Edited by Alex Brewer
Democracy American Style
On Friday, Nov 6, all of New York was celebrating the Yankees’ World Series win. But a small group of militants from Move On, a so-called Democratic “base” organization, had better things to do. Very active in the two major debates on the agenda in the U.S. Congress—the current one, about a law providing universal health coverage, and the upcoming one, about a new energy law to stop climate change – Move On had sent about twenty of its activists to demonstrate in front of Toyota’s headquarters, a Plexiglass tower on 57th Street. Why Toyota? Because, group leader David Greenson explains, “This company continues to contribute money to an organization called the Chamber of Commerce. It’s a group on the far end of the right that’s against any kind of universal health coverage, and any kind of antipollution legislation. Toyota has an image as a socially-conscious company sensitive to environmental issues. So supporting this lobby is inconsistent...”
Let’s review: Move On wants to put pressure on a large company to stop supporting a lobby. “Big companies like Apple, Nike and Levi Strauss have already dropped out of that group,” Mr. Greenson asserts, implying that his organization was not uninvolved in those decisions. “Toyota should do the same.” In other words, Move On is an anti-lobby lobby. “The Chamber of Commerce is openly campaigning against the new energy law,” states Joe Sherman, another activist. “If Toyota wants to keep its positive image, it must drop out of that lobby. Or else...” Or else what? Move On will try to mobilize more and more consumers against such an “inconsistent” enterprise. If Apple or Nike paid attention to Move On’s efforts, Toyota would do well to consider it.
It’s a surprising way of playing politics, but so well-adapted to American democracy: apparently simple to understand, but difficult to grasp completely. Really, what could be simpler than checks and balances, this actual separation of powers that grants a role in government and political muscle that any European parliament would dream of. In many ways, institutional transparency in the United States is unequaled; congressional commissions work under public scrutiny. In other ways, the entire edifice seems to depend on financial powerhouses. On the whole, money seems to be such a determining factor that congressional institutions give the impression that they are merely rubber stamps for private interests that can buy and sell everything. Lobbies are the incarnation of this system, selling their services and buying loyalty.
Now let’s take a look at the newspapers from the day after the House very narrowly passed the Democrats’ universal health care plan. The Washington Post records the votes of all 435 representatives, indicating the amount of contributions each one has received from the health care industry, and the exact number of constituents each district who have no health coverage. The New York Times details the political identity of the 39 Democratic representatives who voted against their own party’s plan.
From these stories, we learn a few facts. For instance, 24 of those 39 Democrats are “blue dogs,” conservative Democrats, mostly from small rural states (Oklahoma, Tennessee, Missouri, South Dakota, Idaho...), who are widely known to receive massive financing from the private insurance lobby. We also learn that, while 15.5 percent of all Americans are uninsured, the proportion of uninsured is more than one in four in 46 of the 435 congressional districts. More than three-fourths of these districts are in Texas, Florida and California. The “World Champion” in the number of uninsured is Texas.
Almost everywhere in this state, more than 20 percent of the population is without health insurance. In seven of Texas’ 32 congressional districts, the rate is over 30 percent, peaking at 43 percent in the 27th District – a national record. This has not prevented all 20 Texas Republicans (and one Democrat) from voting against health insurance reform. This demonstrates the power of ideology most of all. But another statistic shows the power of the private insurance lobby. The representatives who benefited most from the health care lobbies (the majority of which are private insurers) voted very differently than their peers. Of 30 representatives who collected more than one million dollars, 20 voted “no,” 10, “yes.”
Every time Congress votes on major legislation, the media and analysts closely scrutinize the influence of money. They consider it to be essential information for the public. And that’s why organizations like Move On who denounce the excessive influence of lobbies are trying to undermine the foundations of the Business Roundtable or the Chamber of Commerce. These are very ideological interest groups who immediately denounced the House vote. They continue to spend millions of dollars to make health care reform or fight against climate change. And what better way to undermine the foundation of a lobby, than by hitting them in the wallet? Money, always money.
Let’s review: Move On wants to put pressure on a large company to stop supporting a lobby. “Big companies like Apple, Nike and Levi Strauss have already dropped out of that group,” Mr. Greenson asserts, implying that his organization was not uninvolved in those decisions. “Toyota should do the same.” In other words, Move On is an anti-lobby lobby. “The Chamber of Commerce is openly campaigning against the new energy law,” states Joe Sherman, another activist. “If Toyota wants to keep its positive image, it must drop out of that lobby. Or else...” Or else what? Move On will try to mobilize more and more consumers against such an “inconsistent” enterprise. If Apple or Nike paid attention to Move On’s efforts, Toyota would do well to consider it.
It’s a surprising way of playing politics, but so well-adapted to American democracy: apparently simple to understand, but difficult to grasp completely. Really, what could be simpler than checks and balances, this actual separation of powers that grants a role in government and political muscle that any European parliament would dream of. In many ways, institutional transparency in the United States is unequaled; congressional commissions work under public scrutiny. In other ways, the entire edifice seems to depend on financial powerhouses. On the whole, money seems to be such a determining factor that congressional institutions give the impression that they are merely rubber stamps for private interests that can buy and sell everything. Lobbies are the incarnation of this system, selling their services and buying loyalty.
Now let’s take a look at the newspapers from the day after the House very narrowly passed the Democrats’ universal health care plan. The Washington Post records the votes of all 435 representatives, indicating the amount of contributions each one has received from the health care industry, and the exact number of constituents each district who have no health coverage. The New York Times details the political identity of the 39 Democratic representatives who voted against their own party’s plan.
From these stories, we learn a few facts. For instance, 24 of those 39 Democrats are “blue dogs,” conservative Democrats, mostly from small rural states (Oklahoma, Tennessee, Missouri, South Dakota, Idaho...), who are widely known to receive massive financing from the private insurance lobby. We also learn that, while 15.5 percent of all Americans are uninsured, the proportion of uninsured is more than one in four in 46 of the 435 congressional districts. More than three-fourths of these districts are in Texas, Florida and California. The “World Champion” in the number of uninsured is Texas.
Almost everywhere in this state, more than 20 percent of the population is without health insurance. In seven of Texas’ 32 congressional districts, the rate is over 30 percent, peaking at 43 percent in the 27th District – a national record. This has not prevented all 20 Texas Republicans (and one Democrat) from voting against health insurance reform. This demonstrates the power of ideology most of all. But another statistic shows the power of the private insurance lobby. The representatives who benefited most from the health care lobbies (the majority of which are private insurers) voted very differently than their peers. Of 30 representatives who collected more than one million dollars, 20 voted “no,” 10, “yes.”
Every time Congress votes on major legislation, the media and analysts closely scrutinize the influence of money. They consider it to be essential information for the public. And that’s why organizations like Move On who denounce the excessive influence of lobbies are trying to undermine the foundations of the Business Roundtable or the Chamber of Commerce. These are very ideological interest groups who immediately denounced the House vote. They continue to spend millions of dollars to make health care reform or fight against climate change. And what better way to undermine the foundation of a lobby, than by hitting them in the wallet? Money, always money.
Who paid you to run this article?!!
(Just kidding. The truth it tells is too well known among Americans, most of whom are resigned to being second-class citizens after the first-class corporations.)