Revolving Door between Government and the Private Sector Reaches Appalling Highs

The symbiotic connection between government and business is reaching alarming levels in light of recent evidence, indicating that government officials and business executives are increasingly one and the same.  Consider the evidence that’s recently come to light.   

A recent study by the Washington Post finds that “three of every four gas and oil lobbyists [have] worked for the federal government”.

Among those currently lobbying for energy companies who have worked in government include 18 former members of Congress and dozens of former presidential appointees. Two of these former officials were directors of the Minerals and Management Service, a disturbing revelation considering that the agency has received strong criticism for granting 198 leases for oil wells following the April 30^th Deepwater explosion in the Gulf, with BP the winner of 13 of those bids.  For those unfamiliar with the MMS, it gained infamy in late 2008 when it was reported by the New York Times that its employees were trading lucrative offshore drilling contracts for cocaine sex parties, funded by the oil industry (More on that story). These kinds of stories are usually the stuff of mystery and action thriller novels, but in the case of MMS-incest, the development simply looks like a failure of an agency to regulate private interests.   

The “capture” of public bureaucrats and regulators by big business, has become sadly common.  Consider another recent example of the growing closeness between the health care industry and government.  It was reported in late 2009 that as many as 52 percent of the 2,737 lobbyists working for private health care interests have held positions in the federal government in positions in Congress, the White House, and federal agencies.  Fifty-five former members of Congress are counted among this list.   The ratio of lobbyists to legislators is truly stunning at six to one, with 3,300 individuals lobbying just 535 members of the House and Senate.  Trade groups such as PhRMA, which represents the pharmaceutical industry, sends out more than 7 dozen lobbyists to influence Congress, or one for every six members of the House and Senate.   

Although the examples above are but two, they are representative of a larger systematic trend in politics today.  A study by the Center for Responsive Politics finds that there are 2,114 members of Senate and House committees and subcommittees (responsible for writing Congressional laws) who fit into the “revolving door” classification between government and business.  The Finance, Health, and Energy committees are among those most thoroughly dominated by business interests.     

Of course, the symbiosis between government and industry becomes all the more disturbing in light of soon to emerge media celebrations about the vibrancy and competitiveness of American democracy in preparation for the fall midterm elections.  Such celebrations amount to little more than propaganda, considering that the vast majority of Congressional races are uncompetitive, and since the better funded candidate wins in most instances (most of the money they raise, it should be pointed out, comes from business interests).  Candidates running for re-election in 2010 have already raised more than $1 billion in campaign contributions, and serious attention to the election has not yet even begun.  Total contributions raised in the last midterm election (2006) reached an astounding $2.85 billion, a number that may very well be either reached or surpassed this year.   

Many on the left are content with the simplistic characterization of political officials as “bought and paid for” by corporate America.  What this conspiratorial depiction clearly misses is the fact that business does not “control” government officials; rather, business and government are increasingly one and the same.  It’s not that campaign contributions – particularly business dominance of the contribution process – is not important in terms of influencing the elections.  It seems obvious that business will increase its effectiveness in dominating public policy when it controls the primary mechanism of election – money.  There’s far more to the story than this, however.  

There are many forms of power that combine to ensure business dominance of the public policy process.  These include:  

The hegemonic powers of business, exercised through media advertising, propaganda, and indoctrination which convince many throughout the public (including aspiring political leaders) that “what’s best for GM” is “best for the country.”  These powers are not only exercised through corporate media, but in the classroom as well – whether through active promotion of a business neoliberal agenda, or through the active unwillingness of scholars and intellectuals to spotlight and challenge business power.  

The power of business to dominate the legislative agenda simply by virtue of its control over investment assets.  Political scientist Charles Lindblom referred to this as the “market as prison” problem.  Simply by controlling the wealth needed to develop communities, corporations can either ensure that a community thrives (by investing in it) or destroy it in the search for greater profits.  The latter is clearly what has happened to cities like Flint and Detroit, Michigan, in light of the “capital flight” process whereby automotive companies shut down U.S. manufacturing plants in search of low wage foreign labor and weak environmental laws.  Simply put, business can often successfully bring public officials to their knees, simply by threatening to relocate production, thereby taking jobs and tax dollars with them, and destroying communities.  

The growing convergence between business and government, as discussed at length above, is also a product of hegemonic social forces.  Increasingly, U.S. officials come from the same economic class as those who run private industry.  This phenomenon explains why political science scholars often fail to find one-to-one relationships between corporate campaign contributions and voting on bills favorable to business interests.  This vulgar “buying of Congress” approach is too crude to explain a system whereby political officials already see it as their goal to promote neoliberal interests without having to be told this by representatives of the private sector.  Interest group scholars have long noted that campaign contributions are probably most effective in terms of drawing political leaders’ attention to one industry’s interests over those of another industry.  This conclusion seems plausible.  Different sectors of the private economy – already understanding that public officials are committed to a pro-business agenda – are seeking through their campaign contributions to direct the attention of legislators to their interests over those of other business sectors.   

Readers should not interpret this essay as suggesting that campaign contributions don’t matter.  Clearly, when business exercises such overwhelming dominance of elections (accounted for an average of 85 percent of all the contributions to members of Congress), its interests are going to be well represented.  But this is just one facet of corporate power.  Many more exist, and some of those have been documented briefly above.  Progressives would do well to understand the many ways in which corporate elites exercise dominance over society if they wish to initiate a multi-pronged approach to promoting foundational change.  Challenging neoliberal hegemony, propaganda, and the very existence of business power (and corporations themselves) is a necessary part of working toward a truly democratic, grassroots democracy.

Anthony DiMaggio is the editor of media-ocracy, a daily online magazine devoted to the study of media, public opinion, and current events.  He has taught U.S. and Global Politics at Illinois State University and North Central College, and is the author of When Media Goes to War (2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda (2008). He can be reached at: mediaocracy@gmail.com

Source: ZComm