用說客的做法，從民主黨到共和黨的前國會議員，在即將到來的中期選舉準備為共和黨獲得席位：
"Lobbyists, political consultants and recruiters all say that the going rate for Republicans — particularly current and former House staff members — has risen significantly in just the last few weeks, with salaries beginning at $300,000 and going as high as $1million for private sector [corporate lobbyist] positions." (September 9, 2010)
“說客，政治顧問和招募者全都說，現行的共和黨工資 - 尤其是現任和前任議會的員工數目 - 已剛在過去幾星期大幅上升，工資開始於30萬美元，並高達 100萬美元給私營部門 [企業說客]識位。“ （2010年9月9日）
Congressmen who have recently retired make the perfect lobbyists: they still have good friends in Congress, with many of these friends owing them political favors; they have connections to foreign Presidents and Kings; and they also have celebrity status that gives good PR to the corporations.
最近退休的國會議員成為完美的說客：他們仍然有好朋友在國會，這許多朋友欠他們的政治人情；他們與外國的總統及國王有聯繫，和他們亦有名人的地位，這給予公司良好的公共關係。
Often, these congressmen have done favors for the corporation that is now hiring them, meaning, that the corporations are rewarding the congressmen for services rendered while in office, offering them million dollar lobbyist jobs (or seats on the corporate board of directors) that requires little to no work.
通常，這些國會議員有恩惠給公司，它們現在聘請他們；意味著，公司在報答國會議員為在辦公室時提供的服務，提供給他們數百萬美元的遊說工作（或公司董事會的董事席位），那需要幾乎沒有任何工作。
The same New York Times article revealed that the pay for 13,000 lobbyists [!] currently bribing Congress is a combined $3.5 billion. It was also explained how some lobbying firms keep an equal amount of Democrats and Republicans on hand, so they can be prepared for any eventuality in the elections.
同樣的紐約時報文章透露，給13,000名說客 [！]目前賄賂國會的支付，綜合是35億美元。它亦解釋一些遊說公司如何保持一等量的民主黨人和共和黨人在手，在選舉的任何結果下使他們能夠有所準備。
This phenomenon is more than a little un-democratic: when millions of people vote for a candidate, the outcomes are quickly manipulated and controlled before the election even happens.
Interestingly, the corporate-directed Wall Street Journal wrote a similar article in 2008, as the Democrats had begun to dominate politics in Washington:
"Washington's $3 billion lobbying industry has begun shedding Republican staffers [politicians], snapping up Democratic operatives [politicians] and entire firms, a shift that started even before Tuesday's ballots were counted and Democrat Barack Obama captured the presidency." (November 5, 2008)
This article was appropriately titled “Lobbyists Put Democrats Out Front as Winds Shift.”
The corporate money flows from party to party, so that the same goals are achieved: higher profits for corporations. The sums thrown at these politicians are mind boggling: the Associated Press reported that the corporate-orientated Chamber of Commerce spent "... nearly $190 million since Barack Obama became president in January 2009." (August 21, 2010)
These numbers explain the "deeper" differences between Democrats and Republicans — money. Each party is a machine that vies for power because this power carries with it vast sums of corporate money. The longer a party is in office and the more connections it makes, the more its net worth to corporations, the more that these rewards can be spread to the different layers of the party. There is indeed a real-life, nasty fight between the Republican and Democratic Parties to dominate this corporate money.
One "interest group" that ex-Congressmen don't work for is labor unions. Unions spend millions of dollars to help get Democrats elected, and millions more is spent trying to get their ear while they're in office.
But unions cannot out-spend the banks; and they can't offer millionaire retirement packages to retired Senators. The corporate retirement plans of Congressmen prove where their minds are while in office, and whose interests are being looked after.
Unions cannot continue to pretend that the Democrats are their "friends.” Labor has very little to show for this dysfunctional, decades-long friendship: union membership continues to shrivel as do jobs, wages and benefits for workers – a losing strategy if ever there was one.
A “lesser of two evils” approach to politics equals evil politicians for labor, no matter who wins. In fact, the lesser-evil Democrats have become increasingly evil over the years, to the point where the party as a whole is more Conservative than the Nixon-era Republicans.
The point has been reached where — in various states — Democratic governors are being endorsed by unions after promising to attack the wages and benefits of public workers!
To get out of this vicious, dead-end cycle, unions could unite their strength to form coalitions that promote independent labor candidates: 100 percent funded by labor to govern 100 percent in the interest of working people. All other roads lead back to the corporate lobbyists.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21052
沒有留言:
發佈留言