| Number 59 | February 18, 2000 |
|
This Week:
|
|
Greetings, Sometimes people ask me how they can become informed about a big issue of the day. They think I am joking when I tell them to avoid reading the newspaper or watching TV. I’m not joking. The mainstream press is almost always a bad introduction to a subject, as I explained in Nygaard Notes #35, “Reading the Newspaper: A Four-Step Process.” There are typically so many assumptions and hidden premises in the mainstream press that it can be very confusing for the average reader. That’s why I’m talking again this week about that #$@%&&% Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) Their attempt a couple of weeks ago to illuminate who has power in Minnesota (they call it “influence”) seemed so typical that I thought it would be helpful to people to take a close look and see how they might approach it differently. I hope it’s a lesson on how to go beyond thinking about what is said, and begin to think independently about what is not said. I continue to appreciate all the new readers. I apologize for the fact that you are coming in this week in the middle of a series. If you want a copy of Part I, just let me know and I will send it along. See ya next week, Nygaard |
- Minneapolis Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, in her State of the City address, February 10th, 2000 |
|
A new movie starring Leonardo DiCaprio, “The Beach,” is the object of an international boycott. In late 1998, Twentieth Century Fox bulldozed and reshaped Maya Beach, part of Phi Phi Islands National Park in Thailand, destroying its natural character and endangering both flora and fauna, all for just two weeks of filming. The reason? Its natural scenery was considered not good enough to project Hollywood's ideal of a “tropical paradise.” The international boycott was called in support of local Thai residents and national civic groups who have filed a lawsuit against Fox in the Thai courts. Besides the direct issue of economic imperialism raised by Fox’s payoff and possible bribery of Thai officials to get “permission” to destroy the beach, Fox is also co-sponsoring a campaign with the Tourism Authority of Thailand to jointly promote 'The Beach' movie and Thailand's actual beaches to international tourists. As with much of modern tourism, the natural world and indigenous cultures thus become little more than commodities to be sold to First World movie-goers and upscale travelers. As with any consumer boycott against a huge corporation, the number of dollars that we can keep out of the hands of the company may be few. But it’s amazing how powerful a little bad publicity can be in these situations. And if your friends or relatives suggest that you go see the movie, it could be a great opportunity to discuss the issues of economic and touristic imperialism. Don’t miss your chance. The boycott is being organized in the U.S. by a group called Women's Voices for the Earth. Website: http://www.wildrockies.org/wve/ Phone 406-543-3747. Mail: P.O. Box 8743, Missoula Montana 59807 |
|
Surely you remember what happened in Seattle last December when the World Trade Organization came to town. Well, the next big opportunity to demand a peaceful, people-centered, and environmentally-sound global economic system will be in April 2000 in Washington, DC. The nation's capital is the home of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank Group. These organizations, more than any other institutions, are the coercive powers which have forced the global economy into its present shape. They were also instrumental in giving birth to the WTO. Their semi-annual meetings in D.C. in April will be the occasion for a demonstration of the popular rejection of their rules and their system for imposing them. People are organizing locally to make a trip to Washington to join in the event. If you have never gone to Washington to protest anything, it is a good thing to do. Perhaps the smallest part of the reason is the actual impact such a protest may have on the actions of the Big Boys who are the focus. More importantly is the time you will spend meeting, learning from, and getting to know your “fellow travelers.” These relationships will serve you in good stead as you work in groups and coalitions on a range of issues in the future. Plus, these trips can be fun! The national organizing effort has been dubbed “A16.” Visit their website at http://www.A16.org/ or call the 50 Years is Enough Network at 202-IMF-BANK. For information on the Minnesota organizing effort, call Ben Grosscup at (612) 825-1923. |
|
The last couple of weeks I’ve been talking about a major article that appeared in the Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) on January 30th, having to do with money in Minnesota politics. The Star Trib’s article, entitled “Investing in influence at the Capitol; Advocates spend a bundle of time and money making their legislative interests heard,” included a chart of the 100 “Top Spending Interest Groups.” According to that chart, the Number One spender in Minnesota is the teachers union, and lagging behind in second place is an interest group called “business associations.” In the analysis that accompanied the chart, reporter Dane Smith stated that “[The teachers union] has pumped about $2.4 million into the political system over the past five years. That’s about $350,000 more than the next closest interest group: business associations.” As a reader stated a few days later in a letter to the editor, “I am not at all surprised that teacher unions spend almost 20 percent more than business, as the teacher unions have done quite well over the period of DFL [the Minnesota Democratic Party] dominance and business has not fared very well at all.” How Have The Teachers Been Doing at the Legislature? Smith’s analysis contrasts the legislative agendas of the various groups on the list, telling us “who they are and what they want.” However, he doesn’t tell us if they are getting “what they want.” “What the teachers unions want is no secret: higher pay and preservation of benefits and bargaining rights,” Smith states. He fails to point out that teachers’ wages over the past ten years have actually “declined 4 percent due to salary schedules lagging slightly behind inflation,” according to a report from the Office of the Legislative Auditor released two weeks ago. Not so good for a group that is “doing quite well” at the legislature. So, how about business, which has “not fared very well at all?” Reporter Smith asserts that “the business agenda remains essentially the same year after year.” He does point out that “Business interests won a major victory in the 1990s on workers compensation, significantly reducing the insurance premiums businesses pay and the benefits available for injured workers.” But that’s only Major Victory Number One for business (and loss for their workers, whom they claim to represent). There are plenty more. Here are business’s top priorities as listed by Smith; the results come from my own research. Top business priority: “Lower taxes, especially commercial- industrial property taxes.” Result: According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Minnesota in the 1990s saw a “shift in property and income taxes away from businesses and onto families and individuals.” The same period brought an “increased reliance [in Minnesota] on sales and excise taxes, which burden middle- and low-income families the most.” (And, not coincidentally, reduce the burden on business.) Major Victory Number Two for Business. 2nd business priority: “Government spending restraint.” Result: Minnesota, like most states, is debating not whether to decrease government spending, but how much, as popular government programs face repeated cuts. Major Victory Number Three. 3rd business priority: “Opposition to minimum-wage increases.” Result: The state minimum wage hasn’t gone up since 1998, and before that it had been frozen since 1991. When adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour is $2.00 per hour lower than it was in 1969. Another Major Victory for...Business! So, when we look only at Visible Money, the top spender seems to have less “influence” than those who spend fewer dollars. How does one explain this? In Nygaard Notes #56, I presented what I call the Investment Theory of Money in Politics, which basically says that the monied classes “invest” in the issues and candidates whose success will promote or preserve their money and power. This sort of investment happens largely through the use of Invisible Money (“soft” money, PAC spending, buying media coverage, donations to friendly think tanks, etc), in contrast with a direct “buying” of votes or candidates, which uses the Visible Money which is reported to the government and appears in stories like the Star Tribune’s. Where’s The Invisible Money? Education Minnesota represents 68,000 teachers. So the $2.4 million in Visible Money that they have spent over the past five years amounts to about $7 per union member per year. When you consider that the average salary of a teacher in Minnesota is $37,000, you can guess that the voice (in financial terms, at least) that a teacher in Minnesota has through his or her union is likely the main voice that she or he has at the Capitol. It may be the only voice. Not a lot of Invisible Money here. That’s not at all the case when we look at the groups in the 2nd category, called “business associations.” That picture is much more complex. The three associations that did the bulk of the spending over the period have small memberships with a lot of money. The Coalition of Minnesota Businesses (CMB) chipped in $911,000 to give voice to its 18 members, who are mostly other business associations (many of which also appear separately on the list as their own “interest group.”) The Minnesota Business Partnership spent $350,000 to represent its 105 members, who are the CEOs of the state’s 105 largest corporations, with average “earnings” of $2.46 million per year. Finally, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce has spent $365,000 in representing its 3,000 members, all businesses. This information does not tell the whole story. There are many “Interest Groups” listed as separate groups on the Star Trib’s list which are also members of the “Business Associations” which are listed in 2nd place. “Insurance,” for example, is the 6th largest interest group on the list, but is also a member of the CMB. The same with “Retailers” (#32), and the “Hospitality Industry” (#48). Both the Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Business Partnership are members of the CMB also, even though they are all listed separately. By separating out these overlapping groups (and individual businesses) the Star Trib makes it hard to get a clear picture of who’s spending what. So hard, in fact, that many readers ended up with the impression that the teachers union is spending more Visible Money than business. This is part of the reason why tracking even the Visible Money gets complicated in the Star Trib’s analysis. But there’s more! The source of much Invisible Money is individual contributions to the above-mentioned think tanks, PACs, and so forth. The wealthy among us are the only ones who have enough money to individually influence the political process. (The rest of us have to band together with others to have our voices heard.) Since the wealth of these individuals comes from business, it seems reasonable to expect that any Invisible Money these people inject into the political system will reinforce the power of the corporations that we find on the Star Trib’s list. Here’s a list of some of Minnesota’s richest individuals and their corporate connections:
And so it goes. Who doubts that these people have “influence” in the political process? If some of them are able to arrange lunch with the governor, or with the Senate majority leader, to ask for tax breaks or other favors for their businesses, that chummy influence isn’t money at all, so it’s really Invisible. Power is like that. We don’t know how much Invisible Money is going into the system, but we do know that business interests are seeing their share of the tax bill going down and their profits going up, while the rest of us are seeing our share of the tax bill going up at the same time that our public programs and infrastructure are facing funding shortfalls. And the situation is much better in Minnesota than in many other states. That’s a frightening thought. To see who has power in Minnesota, the Star Tribune gave us a chart with 100 categories. How much simpler it would be to look at a chart with only two categories: Those who make money from working, which is most of us, and those who make money from owning things, which is the wealthy few. Such a chart would make it a lot easier to see who the winners really are. |