More Names: The battle for California

[George_S]

True, there is a California forum, but this seems bigger than that:


An heir to the Wal-Mart fortune also gave $200,000 while another $250,000 came from a Eureka-based securities investor, Robin Arkley Jr.; and just Tuesday, and $100,000 came in from Home Depot.

So far this year, Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team has taken in more than $14 million.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/state/20041019-1800-ca-schwarzeneggermoney.html

Another connection:

Let the courts decide

This letter is in response to the article: “D.A. Gallegos recall drive underway.” (Eye, March 25.) I am usually a “silent woman who works and educates her three children” (I am using here some of Robin Arkley’s words), but after reading this article, “I just had it.” I am appalled about the inflammatory language Mr. Arkley uses. Statements like “whackos at HSU”; “taking the county back from the hippies”... “who don’t work and educate their children,” implies that Mr. Arkley sees the world black and white. This does not only discourage a healthy dialogue but also shows that intimidation, accusation and generalization prevail in local politics.

http://www.arcataeye.com/opinion/030407opinion02.shtml

[George_S]

1. Let the courts decide on what? Pacific Lumber Company

Meanwhile, just north of Mendocino, executives at Pacific Lumber Company (a division of giant Maxxam Inc.) were upset with Humboldt County district attorney Paul Gallegos, who sued Pacific for allegedly lying about plans to log giant redwoods trees on steep slopes. Gallegos filed the suit after the cutting caused extensive flooding and damage to local farmland. Pacific spent about $250,000 to run a ballot initiative to oust Gallegos from his job, but failed decisively. Even political opponents of the district attorney balked at allowing a transnational corporation to terminate a fraud case by eliminating its accuser.

But Pacific isn't done yet -- it's emulating Nike's failed 2003 attempt to claim a constitutional right to lie. The company has filed a countersuit claiming an obscure anti-trust provision – the “Noerr-Penington Doctrine” -- gives corporations the legal right to lie to government officials.

Though money doesn't necessarily buy a win, we should question why corporations are permitted to use corporate funds to influence any democratic process in the first place. Despite occasional setbacks, corporations have steadily seized more power over our laws and public institutions, thanks to decades of systematic efforts that have reshaped the law to fit corporate agendas rather than citizens' interests.

Back in 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis Powell wrote a telling memo to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He asserted that big business should seek power through “careful long-range planning and implementation” and that power “must be used aggressively and with determination, without embarrassment…” Powell specified that ”The judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.”

A month later Richard Nixon appointed Powell to the United States Supreme Court. Powell went on to write the opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti , a 1978 decision that created a First Amendment “right” for corporations to influence ballot initiatives and other political campaigns. As one writer commented at the time in the American Bar Association Journal, the Court had constructed a “monster…like Dr. Frankenstein's creation” that was likely to trample over democracy. The Bellotti decision is a big reason why corporations now dominate national politics and why companies like Wal-Mart can impose the will of corporate executives on communities around the country.

Undermining democracy can be lucrative for some corporations, but costly for the rest of us.

http://www.progressivetrail.org/articles/040308KaplanandJeffMilchen.shtml