League of Corporate Responsibility Voters | Voters for ethical corporations share news and ways to take action against corporate greed

Corporate Charity: Not What You Think

Don't be fooled; corporations and big business are not "builders of the community" so much as "sustainers of the inequity".

It’s true that many of the corporations that operate within the United States are also some of the most generous “givers” in terms of charity. Charitable donations by corporate entities amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars nationwide, shoring up low-income kids seeking a college education, food programs for starving children worldwide, or financial support for wounded veterans. Up front, these charitable donations seem to cast a very positive light on corporations, a fact that they understand and advertise. The reality is that corporations’ charities are a smokescreen for something that sounds far more “corporate”; their bottom line.

A recent article featured in Salon reports that "Goldman Sachs Gives", the financial giant’s charitable program, is intended to “build and stabilize communities” in the United States in which it operates. It does this by providing social and educational services to vulnerable youth and their households. They’ve donated millions over the years to this end as a component of Corporate Social Responsibility, that many corporations ostensibly follow.

The reality behind these types of efforts is that almost every American corporation plays a significant role in creating those vulnerable communities to which they give. They do this by taking efforts to pay absolutely no taxes to the U.S. government, which provides those types of social safety nets that allow vulnerable households to pick themselves up out of poverty. They undermine local and state governments ability to rebuild infrastructure in vulnerable communities and support schools and other public services. By handing a few million dollars out to kids programs and college funds (a pittance to businesses of this size), they attempt to fool the American public into believing that corporations exhibit social responsibility, when they’re actually fleecing American tax payers.

In 2010, GE reported over $14 billion in profits, a third of which was generated in the U.S. GE paid nothing in taxes to the government, instead collecting a $3.2 billion tax credit. If GE paid out $10 million in charitable donations to struggling communities in a single year (which is a generous estimate), they’re still paying out .003% of what they’re earning in taxpayer-generated tax benefits. Furthermore, those charitable donations are claimed in their tax preparation as write-offs.

The moral of the story is that a corporation will never “donate” anything. It’s designed to grow its bottom line and be profitable. Corporate social responsibility has not existed for several decades now, contrary to what many corporate PR departments would have you believe, and for politicians, judges, pundits or voters to pretend otherwise is irresponsible

Corporate Overseas Withholdings Grew After "Repatriation Tax Holiday"

Even as corporate critics rail against U.S. tax rates, they hoard cash overseas.

New reports show that corporation’s overseas holdings (that money that they deliberately hide in overseas accounts to avoid paying taxes on it) actually increased 20% in the year 2011. This was in response to Obama’s repatriation holiday, in which the federal government would allow multinationa corporations to bring their money back to the U.S. at a significant discount (tax-wise). “Moral hazard” is the idea that by giving people a single “get out of jail free” card, they will want to take another one. In this case, those people are corporations and that card is the repatriation holiday, in which companies actually stockpile more of their money overseas, expecting the government to grant another repatriation holiday.

Moral hazard was the same issue that arose when the federal government bailed out Goldman Sachs in 2008. Afterward, when Lehman Brothers was also starting to crumble, the government stepped aside and let it fail, fearing that if they bailed out Lehman brothers then moral hazard would come into play and every bank that was drowning under bad financial products would look for a federal bailout. The same is true with with Obama’s stated “repatriation holidays”, and corporations are actually hiding more money overseas now, the opposite of the intended result.

You can say what you want about Obama’s financial policies, but this speaks to a far more troubling aspect of our current economy; a complete lack of corporate responsibility. Corporations, having broke the bounds of what it means to be a national entity, truly regard themselves as outside of any nation’s laws. They are in a strange global economic limbo where single nation’s regulatory agencies have jurisdiction over components of their activity, but the entire beast is not within the realm of law. It’s a bit like the fable of the blind mice fumbling to define the elephant they can’t see. However, in this case the blind mice are U.S. regulators and the elephant is Merck, or Microsoft, or Goldman Sachs.

This also comes amidst very vocal complaints by the largest corporations in the coutry about the “stifling” corporate tax rate in the country. Nevermind the fact that many of these major conglomerates did not actually pay any taxes in the last year or two, and even as they rail against Obama’s “anti-business” policies (often through Republicans to whom they’ve donated substantial money), they are sitting on vast piles of cash overseas. As reported by Think Progress, POLITICO’s review of SEC reports shows that, “a dozen of the most vocal corporate critics of U.S. tax policy,” increased their overseas holdings from $381 billion to $455 billion in 2011.

So the question becomes not, how do we change things to spark corporate growth and employment, but how do we keep these unethical businesses from being able to frame the discussion in their favor?

Corporate Campaign Donations Now Tax Write-Offs?

Corporate dark money donations to non-profit spinoffs of Super PACs are now being used as tax deductions.

Amid controversy over corporate tax rates and the “dark money” injected into Super PACs as a result of the Supreme Court’s Citizen United decision, there’s a strong political partisan divide over campaign financing at the moment. That divide may get a little wider with recent revelations that corporate donations to Super PACs may be deducted from corporations tax filings; the result of an “aggressive” interpretation of corporate tax laws. The result could be a whole new round of public outcry for corporate accountability and campaign finance reform.

As reported in Salon.com, the Citizens United decision established certain protections for corporate entities under the legal auspices of “personhood” (a controversial idea in and of itself). What the decision did was allow non-profits designated as a 501(c)(4) to take an unlimited amount of contributed dollars from organizations like corporations and unions. What’s more is that the donors do not need to report their donation amounts because it is not technically going to a single campaign or candidate, which would impose donation limits. This is where the term “dark money” comes in.

What this has lead to is an unprecedented expansion of the campaign finance network, bloating campaigns (indirectly) by hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money. It’s greatly increased the ability of corporations to leverage dollars over elected officials, and to increase the media footprint of their agendas. It should be noted that the AFL-CIO, a union, has come out very publicly and very aggressively against the Citizens United decision, which they say increases unfair access of the wealthy to the legal process, and decreases transparency.

Now, it seems, those corporations that are silently donating to these nonprofits may be trying to deduct those large sums of money from their taxes because the groups are technically designated as “social welfare groups.” One of the newest kinds of these groups is Crossroads GPS, by former White House staffer Karl Rove and an offshoot of his Super PAC, Crossroads America.

An example of what is not being illustrated by the application of “dark money” is the 2010 donation by Target of $100,000 to a Minnesota group that ran ads backing an anti-gay marriage candidate. The result was a public backlash against Target by liberal groups. However, had Target donated to a group like Crossroads GPS, the American public would never know, and that’s exactly what is happening all over the country with the formation of these 501(c)(4) nonprofits. Citizens United has opened the gates for corporations and political insiders to ramp up funding while scaling back transparency, two promises that our federal government has been notorious poor at keeping.

A Long, Dark History

Of Corporate Malfeasance

In this era of corporate domination, it's tempting to think that things used to be better. When it comes to international corporations, though, the way they are now is the same way they've always been, except that they used to be less subtle about it. The British East India Company is the classic example.

The United Kingdom, as a nation, did not initially have an empire in India. That empire was the private property of a single corporation, the British East India Company. It maintained a huge private army of its own in order to conquer the local Indian rulers and then maintain its authority over the population. When its many regiments of Indian soldiers mutinied in 1857, the British government nationalized the company and took over its domains.

For many decades, powerful international corporations were more discreet, operating from behind at least a thin screen of democratic governance and relying on the armies of those supposed democracies rather than maintaining their own armies. Now we're starting to see the mask come off, as governments all over the world have become more and more open about governing solely on behalf of corporate interests. The big corporations still use NATO and the other armed forces of the world as their military proxies, but governments are increasingly allowing companies to maintain their own private armies again as well. We've come full circle, or nearly so, and in all likelihood the mask will soon come off completely and the facade of democratic government will be done away with.

Goldman Sachs Exec Resigns

Blasts Company In Open Letter

Goldman Sachs could possibly be the least responsible corporation in the entire world, but one of its executives has finally had enough of it. A director in the Goldman Sachs London office just handed in his letter of resignation, followed up by a letter in the New York Times in which he ripped his former company to shreds for its conspicuously immoral behavior.

Apparently Goldman Sachs has not only been subverting democratic governments, cooking the books on a massive scale, tanking the world economy for the sake of profit and generally acting like Montgomery Burns on steroids, it has even been methodically ripping off its own customers. As Mr. Smithers might say, they seem determined to make the transition from ordinary everyday wickedness to “cartoonish super-villainy.” The letter puts the blame for all this despicable behavior on a few people at the top of the firm, which makes me a little bit skeptical. Goldman Sachs has been a rogue company for a very long time now, not just since the past few years. Still, a defection at such high levels of the company is pretty striking.

You have to wonder whether five months of Occupy protests have something to do with this sudden display of common-sense and conscience by a man who until recently was a loyal and long-term employee of the “vampire squid.” But whether or not Occupy had anything to do with it, he is still to be commended for standing up for the truth, exposing the lies of the corporation he worked for, and joining the battle in his own way. Perhaps others will follow.

Sabu and LulzSec

Hacker and Informant

So “Sabu” of LulzSec turns out to be an informant. The man has two kids, so when the FBI figured out who he really was (a young man living in the Brooklyn projects named Hector Xavier Monsegur) they were able to flip him easily enough. To any parent, the idea of not being able to see your kids would almost be worse than death. Some might think that this excuses his actions. I do not.

Mr. Monsegur chose to participate in serious criminal actions of his own free will. He did so knowing that he had those kids, so either he was so arrogant he really believed he would never be caught, or he planned to snitch if he got caught all along.

Now, he may have done those crimes for mere personal amusement, in which case his actions were simply criminal and he has no right whatsoever to try to avoid the just consequences of his crimes by betraying those who were no more guilty than he and who believed him to be a friend. Or he may have done them for political reasons, in which case he is a traitor to his own cause. Either way, no one forced him to commit those crimes. For him to start working for the FBI in order to save himself makes him far lower than his fellow members in LulzSec, even if what they did was completely wrong- and not everyone thinks it was.

One of the arrested hackers betrayed by this man was responsible for the Stratfor hack, an action which exposed one of the most rotten networks of corporate criminality operating in the world today. Stratfor is a corporate renegade, a private spy force for the Wall Street criminals. Now the people responsible for exposing them may have to do years and years in federal prison, all thanks to the cowardice and irresponsibility of this one man. Were their actions criminal? That's for a court to decide, but I can't look at their downfall as a benefit to humanity while Stratfor and its ilk are still out there.

There are many ways to be involved, many ways to resist. You don't have to go breaking federal laws to fight corporate domination. But you know who really, really shouldn't do so? People with kids. Otherwise your love of your kids will be used against you, and you'll damn yourself by betraying the people who trusted you. That's what Sabu has done, and it's what he'll have to live with.

F29

Shutting Down The Corporations

Wednesday, February 29, 2012 is F29, the huge international day of global resistance called “Shut Down the Corporations.” As I write this blog, Occupiers have already succeeded in shutting down three Wal Mart distribution centers in Southern California, and there are large marches in multiple cities from New York City to Barcelona. By the time this blog is up online, it will be March 1, so any readers will be in a position to confirm the following predictions-

1- The media will attempt to ignore or minimize this story to the greatest extent possible. If they can avoid mentioning it at all, they will.

2- If they feel like they have to mention it, they'll claim the crowds were smaller than anticipated.

3- Any incidents of police violence against protesters will be reported as “clashes” (implying mutual rather than one-way violence) or if a handful of protesters throw things out of a crowd of thousands, this will be reported as “Occupy violence” while police violence will be ignored or justified.

Those are my predictions, let's see how it goes. Right now the police are openly barricading Pfizer corporate headquarters, a Bank of America building and other corporate strongholds, shamelessly using their legal authority to protect their true masters from hearing a word of dissent. The corporate media will follow suit, tripping over themselves to lie and obscure the truth. The charade will continue- for now. But all the lies in the world won't hide the truth forever, and the “American Spring” is just around the corner. There's another prediction for you.

Second Amendment Solution?

Let's Hear From The Lunatic Fringe!

As the last few Occupy Oakland marches have amply demonstrated, there is no violence at all at a typical protest unless the police initiate it. When the cops come in with their tear gas and their flash-bang grenades and their bean-bag rounds, the result is violence. When they keep their distance and at least pretend they respect the First Amendment, there is no violence.

Of course, that doesn't stop the lunatic fringe from trying to stir things up, advocating harsher penalties, restrictions on free speech and freedom of assembly- and even gun violence against protesters.

Of course, it's being phrased as some sort of vigilante defense of businesses, whose owners are being encouraged to arm themselves with shotguns in order to fend off the hordes of “militant anarchists”. By building up hysteria and paranoia in this way, the person making the suggestion is pouring kerosene over a pile of kindling, and just waiting for someone else to light the match.

Someone might well end up getting shot and killed as a result, so this is an incredibly irresponsible thing to do. The worst that has happened to any business at any Occupy Oakland march is a broken window or a bit of graffiti. Should that be happening? No, it should not. The people who are doing it should stop.

Is it a death penalty offense? Do we normally shoot people who break windows? Anyone who would suggest such a thing clearly has tremendous respect for private property- and absolutely none for human life.

The New Face of Fascism

"Plus ca Change..."

The year is 1941, the date is May 30^th. Greece is under the thumb of an invading Nazi army. The swastika flies over the top of the Acropolis, an affront to all Greek people and an intimidating statement of Nazi hegemony. A patriotic young Greek man by the name of Manolis Glezos takes his life into his hands, climbs the Acropolis in defiance of the Nazis, and pulls the swastika down.

The elderly Greek man in this photo is the same Manolis Glezos, still fighting tyranny after all these years. The men attacking him are Greek riot police, enforcing the new austerity package demanded by the IMF over the intense objections of the Greek people.

Fascism in the 1940s was in its infancy. It took crude and obvious forms based on the raw fetishization of violence and evil. Its core, however, was something more insidious. Mussolini defined it as “corporatism,” the combination of state and corporate power into a seamless whole.

The packaging of fascism has changed- it no longer marches under the cartoonishly sinister banner of the swastika. Instead it masquerades as democracy, while snuffing out true democracy with fascism's oldest weapon: brute force. Most people don't think they live in a fascist society, but when you understand that the essence of fascism is actually corporatism, then a picture like this one makes perfect sense. Manolis Glezos didn't change from being a Greek patriotic hero to being an enemy of democracy. He was fighting fascism then, and he's fighting it now. Riot police who enforce corporate rule are the foot-soldiers of a repackaged fascism, currently threatening to swallow up Greece- and the rest of the world.

Why Are Corporations Irresponsible?

By Design, Of Course!

Why is it that corporations behave so irresponsibly? It's because they are cut off from any broader community, accountable only to their shareholders and responsible only to make a profit for those shareholders even if they destroy the whole world in doing so. Corporations behave irresponsibly because they are designed to behave irresponsibly. Our entire economic system is structured in such a way as to encourage these pseudo-persons to behave like sociopaths.

The answer to this disease is not to politely advocate for reasonable reforms. When the livability of the entire planet is at stake, polite reasonableness is insanity. Real solutions are only seen as a unreasonable because they aren't part of the conversation. At the same time, the only reason they aren't part of the conversation is because we've already dismissed them as unreasonable. It's a self-reinforcing loop in which you sound like a lunatic just for speaking common sense, because common sense has been defined as lunacy.

If democracy is the right way to govern nations, why is it the wrong way to govern corporations? Our governments are stuck in the twentieth century, but the corporations which have so much more control of our daily lives are still stuck in the eighteenth century at best. They are top-down hierarchies in which the vast majority of participants are powerless, voiceless peasants governed by a frequently incompetent and nearly always amoral aristocracy. Until the democratic revolution comes to the workplace, all we can expect from these feudal relics is more of the same.

Pages