Some corporate mission statements are now guided by words like “globalism” and “environment” rather than those of the business they’re in, or even traditional focuses such as shareholders, profit, and growth. Let’s get back to our roots and let “We the People” make the political rules.
Glenn Greenwald writes at his blog on Substack:
Large corporations have obviously witnessed the success of this tactic — to prettify the face of militarism and imperialism with the costumes of social justice — and are now weaponizing it for themselves. As a result, they are becoming increasingly aggressive in their involvement in partisan and highly politicized debates, always on the side of the same causes of social justice which entities of imperialism and militarism have so effectively co-opted.
Corporations have always sought to control the legislative process and executive branch, usually with much success. They purchase politicians and their powerful aides by hiring them as lobbyists and consultants when they leave government, and those bought-and-paid-for influence-peddlers then proceed to exploit their connections in Washington or state capitals to ensure that laws are written and regulations enforced (or not enforced) to benefit the corporations’ profit interests. These large corporations achieve the same goal by filling the campaign coffers of politicians from both parties. This is standard, age-old K Street sleaze that allows large corporations to control American democracy at the expense of those who cannot afford to buy this influence.
But they are now going far beyond clandestine corporatist control of the government for their own interests. They are now becoming increasingly powerful participants in highly polarizing and democratic debates. In the wake of the George Floyd killing last summer, it became virtually obligatory for every large corporation to proclaim support for the #BlackLivesMatter agenda even though many, if not most, had never previously evinced the slightest interest in questions of racial justice or policing.
One of the very few companies that refused to do so was the Silicon Valley-based cryptocurrency exchange platform called Coinbase — which announced that it would remain apolitical and not involve itself in partisan debates or causes of social justice unrelated to its core business mission. When announcing that policy of political neutrality, the company’s co-founder Brian Armstrong explained that “the reason is that while I think these efforts are well intentioned, they have the potential to destroy a lot of value at most companies, both by being a distraction, and by creating internal division.” That once-anodyne announcement — to stay out of politics as a corporate entity — produced instant backlash. And exactly two months after, the notoriously censorious and politicized “tech reporters” of The New York Times punished the company for its heresy of neutrality with a lengthy article depicting Coinbase as a bastion of racism and toxic bigotry (the company was also savaged by journalists because of its audacity to reveal and respond to the NYT’s allegations in advance of the paper’s decision to publish).
Action Line: The Biden Treasury, headed by Janet Yellen doesn’t want states to think in the best interests of their “shareholders” (citizens) either. Upon the passage of the administration’s COVID stimulus bill, states were told they couldn’t use the money to cut taxes. Obviously, that is punishing to states that have worked hard to attain fiscal responsibility, and a direct infringement on the 10th Amendment rights of the states. Kate Davidson reports in The Wall Street Journal:
A last-minute provision added to the $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package last month is leading to a showdown between states and the Treasury Department over the limits of the federal government’s fiscal authority.
The package, known as the American Rescue Plan, provided $195 billion for state governments to help offset soaring costs related to the pandemic and plug budget holes stemming from the economic downturn. Democrats added one important condition: States cannot use the money, directly or indirectly, to cut taxes.
Republican lawmakers and attorneys general argued the provision, which would apply for three years, is overly vague, unconstitutional and would unfairly penalize states in good fiscal health. Five states have filed lawsuits seeking an injunction against the provision—the first hearing is scheduled for the end of the month—and Republicans in Congress have introduced legislation to repeal it.
Meanwhile, state officials and tax-policy experts are pressing Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to clarify how broadly her agency will interpret the legislation, and what will happen to states that run afoul of the law. The need for guidance is urgent for many states that must complete their budgets before the fiscal year begins on July 1.
E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy
Latest posts by E.J. Smith - Your Survival Guy (see all)
- Survive and Thrive October 2022: Sink Your Teeth into These Bond Yields - October 1, 2022
- What You Start to See Is a Death Spiral - September 30, 2022
- Why Your State Doesn’t Need an Income Tax - September 30, 2022
- Biden, Harris, Obama and Democracy? - September 30, 2022
- Get Off the Investment Roller Coaster: Have a Plan - September 29, 2022