The United States-Corpocracy or Crapocracy

In recent years, the term “Corpocracy” (short for Corporatocracy) has found its way into the lexicon of political discourse in the United States. This term, suggestive of a government run by corporations, evokes a picture of a political system where corporate entities wield significant influence, often overshadowing the citizenry’s voice. Corporations have indeed etched their imprints on the American political landscape through myriad channels. The corporate sector’s reach into politics is extensive and growing from campaign contributions to direct legal action.

One of the watershed moments in this narrative was the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This case saw the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United challenging the restrictions on electioneering communications imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Citizens United reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions, paving the way for corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. This case was spearheaded by Citizens United, with significant funding from industrialists like the Koch brothers, known for owning one of the largest privately owned companies in the US.

The ramifications of Citizens United were immediate and far-reaching. In the first congressional elections after the decision, spending by outside entities soared to $309.8 million from $69.6 million in the previous cycle. The political playing field saw a deluge of “dark money,” funds from undisclosed donors funneled through non-profit organizations, jumping from $129 million before Citizens United to $963 million the decade after.

---

Outside spending to influence federal elections has since topped $9 billion, a new OpenSecrets analysis found. More than $2.6 billion of that comes from unknown sources, with secretly-funded nonprofits accounting for over $1 billion of the outside spending reported to the Federal Election Commission since the 2010 cycle.

OpenSecrets.org

---

The corporate hand extends beyond campaign finance, permeating various facets of political and social life:

Campaign Contributions: For instance, in 2010, Target Corporation found itself in hot water after donating $150,000 to a political group supporting a gubernatorial candidate opposed to same-sex marriage, triggering a public boycott.

Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs: Sheldon Adelson’s company, Las Vegas Sands, made headlines in 2012 by contributing $20 million to a Super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign.

Lobbying: Amazon’s lobbying bill of $14.4 million in 2018, aimed at issues like federal regulation of online sales tax, showcases how corporate giants attempt to shape legislation in their favor. Here is how some of that money was spent in 2022:

Astroturfing: The scandal surrounding the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity in 2009, where letters opposing the cap-and-trade bill were falsely sent to members of Congress under minority organizations’ names, unveiled the murky waters of corporate astroturfing.

Think Tanks and Research Funding: Purdue Pharma’s funding for research and advocacy that downplayed the addiction risks of OxyContin shed light on how corporations could manipulate public perception and policy.

Revolving Door Politics: The transition of Billy Tauzin from Congress to the head of PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, epitomizes revolving door politics.

Corporate Advertising and PR Campaigns: Chevron’s “We Agree” campaign, aimed at improving its environmental image amidst criticisms over oil spills, reflects corporate endeavors to shape public opinion.

Direct Legal Action: The 2007 lawsuit by a coalition of automakers, including General Motors, against California’s greenhouse gas emissions standards exemplifies corporate legal action against regulatory measures.

Trade Associations: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, representing various corporate interests.

Educational and Advocacy Campaigns: Facebook’s funding for digital literacy campaigns, aimed at combating misinformation while facing criticism over its handling of fake news, underscores corporate involvement in public discourse.

Employment of Former Government Officials: Raytheon’s hiring of former military officials, leveraging their governmental connections to secure defense contracts, demonstrates a symbiotic relationship between corporations and government.

These examples punctuate the narrative of a rising corpocracy, painting a picture of a political landscape significantly molded by corporate interests. The statistics are telling—a Gallup poll reflected a sentiment among 62% of Americans who wish to see less corporate influence on government. Moreover, the discord between corporate interests and public opinion is often glaring, as seen in cases where corporate lobbying efforts contradict the stated values of the companies involved.

Delving into the dichotomy of corporate financial influence, it is crucial to weigh both its merits and demerits within the socio-political fabric of the nation.

Corporations promise their political spending will bring jobs and spark innovation. But is that just a PR spin? There are some potential benefits – corporate cash can fund research and partnerships tackling public challenges. And companies do have useful expertise.

But let’s get real. Those sunny corporate promises usually come with some serious downsides. Companies that buy political influence typically rig the rules to benefit themselves, not average people. Just look at the army of corporate lobbyists pushing for tax loopholes and weak regulations that boost profits at the public’s expense. Over time, this corrosive cash turns democracy into a system that serves the rich and tramples the poor and middle class. Unsurprisingly, as corporate political spending soars, economic inequality reaches new extremes.

So, sure, corporate cash provides some advantages on paper. But the real-world impact is a political system warped to favor wealthy companies over ordinary people. Before believing the corporate PR spin, consider who benefits and who loses out when corporations spend big money on politics. The public interest should come before private profits.

We’ve seen unchecked corporate influence lead to corruption before. During the Gilded Age, powerful Robber Barons bought off politicians, fueling inequality and exploitation. In recent decades, Brazil has faced scandals involving kickbacks to politicians from its state-run oil company, Petrobras. South Africa, too, has grappled with widespread bribery schemes between government officials and corporate executives.

Post-WWII Japan also provides a cautionary tale. While close collaboration between corporations and the government drove rapid economic growth, it enabled serious corruption. Politicians in Japan became unresponsive to the broader public’s needs.

The message is clear: corporate money in politics demands vigilance. Reasonable oversight and transparency can temper the downsides. Corporate involvement can spur innovation, but guardrails are vital. Without checks on power, greed overrides the public interest.

We must learn from the past. Citizens worldwide have seen unrest grow when the wealthy few steer the ship. Robust civic engagement and ethical reforms are vital to ensuring politics works for all. If we stay informed and active, we can create a system driven by service, not greed.

The narrative of a rising corpocracy is not just a story of numbers but also systemic shifts. The marriage between corporate power and political influence has led to a scenario where policy outcomes often tilt in favor of corporate interests, be it in tax policy, environmental regulations, or trade agreements.

The debate around corpocracy is far from over. While proponents of the current system argue that the checks and balances inherent in the US government structure provide a counterweight to corporate influence, critics say that the scale of corporate influence undermines the democratic ethos of the nation. This tug-of-war between corporate interests and democratic principles continues to shape the political narrative, raising fundamental questions about the future trajectory of the American political system.

So, in conclusion, your vote elects your member of Congress… but does your member’s vote represent you or their donors? Track it at opensecrets.org!

This is how the current Supreme Court wants the country’s governance, and the only way to change this is to vote for a POTUS that may have the opportunity to appoint a new set of justices who would be able to turn Citizens United around and give the power back to the people. By the way, here is who voted in favor of Citizens United: