-Caveat Lector-
from:
Elite Deviance (Fifth Edition)
David R. Simon
Allyn & Bacon(C) 1996,1993,1990,1986,1982
A Simon & Schuster Company
Needham Heights, Massachusetts 02194
ISBN 0-205-16460-9
-----
An interesting book. Here is a taste.
Om
K
--[1b]--
The Political Elite
Aside from the economic elite, the nation also possesses a political elite.
The political elite, to a significant extent, overlaps with yet is independent
from the economic elite. The corporate managers, owners (superrich individuals
and families), and directors are, for the most part, members of the U.S. upper
class. Membership in the upper class is typically measured by such indicators
as (1) having one's name in the Social Register, an exclusive list of
influential persons published in major U.S. cities and containing the names of
about 138,000 persons; (2) attendance at elite private secondary schools and
universities; (3) membership in exclusive social clubs and annual attendance
at upper-class vacation retreats (e.g., Bohemian Grove, Pacific Union Club,
Knickerbocker Club); and, of course, (4) seats on boards of the largest,
interlocked corporations.[57]
The political elite differs from the corporate or economic elite in that it
includes persons occupying "key federal government positions in the executive
(presidential), judicial (the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts), and
legislative (congressional) branches [and] ... the top command positions in
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines."[58] Numerous studies reveal that the
political elite is composed of persons from both the upper-middle class (e.g,,
lawyers, small businesspeople, doctors, farmers, educators, and other
professionals) and the upper class. The upper class tends to dominate the
federal branch of the government, while upper-middle class professionals make
up the preponderance of the legislative branch. A study of presidential
cabinets, from McKinley to Nixon, examining the degree to which cabinet heads
were recruited from the ranks of big business, indicated that, from 1897 to
1973, big business supplied from 60 percent (under McKinley) to 95.7 percent
(under Nixon) of presidential cabinet members.[59]
Another study found that 63% of the secretaries of state, 62% of the
secretaries of defense, and 63% of the treasury secretaries have been members
of the national upper class.[60] A few examples of the members of the power
elite include:
o John Foster Dulles, secretary of state from 1953-1960. Before his
appointment he was senior partner in a prestigious law firm, Sullivan and
Cromwell, and sat on the boards of numerous corporations: Bank of New York,
American Bank Note Co., United Railroad, International Nickel of Canada,
American Cotton Oil Co., and European Textile Corp. Dulles was also a trustee
of leading civic organizations: the New York Public Library, the Rockefeller
Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His brother,
Allen, was director of the CIA (1953-1961), and was a member of the Warren
Commission, the panel set up by President Johnson to investigate the
assassination of President Kennedy.
o Alexander Haig, secretary of state in 1981-1982 is currently president of
United Technologies Corporation, a major defense contractor. Haig is a former
four-star U.S. Army General, former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in
Europe; former assistant to President Nixon, former deputy commander of the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, and former deputy secretary of defense.
He is the man most responsible for the terms set down in the pardon of
President Nixon following the Watergate scandal.
Corporate position has rarely been better represented in government than it is
by the secretary of the treasury:
George Bush's treasury secretary, Nicholas Brady, was a former chairman of
Dillon Read & Co., a major Wall Street investment firm, and member of the
board of directors of Purolator, National Cash Register, Georgia
International, and Media General.
Jimmy Carter's treasury head, Michael Blumenthal, was president of the Bendix
Corporation; former vice president of Crown Cork Co; trustee of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
President Clinton promised the American people a cabinet that looks like
America, meaning there would be more women and minorities. However, he did not
promise us a cabinet that resembled America's social class makeup. President
Clinton has appointed more millionaires to cabinet posts than Reagan and
Bush.[61] Among the examples:
o Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, champion of tax breaks for corporations
during his senate career: 89 percent of Bentsen's $2.5 million campaign funds
in his last senate bid came from corporate PACs. Bentsen's personal worth
exceeds $10 million, and he possesses holdings in a number of businesses in
Texas. His deputy secretary, Roger Altman, comes from a Wall Street investment
firm, Blackstone Group. This company has been involved in the four largest
U.S. acquisitions made by Japanese firms, including Sony's takeover of
Columbia Pictures and CBS Records.
o Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, former head of the Democratic National
Committee, hails from an elite law firm, Patton, Boggs, and Blow. Brown has
represented many major corporations, including Japan Airlines and American
Express, and his firm represents such clients as Mutual Life Insurance, New
York Life, and the former dictator of Haiti, "Baby Doc" Duvalier.
o U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, law partner in Manatt, Phelps,
Phillips, & Kantor, which has represented Occidental Petroleum, ARCO, Martin
Marietta, and Philip Morris tobacco company. Mr. Kantor represented tobacco
industry groups trying to prevent passage of a smokefree restaurant bill in
Beverly Hills, California.
o Secretary of State Warren Christopher, lawyer from O'Melveny and Meyers
represented Exxon oil corporation in its pollution of Prince William Sound,
Alaska. He also represented E. F. Hutton after its checkfloating scandal in
which Hutton took advantage of the lag between the time checks were written
and the time they actually cleared, earning millions in extra interest.
Christopher has also served on the boards of Southern California Edison,
Lockheed, United Airlines, Banker's Trust (New York), Occidental Petroleum,
and Japan's Fuji Bank and Mitsubishi Corporation.
Thus, it makes little difference whether the White House is run by Republicans
or Democrats; those who run the government largely tend to come from corporate
backgrounds, and share remarkably similar educational and cultural experiences
and affiliations.
In the 99th Congress, 251 members were lawyers (the most common profession),
and the next largest share were in business, especially service industries
(publishing, broadcasting, and real estate). Fifty members spent all or part
of their careers in education, and thirty were in communications. Perhaps more
important is legislators' economic status:
An estimated one-third of all senators were millionaires, and two-thirds of
all senators supplemented their salaries with outside incomes of $20,000 or
more. The House [was] more middle class economically speaking, but ... at
least 30 of their members are millionaires, and more than 100 report incomes
of $20,000 or more annually beyond their congressional salaries.[62]
While it is true that economic power and state or government power are
interlinked, they are not related in a conspiratorial fashion. This is an
important point because a number of people who have written on the subjects of
elite power and political corruption do believe in conspiracies.[63] A second
distorted view of the elite has been put forth by certain muckraking
journalists, who hold that, while the state and the upper class are relatively
independent, certain "moral and legal lapses in this independence" occur.[64]
This view purports that the business class gets what it desires from
government by engaging in all manner of corruption, lobbying, and other forms
of illegal or unethical behavior.
The view expressed in this book is that the conspiratorial view of elite
behavior is simplistic. Even though conspiracies do occur from time to time-
and always will-such explanations do a disservice to the complex nature of
elite power and elite deviance.
The conspiratorial view of the elite is unrealistic for a number of reasons.
First, not only are the elite somewhat diverse as to class background, but
they are ideologically diverse, as well. That is, political opinions among
elites range from conservative to social democrat. Although it is true that
the elites agree on the basic rules of politics (i.e., free elections, the
court system, and the rule of law) and believe in the capitalist economic
system, they disagree considerably about such issues as the power of business,
civil rights, welfare, foreign policy, and so on.[65]
Second, elites do not control the federal government because they do not
possess a monopoly of political power. The structure of capitalist society is
such that elite rule is faced with economic and other crises (e.g., inflation,
unemployment, war, racism), which lead nonelite interests to demand changes
consistent with their interests (e.g., unemployment benefits in periods of
high unemployment). As William Chambliss has concluded, "The persistence of
and importance of the conflicts resolved through law necessarily create
occasions where well-organized groups representing [nonelite] class interests
manage to effect important legislation."[66]
Third, the conspiratorial view relating to elites dominating the state through
corruption masks some of the most important unethical patterns that
characterize much of elite deviance. For example, during the hearings
regarding his appointment as Vice-President in the mid-1970s, Nelson
Rockefeller was questioned about his gift-giving habits but was not held
"accountable for the shootings at Attica (prison) or... for the involvement of
Chase Manhattan (bank) in the repressive system of South African racism."[67]
Likewise, the right wing's conspiratorial view of a capitalist elite plotting
to lead the nation into communism hides much of the unethical behavior of
corporations that results as a consequence of the structure of corporate
capitalism itself. As mentioned, about one-third of the economy is dominated
by corporate giants. Such giantism means that, in many manufacturing and
financial industries (e.g., cereals, soups, autos, and tires), a handful of
firms (often four or less) accounts for over half the market in a particular
industry or service. Such situations are often characterized by artificially
high prices due not to secret price-fixing conspiracies but to a practice
known as price leadership. This results when one firm decides to raise prices
on a given product and is then copied by the other major firms in the same
field. One economist estimated that such "monopolistic price distortions cost
the economy $87 billion every year"[68] in inflated prices, and that was in
the mid-1970s. This and other unethical practices considered in detail in this
volume are not accounted for by conspiratorial views of the economy and
government and the linkages between them.
Our position is that it is more fruitful to consider deviance within the
context of the relationships between business and governmental organizations,
the functions performed by government, as well as the internal organizational
structure of both the corporate and political organizations that constitute
the elite sectors of society In sum, we concur with Michael Parenti's view
that "elite power is principally systemic and legitimating rather than
conspiratorial and secretive."[69]
Economy-State Linkages and the Functions of Government
To understand the interrelationships between the economy and the state is to
comprehend how elites attempt to formulate and implement public policy These
interrelationships are based on connections among corporations, large law
firms that represent large corporations, elite colleges and universities, the
mass media, private philanthropic foundations, major research organizations
(think tanks), political parties, and the executive and legislative branches
of the federal government. Key examples of these interlocks of monies,
personnel, and policies are pictured in Figure 1.2.
FIGURE 1-2 The Capitalist Elite-Links among the Ruling Elite
Aside from the major corporations and the federal government, the rest of the
organizations are included for several reasons:
1. The elite 25 universities and colleges control 50 percent of all
educational endowment funds and include some 656 corporate and other elites as
their presidents and trustees. Moreover, only 50 foundations out of 12,000
control 40 percent of all foundation assets.[70] The officers of such
foundations often have experience in elite corporations, educational
institutions, and/or government.
2. The elite civic associations bring together elites from the corporate,
educational, legal, and governmental worlds. Such organizations have been
described as "central coordinating mechanisms in national policy making."[71]
These organizations issue public position papers and investigative reports on
matters of domestic and foreign policy Membership in one or more of these
organizations is sometimes a prerequisite to a high-ranking post within the
executive branch of the federal government.
For example, the majority of the Carter cabinet (including Jimmy Carter
himself) served on the Trilateral Commission prior to assuming office. The
commission was formed by David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of the Chase
Manhattan Bank; heir to the Exxon fortune; graduate of Harvard; member of the
boards of directors of B. F. Goodrich, Rockefeller Bros., Inc., and Equitable
Life Insurance; and trustee of Harvard. Rockefeller is also the chairman of
the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Almost all recent secretaries of
state, including Cyrus Vance and Henry Kissinger, have been CFR members.[72]
3. The mass media is concentrated in that there are three major television and
radio networks-NBC, ABC, and CBS. These networks are also multinational
corporations that own or are owned by other corporations. For example, NBC is
owned by General Electric, a major manufacturer of appliances and weapons
systems components. Controlling shares in the three television networks are
owned by five New York commercial banks-Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty,
Citibank, Bankers Trust, and the Bank of New York.[73]
The media also includes major wire services, Associated Press and United Press
International, from which most national and international news makes its way
into U.S. radio, television, and newspapers. Regarding newspapers and news
weeklies, The Neu? York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek (owned by
The Washington Post), and U.S. News And World Report are regarded as the most
influential publications in their field.[74] Most cable TV networks are also
owned by media conglomerates. One exception is the holdings of Ted Turner,
which include the Cable News Network (CNN), stations WTBS and TNT, and the
Atlanta Braves, Hawks, and Falcons sports teams.
Moreover, the major sponsors of television programs on the three networks are
other large corporations. The media tends to portray deviant behavior as
violent behavior that is perpetrated by poor nonelites. As one recent study
concludes, the crime reported in television news and news magazines includes
kidnappings and particularly gruesome murders. "Ordinary people who carry out
nonviolent crimes or violate the mores rarely appear in national news."[75] On
the other hand,
the economically powerful, such as officers of large corporations and holders
of great wealth, are filmed or written about rarely, and then usually for
reasons having little to do with their economic power primarily when they arc
involved in some conflict with the federal government or are having legal
difficulties.[76]
Overall, the media function to portray crime and deviance as a problem created
by nonelites and to describe corporate capitalism as a system characterized by
competition, freedom, and, while flawed, the best of all existing worlds.[77]
As a Time magazine profile put it:
Plainly capitalism is not working well enough. But there is no evidence to
show the fault is in the system or that there is a better alternative.... For
all its obvious blemishes and needed reforms, capitalism still holds out the
most creative and dynamic force that any civilization has ever discovered: the
power of the free ambitious individual.[78]
Such propagandistic exercises are also characteristic of numerous television
commercials and public service announcements (often prepared by the elite
National Advertising Council) that insist that the oil companies are "working
to keep your trust" or that our "economics quotients" (knowledge about the
U.S. economic system) could stand improvement. Thus, one overall function of
the mass media is to ensure the continuation and growth of the system of
corporate capitalism.
4. Twenty-eight super law firms do much of the legal work for the
corporations, mass media, and educational and civic foundations. In addition,
senior lawyers in such firms often fill posts on various foundations and civic
and educational institutions and from time to time assume various posts within
the executive branch of the federal government. A good example of one such
super lawyer is Paul Warnke, President Carter's chief negotiator in the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Warnke is also a member of the
Trilateral Commission, a director of the CFR, a former assistant secretary of
defense, and partner in a Washington law firm that includes former Defense
Secretary Clark Clifford.[79]
5. Finally, there is a host of elite-related think tanks, primarily research
institutes. In general, these operations receive monies from both public and
private sources, depending on the type of research they do. For example, about
5 percent of the Department of Defense's research and development budget in
the 1960s and early 1970s went to such research organizations.[80] Think tanks
perform a very wide variety of research tasks. For instance, The Rand
Corporation and the Stanford Research Institute (owned by Stanford University
until 1970) are annually awarded about 5 percent of the Pentagon's research
and development budget. The American Enterprise Institute, on the other hand,
is closely allied with the business arm of the American power elite, and the
conservative wing of the Republican party and Southern Democrats. Its
activities primarily involve studies, the end products of which are policy
proposals aimed at enhancing the profitability and power of its corporate
clients.[81]
Item: In the 1970s, new "think tanks," especially The American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation were established and richly
endowed by corporate money The right-wing Heritage Foundation was started with
a $250,000 donation from Colorado beer tycoon Joseph Coors. AEI's patrons
included AT&T ($125,000), Chase Manhattan Bank ($125,000), Exxon ($130,000),
General Electric ($65,000), General Motors ($100,000), and Proctor & Gamble
($165,000). AEI quickly became a "primary source of Washington opinion"
shaping the policy positions of Washington politicians and the mass media.[82]
The American Enterprise Institute and other think tanks also prepare studies
for influential big business lobby groups, such as the National Association of
Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce. In short, think tanks
provide valuable research aid in achieving the policy aims of elites, both
inside and outside of government. Figure 1.2 depicts the structures that
supply personnel, money, and policy to the federal government but does not
describe the processes used by or the benefits sought by elites from the
state. Such means and benefits are important in that, when they are abused,
they constitute forms of elite deviance. These benefits will be discussed in
following sections.
Lobbying
The principle of majority rule is sometimes violated by special interests,
which, by deals, propaganda, and the financial support of political
candidates, attempt to deflect the political process for their own benefit.
Individuals, families, corporations, and various organizations use a variety
of means to obtain numerous benefits from congressional committees, regulatory
agencies, and executive bureaucracies. To accomplish their goals, lobbyists
for the special interests,
along with the slick brochures, expert testimonies, and technical reports,. .
. still have the slush fund, the kickback, the stock award, the high paying
job offer from industry, the lavish parties and prostitutes, the meals
transportation, housing and vacation accommodations, and the many other
hustling enticements of money.[83]
The existence of lobbyists does not ensure that the national interests will be
served or that the concern of all groups will be heard. Who, for example,
speaks for the interests of schoolchildren, minority groups, the poor, people
who are mentally retarded, renters, migrant workers-in short, for the
relatively powerless? And if there is a voice for these people, does it match
the clout of lobbyists backed by the fantastic financial resources of the
elite?
In fairness, it must be stressed that the success of such lobbies is not
ensured:
Big economic interests don't always win. The cargo preference bill was
defeated. So was the 1979 sugar quota. The Consumer Cooperative Bank bill
passed the House by one vote and became law. Sometimes scandal or the weight
of evidence can push Congress in the right direction. And it must be noted
that when a congressman from Michigan votes to bail out Chrysler, or a
congressman from Wisconsin votes for dairy price supports, he is also voting
to benefit his own constituents. This may not favor the public interest, but
it is predictable politics, not personal corruption.... To receive money from
an interest doesn't mean a member of Congress is controlled, per se. There are
indentured politicians and there are principled conservatives-the former
virtually auction their souls to the highest bidder while the latter may truly
believe that the government shouldn't be forcing pharmaceutical firms to pre-
market test their drugs.[84]
Nevertheless, corporate lobbies usually do exert a significant influence.
Financing Political Campaigns
Perhaps one of the most elite-dominated and undemocratic features (at least in
its consequences) of the U.S. political system is a result of the manner in
which campaigns are financed. Political campaigns are expensive, with
statewide campaigns sometimes costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and
national campaigns running into the millions. These monies are raised from
contributions. For example, Nixon received $47.5 million from ninetyfive
persons for his 1972 campaign (including $2 million from W. Clement Stone, an
insurance executive). Such contributions are given for a number of reasons,
including the hope of future favors or payoffs for past benefits.
Between 1983 and 1988, 163 savings and loan (S&L) political action committees
(PACs) gave $11 million to congressional candidates, with donations increasing
42 percent just before the S&L bailout was authorized by Congress." The
campaign donations from the S&L industry resulted in the most massive
financial scandal in U.S. history Members of various S&Ls allowed Democratic
congress members to use S&L-owned yachts for fundraising purposes, and even
paid for one influential congressman's dinners which amounted to $20,000 for a
single year. S&L lobbyists also contributed to the establishment of a business
school for Utah Senator Jake Garn, who coauthored a bill allowing S&Ls to
engage in all manner of questionable financial practices. The final cost to
the public may be over $1 trillion. (See Chapter 2 for details.)
Thus, the passage of favorable laws or the defeat of unfavorable ones may
directly result from the finances of special interests. So, too, may the
special interests receive beneficial governmental rulings and the maintenance
of tax loopholes. Since these investments pay off, it is only rational for the
special interests to donate to the candidates of both parties to ensure that
their interests are served. The result is that the wealthy have power while
the less well-to-do and certainly the poor have little influence on office
holders.[86]
By law, corporations cannot directly contribute any of their funds to
political parties or candidates. However, because corporations apparently find
that political contributions help them, many have contributed to political
campaigns illegally. This can be done either by giving money to employees, who
in turn make individual contributions, or by forcing employees to contribute
to a party or candidate as a condition of employment. Watergate showed that
many companies engaged in fraudulent bookkeeping practices to cover up their
political expenditures.
To counter the potential and real abuses of large contributors, the 1976
presidential campaign was partially financed from public funds; about $20
million was allocated to each of the two major candidates. Congress, however,
refused to provide a similar law for its members or potential members. As a
result, the monies contributed to congressional candidates rose sharply. In
1978, the total gifts from all reporting interest groups to candidates for
Congress was $35 million, compared to $22.6 million in 1976 and only $12.5
million in 1974. The most discussed phenomenon in campaign financing today is
undoubtedly the political action committee, or PAC.
PACs are "nonparty," "multicandidate" political committees that maintain a
separate, segregated fund for political contributions: "nonparty" because they
are set up by interest groups, "multi-candidate~' because they distrib-ute
their largesse to at least five candidates ("political contributions" only; no
charity to be mixed in here).[87]
While some PACs are established by a host of single-issue groups-such as the
National Rifle Association, environmental or antiabortion causes-the vast
majority of PAC money stems from corporate interests. Thus, in the 1981-1982
congressional campaign, corporate PACs spent $50 million of the $83 million
given to candidates, a tenfold increase over the amount given to candidates in
1972. Seven million dollars of that money (over 7 percent) came from oil and
gas interests. The chairs of the House and Senate Energy Committees received
funds from thirty-four and thirty-seven energy PACs, respectively.[88]
PAC money is now far and away the largest source of congressional campaign
funds, with business PAC contributions favoring Republicans over Democrats by
a ratio of two to one. Indeed, in the 1970s, there were about 600 Political
Action Committees (PACs) in Washington. By the 1992 election, there were
4,585, and all but about 365 of these are corporate in nature. "Candidates
have become so dependent on PAC money that they actually visit PAC offices and
all but demand contributions."[89]
The beer distributors' PAC is called six-PAC. There is also a beef-PAC, and an
ice cream-PAC. These PACs may donate up to $5,000 to each congressional
candidate in both primary and general election campaigns. During the 1991-1992
political campaign, all Democratic congressional candidates raised $360
million, while Republican candidates raised $293 million. The GOP National
Committee raised an additional $85.4 million while the Democratic National
Committee raised $65.7. The vast majority of these funds (about 80 percent)
came from PACs.
What do PACs expect from congresspersons receiving their funds? Votes on
important pieces of legislation. For example, in 1992, Senator David Prior, an
Arkansas Democrat, sponsored a bill that would link a huge tax break for
establishing factories in Puerto Rico with stable prices for prescription
drugs. Nine of the top ten recipients of drug PAC money from 1981 to 1991
voted for tabling (thus killing) this unfavorable legislation.[90]
By the late 1980s, politicians from all sides had become alarmed about the
dangers of PACs to democracy. Senator Charles Mathias remarked that the
current system of financing congressional elections threatened to "erode
public confidence in the electoral process and in government itself."[91]
Conservative Barry Goldwater stated that unlimited spending in political
campaigns "cuts at the very heart of the democratic process."[92] Despite such
pronouncements, in 1988, the ill effects and influence of PACs remained
unabated.
Item: The oil industry lobbied for and received the repeal of the windfall
profits tax. One leader of the repeal was Senator Lloyd Bentsen, later
Treasury Secretary, owner of an interest in a petroleum distribution company
Oil industry contributions to congressional campaigns in 1988 were $2.35
million.
o Item: Fifty-one U.S. senators and 146 members of the House of
Representatives are either founders or officers of Washington D.C. tax exempt
organizations that produce either research statistics or corporate propaganda
for lobbying purposes.[93]
o Item: In 1960, there were fewer than 400 lobbyists registered with the U.S.
Congress. By 1992 there were 40,000 so registered.[94] These 40,000 people
represent mostly U.S. and foreign corporations. Much of this growth came in
the 1970s and 1980s when the capitalist class decided it was underrepresented
in the nation's capital. Eighty percent of the Fortune 500 corporations
established "public-affairs offices" (lobby groups) in Washington.[95]
o Item: Congress allowed a group of multinational corporations to deduct their
research expenses from corporate income taxes, giving them an additional $211
million in tax breaks (on top of the $1 billion tax savings received in
previous years). This PAC gave $2.627 million to Congress in 1988.96
These examples not only illustrate the dangers of PAC influence in Congress
but also indicate why many of the laws designed to control corporate crime
were so weakened during the Reagan years. (See Chapter 2 for further
discussion of these issues.)
Meanwhile, in Congress, one effect of PAC money has been to alter the very
structure of power within the institution. Representative Jim Wright of Texas
was elected speaker of the House after giving $312,000 of his own campaign
funds to 141 members. Moreover, consider that senators now spend 60 to 70
percent of their time raising the money needed to be reelected; during an
entire six-year term, as much as $10,000 per week must be raised.[97] Finally,
political parties have found loopholes in election laws, laundering monies
through state party committees, which allows them to spend beyond the $54
million limit in presidential campaigns. Such monies have included massive
contributions from individuals (e.g., $1 million from Joan Kroc of McDonald's
and $503,263 from a former U.S. ambassador) that federal financing of election
laws was designed to stop.[98]
Candidate Selection. Closely related to the discussion of PACs is the process
by which political candidates are nominated. Being wealthy or having access to
wealth are essential for victory because of the enormous cost of running a
successful campaign. It cost up to 5.5 million to elect a senator and or
representative in 1992.99 This means, then, that the candidates tend to
represent a limited constituency-the wealthy. "Recruitment of elective elites
remains closely associated, especially for the most important offices in the
larger states, with the candidates' wealth or access to large campaign
contributions. "[100]
The two-party system also works to limit candidates to a rather narrow range.
Each party is financed by the special interests especially business.
When all of these direct and indirect gifts (donations provided directly to
candidates or through numerous political action committees of specific
corporations and general business organizations) are combined, the power elite
can be seen to provide the great bulk of the financial support to both parties
at the national level, far outspending the unions and middle-status liberals
within the Democrats, and the melange of physicians, dentists, engineers,
real-estate operators, and other white-collar conservatives within the right
wing of the Republican party.[101]
Since affluent individuals and large corporations dominate each party, they
influence the candidate selection process by giving financial aid to those
sympathetic with their views and by withholding their support from those who
differ. The parties, then, are constrained to choose candidates with views
congruent with the elite moneyed interests.
The Benefits That Elites Seek from the State
A number of factors about the current historical era bear on the nature of
elite deviance. Over the last twenty years, the United States has experienced
the most dramatic economic and political change of the post World War II era.
Unfortunately, this unprecedented change has contributed to a wave of elite
deviance that is virtually out of control.
Economically, the United States is no longer the dominant power it once was.
Its share of the world's income is now half what it was two decades ago. The
U.S. manufacturing base has severely declined, and millions of manufacturing
jobs located in the nation's Northeast and Midwest have been relocated
overseas, where labor is cheaper, taxes are lower, and raw materials are more
accessible (see Chapter 5). Two-thirds of the workforce now engages in
service-sector positions, and one quarter of all jobs are now government
related.
As a result of these changes, corporations grow not by expanding plants and
equipment, thus creating new jobs, but by buying other corporations. Another
related effect of these economic changes is insider trading scandals on Wall
Street.
In addition, the United States has experienced an era of inflation accompanied
by unemployment. Although the rate of inflation has slowed in recent years, in
real terms, U.S. workers are no better off economically than they were twenty
years ago. One result has been an outbreak of criminal and unethical behavior
at all levels of society. The unemployment rate has settled at about 7
percent, a level that would have been viewed with some alarm twenty-five years
ago. Today, it is viewed as an improvement, which is an indication of just how
much economic decline Americans have become accustomed to.
Central to our understanding of elite deviance is the relationship between the
corporate and political institutions. Many contemporary conflict theorists
believe that the central contradiction of the capitalist order is now focused
on the state. The political institution is being asked to perform two
contradictory functions. On the one hand, politically influential corporations
demand state assistance in capital accumulation (profit expansion) through tax
relief, lucrative government contracts, subsidies, loans, and loan guarantees.
Corporations also receive military protection of their overseas markets and
investments. But on the other hand, in order for its legitimacy to be
maintained, the state must meet the demands placed on it for public
assistance: social programs designed to aid those suffering from poverty,
unemployment, homelessness, mental illness and retardation, drug addiction,
and other problems arising in modern capitalist societies.
The result is that the state is caught in the middle: The demand for state
services and expenditures consistently exceeds state revenues. One consequence
of this situation is massive deficit, which can be reduced in only three ways.
1. Reduce support for corporate programs (e.g., defense contracts, subsidies,
loans, corporate taxes). This is unlikely, due to corporate influence in the
policy-making process.
2. Cut social programs for the unemployed, poor, elderly, and other needy
groups. If too much is cut, it will appear that the government is serving the
wealthy and powerful at the expense of those in need, which would prompt a
massive withdrawal of legitimacy by ordinary people. This in turn might result
in mass resistance to fighting additional wars to preserve corporate holdings,
a tax revolt that might increase debt, or a new political movement designed to
redistribute wealth, income, and political power in a more democratic fashion.
3. Raise taxes for citizens. This is unpopular among those who vote and is
thus something that no serious candidate wishing to be elected would
propose.[102]
The situation is made worse by the competitive sector of the economy, the 12
million small- and medium-sized businesses that suffer the crises of farm
foreclosures, bank failures, and bankruptcy In recent decades, these
businesses have struggled against high interest rates and suffered declining
demand for their goods and services because corporate America has transferred
millions of jobs to places with lower wage scales, both in the United States
and overseas.
Corporate deviance also plays a role in these processes. Indeed, Harold Barnet
has argued that marketing unsafe products, polluting the environment, and
violating health, safety, and labor laws all help increase corporate profits
by transferring various costs to consumers, workers, and the public in
general. 1113 Moreover, the appalling lack of enforcement of corporate crime
laws and the lenient sentences handed down in the few cases that get
convictions, serve further to indicate that the state functions largely to
encourage capital accumulation, not to repress elite wrongdoing.
The Higher Immorality and Links among
Various Kinds of Crime
Many have characterized the 1980s as a period where the individual focus was
on self-concern, personal survival, and greed.[104] This personal focus was
aided and abetted by a conservative, probusiness administration that somehow
made greed seem moral and corruption an everyday fact of political life (see
Chapter 2). The result was a wave of scandal in the corporate, political, and
military worlds. It was spawned by the centralization of power within large
organizations composing the elite and covered up by the mass media, which
continually provided diversion, distraction, and socialization to the very
norms of the elite.
Mills argued that the power elite had managed to institutionalize deviant
behavior within its ranks. This is significant, in part because sociologists
usually consider deviant behavior as constituting abnormal episodes and
characterizing a minority of people. Various chapters ahead contain evidence
demonstrating that deviance and crime among many segments of the nation's
economic, political, and military elite are frequent. Moreover, the deviance
within the elite differs markedly from that of other social classes because it
involves so much more money, power, and resources than are available to people
in other strata.
The higher immorality consists of a group of acts and behaviors intended to
increase profit and power (see Chapter 2). However, the nature of the higher
immorality has changed within recent years. Corporate crime and political
scandal are now interrelated not only to each other but to other types of
crime and deviance, as well.
The U.S. drug problem is a central example. Over $200 billion of the world's
$750 billion in illegal drugs is consumed in the United States. Drugs can be
smuggled into the United States with the cooperation of banks (which launder
drug money) and political elites (who accept payoffs), both here and in
countries of origin. General Manuel Noriega, one-time leader of Panama, was
convicted in 1992 of accepting bribes from the Latin American cocaine cartel.
At the same time, Noriega was a longtime employee of the CIA, who for years
had known of his involvement in the drug trade. The CIA has also been involved
in various aspects of drug trafficking for over forty years in Europe,
Southeast Asia, and most recently Latin America (see Chapter 2).
After being smuggled in, the drugs are often distributed to street gangs and
peddlers by organized criminal syndicates, one of whom is the ItalianAmerican
Mafia. At its lowest level, the U.S. drug problem is directly related to the
vast majority of property crimes committed by so-called street criminals who
seek money in support of drug habits. Hundreds of murders each year are
committed by gangs seeking to control territory in the drug trade. Thus, crime
at all levels of U.S. life is now interrelated, as organized crime and
supposedly legitimate elites cooperate for a variety of reasons in
international drug traffic.[105]
>From what we have said about lobbying, election financing, and candidate
selection, it is obvious that much of the higher immorality involves political
activities-and for good reasons. The state not only regulates the capitalist
economy but also (federal, state, and local government) now accounts for 32.2
percent of the gross national product. Two-thirds of these goods and services
stem from spending by the federal government alone.[106] Thus, elites seek
favorable legislation (or prevention of unfavorable legislation), as well as
tax breaks, subsidies, and lucrative government contracts. Such contracts
include everything from multibillion-dollar weapons systems to office
furniture and paint. These contracts are not only influenced by the decisions
of congressional members but are often the charge of various bureaucrats with
the federal government.
For example, the General Services Administration (GSA) is in charge of
securing virtually all office supplies for the entire federal government.
Thus, favors from lobbyists are also from time to time dispensed to
bureaucrats, as well as elected members of Congress. These favors are illegal
when they include kickbacks (payments by contractors that usually involve a
certain percentage of the contract in which a firm is interested). But other
favors may simply include the promise of a job with the company upon
completion of government services. While not illegal, these types of deals are
unethical.
In addition, a host of independent regulatory agencies (e.g., Federal
Communications Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade
Commission) have some impact on virtually every large and small business in
the United States. The personnel in these agencies are not infrequently the
target of various lobbying and other efforts (e.g., the promise of a job in
the industry they regulate). Often, certain staff members of these agencies
come from the industries they oversee, and in some cases, the industries
involved requested the initial regulation.
Finally, it is important to realize the influence that elites possess over the
enactment or lack of enactment of legislation that defines what is and is not
against the law in the first place. Examples of such influence are legion.
o Item: In 1977, the House passed a bill to create a Federal Consumer
Protective Agency by a vote of 293 to 94; it was defeated in the Senate by a
filibuster. The bill was opposed by the National Association of Manufacturers,
the National Association of Feed Chains, and some 300 other companies and
trade associations.[107]
o Item: The automobile industry got the Justice Department to sign a consent
decree that blocked any attempt by public or private means to sue them for
damages occurring from air pollution.
o Item: Many of the nation's antitrust laws appear, on the surface, to be
actions that regulate business. However, many of these laws were actually
requested by big business. Such laws, as we will see in Chapter 2, exclude new
competitors from the marketplace and have been used to reduce the influence of
labor unions. These laws have also functioned to increase public confidence in
the quality of food and drugs by having such products certified safe by
government inspection. For example, the 1906 Meat Inspection Act received a
lot of support because of the muckraking activities of Upton Sinclair, who
exposed the bad conditions in the meat processing industry However, this also
delighted the large meat packers; it helped them export successfully by
meeting the high safety standards required by European countries. Nonetheless,
the action crippled smaller companies. Americans were left with poor quality
meat and low wages.[108]
Such laws often help create uncompetitive (monopolistic) situations and are
usually welcome (even favored) by big business. Moreover, such laws are rarely
enforced, and the penalties for breaking them tend to be minuscule. Numerous
additional examples could be cited, showing how, time and time again,
corporate officials and politicians have, without penalty, violated laws or
prevented acts from being made public that involved the theft of great amounts
of money or the taking of many lives.
Another of the great problems in dealing with elite deviance is that all laws
are not administered equally Those laws that are administered most seriously
tend to be those related to the deviance of the powerless nonelites. This
process works in very subtle ways but nevertheless ensures a bias in favor of
the more affluent.
One way in which this bias operates is illustrated by examining the priority
given investigation and prosecution of corporate crimes within the federal
government. Despite some advances noted in recent years, corporate crime
remains a low priority.[109] As of 1992, the federal government still
possessed no centralized statistical capability to index the extent of elite
and other white-collar crimes. Yet for years, the FBI, via its Uniform Crime
Reports, has monitored so-called street crimes involving both violence and
crimes against property (e.g., burglary).
Quite clearly, white-collar crime does not draw the attention of government
and law enforcement officials. And for this reason, it does not draw the
resources. In fact, the Reagan administration cut back funding designated for
white-collar prosecutions by the Justice Department. By 1990, the FBI had only
650 agents to investigate 7,000 fraud claims in connection with the massive
S&L scandal. The FBI has estimated that it needs a minimum of 1,000 agents to
do an adequate job.[110]
The Criminal Justice section of the American Bar Association issued this
conclusion:
For the most part within the Federal agencies with direct responsibility in
the economic crime offenses area, available resources are unequal to the task
of combating economic crime....
In cases where "seemingly adequate resources exist, these resources are
poorly deployed, underutilized, or frustrated by jurisdictional consider-
ations." [111]
Thus, the bias of the federal law enforcement effort, as well as state and
local efforts (see Chapter 2), remains slanted toward the crimes of nonelites.
--[cont]--
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
