Robert Reich wrote a good post about how big money captures opinion-makers, stifles dissent, and buys off potential critics. All of this is terrible for democracy, because the news we get is filtered through the eyes of corporate money, to protect their privileged status. Even philanthropy is now a conduit for shaping public policy to suit their fancy or their pocketbook. Reich says we are back to the Gilded Age. We are also back to the age of the Robber Barons. Money is power.
He writes:
Not long ago I was asked to speak to a religious congregation about widening inequality. Shortly before I began, the head of the congregation asked that I not advocate raising taxes on the wealthy.
He said he didn’t want to antagonize certain wealthy congregants on whose generosity the congregation depended.
I had a similar exchange last year with the president of a small college who had invited me to give a lecture that his board of trustees would be attending. “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t criticize Wall Street,” he said, explaining that several of the trustees were investment bankers.
It seems to be happening all over.
A non-profit group devoted to voting rights decides it won’t launch a campaign against big money in politics for fear of alienating wealthy donors.
A Washington think-tank releases a study on inequality that fails to mention the role big corporations and Wall Street have played in weakening the nation’s labor and antitrust laws, presumably because the think tank doesn’t want to antagonize its corporate and Wall Street donors.
A major university shapes research and courses around economic topics of interest to its biggest donors, notably avoiding any mention of the increasing power of large corporations and Wall Street on the economy.
It’s bad enough big money is buying off politicians. It’s also buying off nonprofits that used to be sources of investigation, information, and social change, from criticizing big money.
Other sources of funding are drying up. Research grants are waning. Funds for social services of churches and community groups are growing scarce. Legislatures are cutting back university funding. Appropriations for public television, the arts, museums, and libraries are being slashed….
Our democracy is directly threatened when the rich buy off politicians.
But no less dangerous is the quieter and more insidious buy-off of institutions democracy depends on to research, investigate, expose, and mobilize action against what is occurring.
This is a threat to our democracy, when investigative reports are squashed or never written, when the public is not informed of the forces shaping their lives.
I have been asked why I don’t find a way to “monetize” my blog. Why no advertising? Why no fees? Inquirers have said, “Nineteen million hits. Surely you can find a way to make it pay.” But the point of this blog is that no money changes hands. What I write is what I believe. I post what you believe. I post what interests me and what I think will interest you. I am free to criticize the wealthy and powerful because they don’t take out advertising. I have no foundation grants. Fortunately for me, I don’t need funding. That allows me to write what I want. I have a mission, and I won’t let it be compromised by money.
Regarding the last paragraph of the posting:
“It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.”
If Mark Twain were around today and pressed for an example of the latter he might have said:
“Diane Ravitch’s blog A site to discuss better education for all.”
😎
P.S. But as the movement for a “better education for all” has grown, so have the examples of moral courage.
Outside of rheephorm circles, of course…
“I reject that mind-set.” [Michelle Rhee]
I had a 90th percentile hunch that she would pipe up…
He’s right. The other day I was struck again how big money has shaped the situation in NY State. First it was Bill Gates paying for adoption of Common Core/Race to the Top. Then it was Paul Tudor Jones and other hedge fund managers buying Cuomo’s advocacy of charter schools. Now it’s Merryl Tisch, member of the hugely wealthy Tisch family who is now NY State’s top education official, refusing to listen to parents’ outrage around the testing and state policy re public schools in general.
None of these people had to rely on public school to educate their kids. None of them have experience teaching in or managing public schools. Yet they make the house we have to live in.
Their concerns are not our concerns.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
I agree with him but I do think it’s important to make a distinction between blogging and those who do investigatory journalism for a living.
Journalists have to get paid for the work that they do. We all read their work and rely on it. They have their own race to the bottom in wages. People who work for state and local newspapers and media do not make a whole lot of money. In fact, I think one of the reasons we don’t get better state-level reporting on education is newspapers aren’t willing to pay people to do the work.
I would just be wary of setting this up as “anyone who gets paid is therefore self-interested”. I think one has to watch that. This is one of the tactics the political arm of the ed reform movement uses: teachers are paid so therefore teachers are self-interested and discredited. It’s a bit of a bad road to go down.
I agree. The media environment is organized to prevent investigative journalism and to limit reports free of some twist to please advertisers. The net neutrality policy makes the internet available at low or no rates (e.g., public library). It is wonderful to encounter ad-free spaces but if you know anyone who is trying to make a living in journalism or free-lance writing you can appreciate that is extremely hard to do.
I agree with you about journalists. It seems that news outlets are cutting back on paying journalists and perhaps this also leaves a vacuum that allows others to fill a void without any accountability or code of ethics.
Without courageous people like Robert Reich and Diane Ravitch we would be left with only the skewed views of the mainstream media that is seduced by the empty rhetoric of the reformsters, not one of whom would send their children to the charter schools they are promoting.
They say everyone has a price. Here’s mine:
$1 billion US tax free with a clause in the confidentially agreement that says if I donate all that money to the nonprofit of my choice I am not bound by the agreement to stop speaking out.
For instance, if the ACLU is free of the influence of the oligarchs, that might be a good nonprofit to donate to but with a proviso that the entire $1 billion be spent on court cases going after the movers and shakers of the corporate education reform movement. The billion would be released in increments of $10 million each but only after each court victory.
:o)
“The billion would be released in increments of $10 million each but only after each court victory.”
Your strategy sounds uncomfortably familiar. I’m not sure I want you buying results any more than Gates or the Waltons. Plus watch that accountability piece: they only get money when they win? (You are sounding Race to the Top-ish!) I don’t want the ACLU going after someone because I have paid them to do so. I want them pursuing a case because they can identify a clear civil liberties abuse. Nothing personal, Lloyd. I wouldn’t trust myself with that much money to spread around although I do know I wouldn’t want my name on some building because of a big donation (not that there is any danger of either, the name or the donation).
It’s all wishful thinking. The odds of it happening are probably ten billion to one. What you say about the ACLU getting involved because they see the need stands a much better chance odds wise.
It has been rightly said that as of now, we have a Plutocracy in government.
It seems that Conservatives as well as Liberals seem to by and large understand this but perhaps it will take an “Arab Spring” here to get something done to alleviate the obvious,. Yes in New York City many did start a movement to “take on Wall Street” but it will take I fear a LOT more involvement by a LOT more people.
In the early union movement people lost their lives to change things. I fear that it may take that again. Sad if true but even in the U. S. the struggle for “freedoms” have entailed HUGE sacrifices.
“I have a mission, and I won’t let it be compromised by money.”
Those opposing us just don’t understand this kind of thinking. It’s why they are surprised at push back from teachers.
“I have a mission, and I won’t let it be compromised by money.”
Now one doesn’t necessarily have to be “compromised by money” but it is sure hard to not be. To paraphrase Sinclair: “It’s difficult for a person to not be persuaded by money when not having enough of it is a fact of that person’s lot in life.”
Good thing Diane has enough wherewithal to not be persuaded by $$$$.
This Reich piece is reminiscent of a bit from the Oscar-winning documentary “INSIDE JOB”, where the film maker puts Glenn Hubbard—Senior Economics Advisor to Mitt Romney / Economist & Dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business—on the spot, asking him about his conflict of interest.
Glennhas been raking in millions from Wall Street in “consulting” deals, at same time as he—as an ostensibly “objective” academic—simultaneously pushed the total de-regulation of the markets and the housing industry and promoting derivitatives… all of which led to the 2008 meltdown.
He has a Captain-Queeg-like meltdown when the interviewer brings this up at 00:45
——————————-
INTERVIEWER: “Who are your consulting clients?”
HUBBARD: “I don’t believe I have to discuss that with you.”
——————————
When the interviewer politely persists in this line of questioning, all (Oscar-winning) Hell breaks loose.
Freeze the frame at 01:09… right after his “Take your best shot!” Hubbard realizes that he has just blown the interview. All that was missing was him jiggling ball bearings in palm of one of his hands.
For those who don’t get those references—Captain Queeg and ball bearings—here’s the clip of Queeg from the movie “THE CAINE MUTINY”. Under questioning from Navy prosecutor (Jose Ferrer), the the Navy Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) lets the mask drop, and reveals the hidden dark and/or mentally ill side of his personality:
This classic moment was latter paid homage (or ripped off, depending on your POV) for the climax of another military court drama, “A FEW GOOD MEN”, where Nicholson explodes while being interrogated by Tom Cruise: (NOTE: hit “SKIP AD” in the lower right corner immediately to avoid the annoying sales pitch)
“This isn’t a deposition, sir.”
Funnily enough, this is also what Hubbard is like in depositions.
I’ve heard Bernie Sanders’ stump speech twice… and he’s the only candidate in either party who is saying what Reich is writing about… Unless he or Warren or some candidate who shares this view gets into the race in 2016 we will have no national debate on this topic…. and here’s what’s really frustrating: many of my friends who support Sanders’ thinking on this topic tell me he can’t be elected because he can’t raise enough money. Indeed, the only reason Sanders is hedging on running is because he’s afraid he can’t get enough small donors to offset the huge sums lobbyists are ready to spend to get the presumptive candidates elected.
We’ve lost track of the concept “enough”. I personally have “enough” so I can’t be bought. I do things because I want to do them, not for money. There isn’t enough money in the world to bribe me into doing some of the activities in my life, such as volunteering at a Nursing Home or organizing back financial reports for a charitable organization. My fee is the knowledge of a job well done.
Ellen #LessIsMore
It is just plain wrong to “do good deeds” with the expectation of “monetary payback”, especially when the gains are on the backs of the people you are supposed to be helping.
Ellen #AreYouListeningBillGates?
Death of the Liberal Class, book, 2010, Chris Hedges. NPR report:
“In his new book, Death of the Liberal Class, Hedges slams five specific groups and institutions — the Democratic Party, churches, unions, the media and academia — for failing Americans and allowing for the creation of a “permanent underclass.”
Hedges says that, for motives ranging from self-preservation to careerism, the “liberal establishment” purged radicals from its own ranks and, as a result, lost its checks on capitalism and corporate power.”