Democracy

You know that Wall Street reform bill pending in the Senate? Some last minute insertions add up to a surprisingly big win for the developing world.

Oil Companies Required to Detail the Dough Paid to Foreign Governments

First, kudos to Senators Dick Lugar (R-Indiana) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) for inserting strong provisions that require extractive companies (oil, natural gas, etc.) to detail in their annual Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings the payments they make to foreign governments. One would think that oil-rich and mineral-rich countries would be, well, rich. Big international firms move in to extract these resources and pay royalties, fees, taxes, bonuses and other monies to national governments. Unfortunately, too frequently this money is put to work lining the pockets of dictators and warlords, rather than building schools or health clinics.

A group of conservative attorneys declared that they were on a mission from God to unseat four California judges in the election on June 8. "We believe our country is under assault and needs Christian values," said Craig Candelore, a family law attorney who was one of the group's candidates. "Unfortunately, God has called upon us to do this only with the judiciary." The challenge is unheard of, especially in California, which is one of 33 states to directly elect judges. Vowing to be God's ambassadors on the bench, the four San Diego Superior Court candidates won the backing of pastors, gun enthusiasts, and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriage. According to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University's school of law, special interest groups, including those representing opposition to gay marriage, have recently increased donations for judicial races. Adam Skaggs, counsel for the Brennan Center said: "An effective way in driving policy is to try to influence who is on the courts in a state, particularly the highest court, the supreme court." For example, in Iowa's June 8 primary, two Republican gubernatorial candidates announced they favored ousting Supreme Court judges whose unanimous decision last year legalized same-sex marriage.

When the Senate bank reform legislation passed in May, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) said it sent the message to Wall Street that they can no longer "recklessly gamble away other people's money." The bill told Main Street, "you no longer have to fear that your savings, your retirement or your home are at the mercy of greedy gamblers in big banks. And it says to them, 'never again will you be asked to bail out those big banks when they lose their risky bets,' " according to Reid.

Reid was correct. The bill the Senate passed did protect the taxpayers from reckless gambling by the big banks, largely due to the last-minute inclusion of strong derivatives reforms authored by Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas). So why is it that Senate and House leadership are now busy behind these scenes trying to kill the best provisions in their own banking reform legislation?

When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Citizens United, many people thought a flood of corporate funded, pro-industry political ads would hit the airwaves. Corporations, however, have hesitated in exercising their newly-announced freedom to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. Why would corporations pass on the opportunity to exert even more influence on the government? The answer seems to be fear of backlash: corporations may want to support campaigns against certain regulations, but not at the risk of antagonizing Congressmen, consumers, and employees. Instead of offering outright support for campaigns, it seems some corporations have funneled funds into political organizations. According to an article in the Washington Post, the Chamber of Commerce, American Crossroads, and American Action Network have pledged to raise $127 million for the upcoming election season.