The Social Contract and the U.S. Government
It’s the 303rd birthday of political philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (pictured), best known for his 1762 masterpiece The Social Contract, the central point of which is that a government is legitimate to the degree that is exists via the consent of the governed. This is one of the guiding principles in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as well as the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 of which reads: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”
This makes today a good time to think about the concept of “the will of the people” and ask ourselves: OK, what do we want? It’s a question that has many dozens of equally good answers: a cleaner environment, better public education, universal access to healthcare, equal justice for all, a cessation of military aggression, etc.
Yet regardless of your particular answer, consider this: the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision “Citizens United,” granting corporations the right to spend as much as they wish to control the outcomes of our elections, is the law of the land–and as long as that’s the case, your answer to the question posed above is meaningless. You and I can want anything we want from our government, and it simply doesn’t matter.
Fortunately, this is not lost on the average American; people of all political persuasions are rightfully infuriated. As I wrote previously:
No one around here seems to be giving up….. (and) the U.S. is actually fairly close to passing a measure that will put a spear through Citizens United. (A reader) notes: “In Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Montana and Florida, citizens voted overwhelmingly yesterday for their legislators to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.”
It’s true, and it’s equally so in both “red” and “blue” states. As I quoted last year, Montana voters also supported Initiative I-166, which endorsed a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, by a 74.8 percent margin. In Colorado, voters endorsed a similar ballot initiative, Proposition 65, with 73.8 percent of the vote. Voters in more than 120 cities and towns in Oregon, Colorado, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Massachusetts and California passed similar measures. Public opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose Citizens United and believe that corporations, and corporate money, have too much influence in politics.
My prediction: Citizens United will be relegated to history by the time we celebrate Rousseau’s 305th birthday—and it’s all because we, the governed, actually do care about the nature of the government that we have put into place.
Thank you ☆
Others might want to check out http://www.wolf-pac.com/. Cenk Yugur has been pretty fired up on this subject.
Yes, and this is utterly fantastic. To see the people of our nation rise up and demand a change here is breath-taking. Cynics say the people are too stupid and apathetic to make this happen; they’re in the process of being proven wrong. Thanks very much for this, Randy.
It is the VOTERS who determine the outcome of elections. Large corporations cannot FORCE voters to vote a certain way. Granted that corporations can change the outcome of elections by spending huge amounts of money to influence voters, but that is just as much the fault of voters to allow themselves to be influenced by expensive political campaigns as it is the fault of corporations for spending huge amounts of money on political campaigns. We must never forget the FACT that ultimately, it is the VOTERS, not corporations, who determine the outcome of elections.
Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, but if so, it is only because voters permit themselves to be unduly influenced by the mindless repetition and propaganda that accompany expensive political campaigns. But consider how difficult it is to amend the constitution; perhaps it will never be amended.
While waiting for a possible constitutional amendment that may never occur, there are other things we can do. We can enact laws so that before and after each political announcement, there is a clear statement of who is funding it. Moreover, the statement should not simply name a dummy organization; it should realistically state the source of the funds.
We also need better education. Our schools should include good civics classes which, among other things, teach students how to think logically and how people are influenced by various propaganda techniques. If these classes are well taught, they will reduce the extent to which people are influenced by political propaganda.
To summarize, we should not put all our hopes on enacting a constitutional amendment considering that there are also other things we can do to reduce the influence resulting from spending huge amounts of money on political propaganda.
In the meantime, there may be ways of at least keeping the companies reasonably honest in the evidence they present when lobbying!
Fraud according to Wikipedia
In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain. Fraud is both a civil wrong (i.e., a fraud victim may sue the fraud perpetrator to avoid the fraud and/or recover monetary compensation) and a criminal wrong (i.e., a fraud perpetrator may be prosecuted and imprisoned by governmental authorities). The purpose of fraud may be monetary gain or other benefits, such as obtaining a drivers license by way of false statements.[1]
Perjury
Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one’s age except where age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.
Perjury is considered a serious offence as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under Federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years.[2] The California Penal Code allows for perjury to be a capital offense in cases causing wrongful execution. However prosecutions for perjury are rare.[3] In some countries such as France and Italy, suspects cannot be heard under oath or affirmation and thus cannot commit perjury, regardless of what they say during their trial.
Racketeering
Traditionally, obtaining or extorting money illegally or carrying on illegal business activities, usually by Organized Crime . A pattern of illegal activity carried out as part of an enterprise that is owned or controlled by those who are engaged in the illegal activity. The latter definition derives from the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corruption Organizations Act (RICO), a set of laws (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. [1970]) specifically designed to punish racketeering by business enterprises.
Where companies deliberately set out to deceive congressional hearings, and other official bodies about matters such as climate change, or the costs of renewable energy by blatantly cherry picking data or knowingly using out of date information in order to further their own financial gain, then perhaps there might be cases to answer in regards to fraud. perjury, or even in the case of an organised conspiracy, racketeering.
Wow, this is terrific–and you’re not even an American!
I normally don’t write with exclamation points, but you never cease to amaze me….
garyt1963
The problem you seem to be encountering, is that the law doesn’t enforce your particular ideology or philosophy.
The US like most modern democracies, allows a measure of “free speech” and freedom to disseminate political or philosophic ideas.
Corporations, like any organizations, are free to disseminate information in the public arena. They are also entitled to advocate or argue any theory, or concept in the public domain. That’s freedom of opinion.
Anyone, be it private individual or organization, also entitled to advance any interpretation of information, or conclusion, before any court or congressional hearing. Being wrong, or even inaccurate, is not an offense.
The willful concealment of pertinent or relevant material in their possession, especially if part of a conspiracy, can be an offense, but not if part of an honest held belief.
Just because you don’t like the information supplied by corporations, or agree with their projections, interpretations or conclusions, doesn’t make them guilty of anything,.. except not agreeing with you what is relevant or pertinent !
If their actions do indeed cause harm, then they should be held accountable, including as subject to the offenses that Gary listed.
Hiring a scientist to say that tobacco smoke is safe it’s definitely fraud. Thus hiring scientists to say that excess co2 in the air can not cause problems is also fraud, because it is a proven fact that co2 is an infrared absorber.
Spending huge sums of money to influence ANY governmental process should also be declared illegal. They can spend their money for commercials but if scientifically false statements are included, they should be prosecuted for fraud. Just as it should be against the law to allow for any “science” info that is not based on known principles without the asterisk at top of page (detailing below that this is all just for intertainment, etc).
imaging if a drug company was allowed to say that the more aspirins, the better. That’s basically what the fossil fuel industry is saying.
@ fireofenergy
Hiring a scientist to say anything, isn’t necessarily fraud. Any “fraud ” would be the responsibility of the scientist.
However, hiring a scientist whose opinions are sincerely held, but disputed or unpopular, even by a large number of peers is certainly not fraud ! Most great scientific discoveries were contrary to ” known principles “.
Free speech, must be free. Once you start to qualify the quality of freedom to suit yourself, you start closing off public debate. You also start qualifying who should be allowed to express opinions, “protecting” those ” weak willed ” or “easily influenced ” citizens from exposure to “wrong” ideas.
Before you realize, there is no more free speech and that’s okay, until you find that your own opinions are now unpopular and censored !
Isn’t it better to allow everyone, and all organizations, to freely express opinions, no matter if you don’t agree with their content ? Corporations can spend a lot of money, because government decisions can cost them, and the economy, a lot of money.
Just spending money doesn’t guarantee success.
No system of political life will ever be entirely “fair” or “equal”, the best society can achieve is where citizens have access to the widest divergence of opinions. That means tolerance and respect for all opinions, and trust in the commonsense of your fellow citizen.
I don’t have a problem with members of the general public presenting inaccurate anecdotes in good faith, or scientists holding unorthodox views, however I do consider that expert witnesses should be held to account and required to use their expertise with integrity.
For example, I can think of an instance in the last few weeks where an expert witness testifying to a state committee chose to use costings for renewable energy from 2008.
Surely an expert can reasonably be expected to source the most accurate and current information available in such a case? This is especially so where current information differs substantially from that which is out of date.
The fact that the so called expert has a clear interest in presenting the costs of renewable energy as being high, and that by convincing the state committee of this, companies in the renewable industries will lose out to incumbent fossil based energy industries is in my view conspiracy fraud.
@ Gary1963
Again Gary, just because the expert has elected to represent his interpretation or analysis, doesn’t mean it’s fraudulent. It’s a matter of opinion. Other experts can be called to rebut or even refute his testimony.
I disagree with other analysts as to the costs of renewable energy. That doesn’t mean they are dishonest, or even grossly inaccurate. Nor does it mean that I’m inaccurate or “fraudulent”, it simply means that we interpret data differently.
An experts testimony must be considered in entirety and context. Most hearings provide for the calling of more than one ‘expert’. Even where an expert is biased or prejudiced, it doesn’t mean the witness is necessarily dishonest or corrupt. Lacking in objectivity may be a bit disreputable, but not necessarily dishonest.
Sadly, it’s my experience that experts representing Renewable Energy industries, are for more unreliable, than those from the fossil fuel industry. What’s worse, they often believe that presenting inaccurate of even blatantly false material can be justified as the end justifies the means !
In the end, it’s just part of the imperfection of human beings.
@ garyt1963
Gary, it’s difficult to discuss individual examples in a generalized context. I think everyone agrees that the testimony of experts witnesses should be objective, accurate, and unbiased.
But even experts are subject to human.error and bias. Equally, those opposed to the conclusions of expert testimony, often focus on a minor error, anomaly, or fact taken out of context, in an attempt to discredit the whole conclusion.
Even at it’s best, expert evidence is not perfect. All evidence and opinion is open to interpretation or with the passage of time, rendered obsolete by new developments.
I share your exasperation with experts using invalid, out of date, or speculative information to support biased conclusions.
Partly true Marcopolo especially if referring to the total system cost of generating transmitting and integrating renewables where there is clear margin for honest disagreement, however what is not open to question is the contract prices paid to developers for solar or wind power, and the gross amount paid to the developers including the value of federal and state incentives.
Any argument is about factors such as the value to be placed on such power given its intermittancy, and the hidden cost of extra transmission capacity, and extra flexibility at traditional plants to balance out intermittent supplies.
If I was called upon to advise on the cost of a computer of a particular specification and chose to base my costings on the selling price of models of the required specification as found on the market in 2008, then I would clearly be seen as inflating the cost thereof given the improvements in cost and specification seen more recently.
All I am saying is that the same applies to renewables where for example the average selling price of a solar panel has fallen dramatically in recent years so that basing costs on the selling price of solar panels years ago gives a similarly nonsensical result.
The time has come for a major shift for our dysfunctional government. I think our best hope is to elect Bernie Sanders President. He has consistently stood up for the real people for several decades. Here is a video from 2003 of him telling Allan Greenspan that he is on the wrong track. History has proven him right.
https://youtu.be/WJaW32ZTyKE
Thanks, Tom. I think Bernie is terrific, FWIW. I’m delighted to see so many people getting on board.
It is only THEROETICALLY the VOTERS who determine the outcome of elections. People are gullible and when indoctrinated over and over as they sit in a mindless stupor before their TV sets, whatever they see they believe because they become brainwashed and that has been proven and that is why the fat cat corporate types spend billions on advertising just before elections.
You may not believe me but all that money would not be spent if what I say isn’t true…
You’re 100% correct on this, Les. The idea that advertisement doesn’t work is clearly false.
Craig,
Think for a moment about the comment you just endorsed.
You are agreeing that the majority of the electorate, (your fellow citizens) are so lacking in intelligence, that an advertisement can “brainwash” them, but not affect superior intellects like Les Blevins or yourself ?
Really ?
Do you have that much contempt for the perceptiveness of your fellow citizen ? Isn’t more likely, that the sort of advertisement that works, only reinforces the already formed opinion of voters, or appeals to those who are that way inclined ?
But if you truly believe that your fellow citizen, and voter, is so weak willed and irresponsible, the next logical step would be to eliminate their vote, since it’s clearly not valid.
But tell me, just who appointed Les Blevins, or any other, to decide the legitimacy of how any citizen chooses to vote ?
I have read a series of articles that suggest that intelligence is not a proof against being fooled. There are techniques involved in convincing others. Corporations pay people to employ those techniques. The average citizen today is unlikely to have studied the same techniques which were part of a classical education but not as likely part of modern schooling. The study was known a rhetoric. Its modern adaptation is advertising.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140316133840.htm
http://discovermagazine.com/2010/oct/13-why-are-smart-people-the-most-gullible
http://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/7-reasons-even-really-smart-people-can-be-fooled-by-liars.html
@ Craig and Breath on the Wind,
Advertizing is just another form of mass communication. All communication from the old stump box politicians speech to the noblest statesman greatest speech, is a type of propaganda.
Even the great authors, Shakespeare included, wrote propaganda. Propaganda is opinion, the very essence of political life.
That’s why the founding fathers of the US constitution believed the right to free speech was the most important of the rights to be safeguarded.
Attempts to qualify or place limitations on free speech always end badly. These attempts are always based on the twin concepts that some speakers and some listeners, are somehow inferior, and must be prevented, or protected by a wiser elite.
Defenders of free speech are widely diverse group, often free speech and respect for the rights of all individuals is their only common bond.
Marcopolo whilst I am broadly in agreement that free speech is a valuable right, I would not take an absolute position on it.
Most European countries place limitations of free speech – such as the ban in Germany and Austria on Holocaust denial. Australia prohibited the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the prophet Muhammed on the grounds that they would incite hatred.
Even the US does not allow slander though it does seem to allow some hate speech that would be prohibited in other countries.
@ garyt1963
Yes, the US does have the most clearly defined and widest laws regarding free speech.
Certainly, other nations do not go as far in the name of liberty. Personally, repugnant as I find the motives of those who question the evidence of the holocaust or other historical programs, I don’t believe that restricting free speech is any solution.
Even the United States places some limits on free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr In the 1917 case Schenck v. United States, used the example of free speech not giving some the right mischievously cry “Fire! ” in a crowded theatre.
Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (1948) states :
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers .
Australia didn’t ban the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, but there was discussion of whether publication could breach 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act . This argument is valid in a broad sense, although in the case of Charlie Hebdo, the exemptions contained in section 18D of the Act, probably make prosecution very unlikely.
Obviously, free expression must have some safeguards.
I find myself in the curious position of being a conservative, defending the right to free expression against a rising tide of leftist opinion, demanding a curtailment on free speech in case someone, organization or group, might be offended.
I still hold to the principle that Free Speech, is only Free when it offends !
I call my mother every few days and we sometimes talk about 2GreenEnergy, which she reads regularly. Last night she mentioned that she sometimes has issues with my posts that are “tangential” to the basic notion of renewable energy. I think I may be in trouble with her on this one….. 🙂
Craig,
At times you seem to hanker for a simple life. The life pursue perhaps by an agrarian village, where honest yeomen tilled the land and shopped in a collective store, elected church elders and a parish council. Pleasentville 1800.
But in reality, no such place existed !
Like many Americans, you romanticize the motives of the US founding fathers. You certainly have a wildly romantic view of Rousseau. Rousseau spent most of his life disputing what he had previously written. His metal heath and moral character, often descended into bouts of squalor, chaos, and paranoid delusions.
He produced five children, whom he gave to orphanages, not because he was poor, but because they inconvenienced his lifestyle. None of the children made it to adulthood due to maltreatment.
Even his philosophies were contradictory. In one set of writings he advocated a well organized Militia, private wealth and civic responsibility, while at another period he advocated:
” The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said ‘This is mine’, and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody “.
( Rousseau held this view because he had never been a farmer, or worked in agriculture) .
Like the founding fathers, Rousseau’s reputation is based on sanitized (and sometimes improved) excerpts of his work, than what he actually wrote !
Perhaps the most honest of the catch cries of US founding fathers, was;
” No Taxation, Without Representation ! ”
Well,… corporations pay tax !
Modern representative government must allow all interested parties to take part in the political life of the nation. If restrict one group, you must restrict all others.
Corporations, represent the interests of their employees and shareholders. Just as Trade Unions, Sierra Club, ACLA, ASPCA, NAACP, AMA, Audubon Society, and a thousand others groups represent their members, as a collective voice.
In a nation where often less than 39 % of citizens can be bothered to vote, it seems pointless to fret about the influence of those groups who do take an interest in the body politic.
Corporations are citizens without votes. Corporations pay tax, are subject to civil and even criminal sanctions. Corporation undertake work of civic responsibility and support philanthropy, contribute to national defence, represent the nation abroad.
In the time of the founding fathers, these responsibilities would have qualified them for citizenship ! 🙂
The modern world is no longer a small village, it’s made up of many complex and conflicting ideas and organizations. Representative government, must be a broad church with a place at the table for all.
You may cry out for the right of corporations to partake in political life to be restricted, tomorrow I may demand the end of trade unions to be restricted, someone else may argue that Greenpeace should be banned, the Automobile Association, is too influential and just a front for motorists and car companies.
Most importantly, let’s change the First Amendment, to allow free speech for only certain groups ! ( the ones who agree with us !).
It doesn’t matter whether “corporations” “societies” or private individuals, partake in the political life of the nation, just spending money doesn’t win elections,( or Pres Obama wouldn’t be President ).
Isn’t it more important that freedom of speech and political life be free ? Any attempt to “qualify” or restrict any participant, will result in unintended and negative consequences.
marcopolo, you say that corporations do not vote, that is true only in the most literal sense. They do indeed vote in the most effective sense in that their money buys influence and thereby sets governmental policy… in effect, voting behind the scenes. They also, in the case of for-profit enterprises (by their very charter and the demands of shareholders), put profit above the wellness of their people and our planet, with very few exceptions.
@ Farallon5
Well, it’s true that corporations, like other organizations, influence government policy. It’s also true that they are not purely altruistic institutions.
But corporations are made up of people, and behave from the same sort of self-interested motives as the rest of population. Just because you hold conflicting views or philosophies doesn’t mean that you should exclude any person or organization, holding conflicting views from taking part in influencing government or community policy.
An individual voter, can express his opinion or believe in his particular philosophy, without any real responsibility, or be called to account for the outcome of negative results on others.
Corporations, have the responsibility of the economic welfare of thousands of employees, and even national prosperity. Their decisions can mean the very existence of communities.
Within their ranks are the experts, engineers and scientists, society needs to survive and implement beneficial government policies.
The worst, the most environmentally destructive societies were those where corporate power was government controlled.
The very nature of free corporate life is competition. This ensures a wide range of divergent ideas being circulated. That’s part of living in a free society.
Though you and I don’t agree on too much with respect to political philosophy, I honestly enjoying reading your comments. And, as you’ve seen, I take them quite seriously; I use them as the foundations for many of my posts. What’s more, I’m constantly learning from you, e.g., your comments about the neuroses of Rousseau.
The only real favor I ask: cut back on your use of commas. You’re extravagant in this arena, but it goes beyond extravagance when you separate the subject of a sentence from its predicate, as in the above: “An individual voter, can express his opinion”….. and “Corporations, have the responsibility of”
Actually, I can live with all this. Please…. carry on.
It’s a fair point regarding the over use of commas. Despite all my years in Australia, I still write in an English tradition of long sentences broken by commas, instead of the shorter sentences of Australians or Americans.
It’s also noticeable in the hesitant, almost apologetic, speech pattern of a certain type of privately educated English people. I’ll certainly try to be more sparing with comma’s !
I don’t think we are so very different. Political and philosophic debate is really only possible between those in the tolerant centre. At the extremes, no exchange of opinion or compromise is possible.
Where we differ, is I believe that no progress is possible without regard for the considerations of the general economy. I don’t regard the fossil fuel corporations as the enemy, but potential allies. The introduction of any new technology can’t be so disruptive that the general economy collapses.
Like ethanol, many of the new technologies that attract ardent supporters demanding radical change, will prove to be of only marginal or limited value. (Some, like US ethanol, will even prove counter-productive).
Americans are great crusaders. It baffles well meaning Americans when others don’t accept American values.
From my training as both financial analyst and lawyer, I have learned to objectively examine every aspect of any theory. To argue both sides of every issue. I am indebted to the great American, Benjamin Franklin for his method of assessing how to make decisions.
Craig, I believe we are both hopeful that through our efforts, we will leave our children a better world.
Well, you’re undeniably correct that “no progress is possible without regard for the considerations of the general economy.” This, btw, is why I’m so excited to be involved with all this cleantech stuff: it’s destined to become the defining industry in the 21st Century as our species is forced to confront the environment hole it’s dug for itself.
And yes, Franklin was a similarly a pragmatist.
Yes it’s important that freedom of speech be free, meaning no money involved, only speech.
Arm waving though should probably be allowed.
Corporations undertake work of global destruction and call it civic responsibility, and crow about a token support of philanthropy, engage in war profiteering and call it contributing to national defense, and represent the nation with the poorest of capitalistic images abroad.
Ignoring the Constitution and breaking the Constitution agreements and laws is illegal. People who do illegal things are Criminals. They can label themselves Kings, Queens, Supreme Court or whatever the hell but it doesn’t matter. It is illegal and they are Criminals so treat them as such and money shouldn’t be necessary to arrest a Criminal. A bit of Kiwi logic and advice. Dennis J. Paul
While it’s always good to hear from New Zealanders, Denis, the NZ Constitution Act makes no mention of electoral financing arrangements.
New Zealand like many Commonwealth nations, is a Constitutional Monarchy, and “Kings and Queens” have no political, executive or administrative role in government.
The New Zealand Supreme Court is the Court of final appeal established by the Supreme Court Act 2004. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Laws of NZ.
The system is very different to the US, as the NZ constitution is only an act of Parliament, and can be changed by legislative action, not plebiscite referendum.
The principle of Corporate Citizenship, is well defined in NZ law for over 130 years.
Craig, I too have learned to enjoy reading marcopolo’s comments – same as I enjoy reading Donald Trump’s comments.