Sunday, June 7, 2020




 Compiled by Dick Bennett for a Culture of Peace and Justice. 

 (#1 August 7, 2008; #2 Feb. 11, 2010; #3 July 21, 2011; #4 Oct. 9, 2011; #5 Nov. 1, 2011; #6 May 5, 2012; #7 June 11, 2012; #8 Dec. 12, 2012; #9 May 5, 2013).

Newsletters on US Corporations complement those on US Capitalism, which tend to emphasize financial institutions and the economic system as a whole.

"...if way to the Better there be,
it exacts a full look at the Worst."

—Thomas Hardy

"I refuse to live in a country like this, and I'm not leaving"
Michael Moore

Danes claim truly about their country where “few have too much and fewer still too little.”   There are many capitalisms.   US elites chose to make a land where a few have too much, and too many have too little.  –Dick

   In new window
Print all
Expand all
Collapse all
Speaking Truth to Power
Reply to all
Reply by chat
Filter messages like this
Add to Contacts list
Delete this message
Report phishing
Report not phishing
Show original
Show in fixed width font
Show in variable width font
Message text garbled?
Why is this spam/nonspam?
Mark unread from here

Description: Elizabeth Warren graphic

My blog:   War and Warming
My Newsletters:
See: US Capitalism, Citizens United and McCutcheon v. FEC, Corporate Crime, Corporate Personhood, Globalization, Military Industrial Complex, Occupy, Surveillance, and related newsletters.

Nos. 6-9 Contents at end.

Contents: Corporations USA Newsletter #10, 6-4-20 (Miscellaneous reports, complaints, exposés, including a few books, all published between 2014 and 2020)

Dick, Merchandise Built to Thwart Home-Repair
Neil Young’s New Album on GMOs
Fracking at Vernal, Utah
Michael Klare, The Race for What’s Left
Tim Wu, Corporate Control of the Internet
Robert Borosage, Congress Gives Tax Breaks
ALEC Again, in the Cities Now
Close Tax Loopholes
Control CEO Pay
Monbiot, Trans-Pacific Partners TPP
Chris Hedges, Rise Up and Die, US Capitalist
Nader, Financial Titans Again Seek Total Control
Thomas, Poverty and Corporate Control of Education
Munoz, Supreme Court Protects Corporate Immunity in
   American Express v. Italian Colors
McGarity, Freedom to Harm
Cartoon: Blame the Government
Anti-Public Corporate Campaign to Remove Regulations
Revkin, Causes of CO2/Global Warming Climate Crisis
Upton, Corporate Lying Exceeds Chicanery
John Montgomery, The Benefit Corporation, Making Corporations Serve People and the Planet
Ralph Nader, Left and Right Coalescing to Counter Corporations
Hightower, Disclosure Movement Wants to End Secret Campaign Financing
Broad and Abrams, The People vs. Fossil Fuel Companies—Some Victories
Resistance to the Corporate State


Harper’s Magazine (Mya Frazier, “Annotation: A Camera on Every Cop,” August 2015) reports how police misconduct has led to enormous profits for corporations making stun guns and cameras, particularly Taser International, which advertises spectacular successes of its products, even though “having a camera on doesn’t ensure a just outcome,” and contrary to the advertising “may not even save money over the long run.”  Nothing new here in the profit economy, though plenty to keep conscientious state attorneys general busy sending consumer warnings to police departments.
    But some manufacturers are pushing profits injurious to consumers in a new way; I refer to the construction of products with “proprietary” parts that make self-maintenance or assistance from fixit-shops more difficult. A few years ago products were accompanied by instructions for self-repair or for the community fix-it business.  Now increasingly the consumer must return a purchase to the maker for repair or trade-in replacement, or must trash the product and purchase new.
    The scam is the subject of an article in In These Times (Kendra Pierre-Louis, “Fight for the Right to Fix It,” August 2015). Not only are products being produced with parts that make home or local repair difficult to impossible, the practice is deliberate, according Gay Gordon-Byrne, director of the Digital Right to Repair Coalition.  In complete disregard of the public, “Many items are unfixable by design,” when products can and should be constructed repairable and with all the support necessary to enable the repairs (help desk, manuals, parts).  And the problem transcends consumer rights.  The present corporate profit possessiveness results not only in higher repair costs, but reduces jobs and causes more toxic waste. 
   Talk to your legislators, your attorney general, your city attorney. This is surely a free market situation if there ever was one, a market for the people and the small businessman provided by affirmative government.  We need legislation requiring manufacturers to provide service information, security updates, and replacements parts.  Tell them about the Massachusetts auto repair bill requiring standardized repair data.  Write to newspapers to expose and shame acquisitive corporate bullies.  And back up letters and talk with boycotts of companies that fail to enable us to live less expensively.   Individual consumers should have the right and the possibility of repairing their possessions, or having them repaired locally.

     Need more help?  Read these two articles.  Contact,, Motor Vehicle Owners' Right to Repair Act, iFixit for free repair guides and more.

the Monsanto Years Reprise
    REVIEW of Neil Young and Promise of the Real
BY JON DOLAN,  June 16, 2015, ROLLING STONE (July 2, 2015)

Young's new album is a quick-and-dirty broadside against GMOs and corporations
Neil Young has been sounding the alarm about environmental issues for more than four decades. He warned us to "look at Mother Nature on the run" in "After the Gold Rush," way back in 1970, a few months after the first Earth Day. He's stayed on message through records like 2003's Greendale, on which he pleaded, "We got to save Mother Earth," and 2009's Fork in the Road, an ad for his alternative-power LincVolt car. But he's rarely driven his point home as vehemently as on The Monsanto Years, a jeremiad against the agrochemical behemoth of the title and what he sees as American farming's Frankenstein future. "From the fields of Nebraska/To the banks of the Ohio/Farmers won't be free to grow/What they want to grow," Young sings at one point. If the imagery evokes Woody Guthrie, the righteous rock & roll fire is pure Neil.  From The Archives Issue 1238: July 2, 2015

What's Killing the Babies of Vernal, Utah?
A fracking boomtown, a spike in stillborn deaths and a gusher of unanswered questions
BY PAUL SOLOTAROFF .  Rolling Stone, June 22, 2015, July 2, 2015
The vice president sat down with supplicants from the fossil-fuel sector and gold-star donors to his campaign. For months, he or his small staff met in secret with the likes of James Rouse, the then-vice president of Exxon Mobil Corp.; Enron's Kenneth Lay; Red Cavaney, the then-president of the American Petroleum Institute; and dozens of lobbyists and sen-ior executives from the coal, mining, electric and nuclear sectors. What Cheney sent the president, four months later, was a policy essentially written by the barons themselves: a massive expansion of domestic drilling on federally owned lands; tens of billions of dollars in annual subsidies to Big Oil; and wholesale exemptions to oil-and-gas firms from environmental laws and oversight. In essence, Cheney's program turned the Department of the Interior into a boiler-room broker for Big Oil, and undercut the power of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cheney's plan was such a transparent coup for Big Oil that it took four years, two elections and the Republican capture of both houses of Congress to make it to Bush's desk as legislation. Along the way, the bill gained a crucial addendum, known today as the "Halliburton loophole": a carte-blanche exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act for an emergent technique called fracking. A form of extraction dating back to the Civil War, when miners used nitroglycerin to blow holes in oil-soaked caves (a subsequent version, in the 1960s, used subterranean nukes to fracture rock), fracking has since evolved into a brute but nimble method for blasting oil and gas deposits that couldn't be recovered by conventional derricks, at least not at a rate that made them profitable.
The process, perfected and marketed by Halliburton, shoots huge amounts of fluid at very high pressure down a mile or more of pipe to break the rock. That fluid, a trademarked secret called "slickwater" that has toxic solvents, is mixed with a million gallons of water, roughly a fifth of which come barreling back as wastewater. It's a desperately dirty job, marked by horrors of all kinds: blowouts of oil wells near houses and farms; badly managed gas wells flaring uncapped methane, one of the planet's most climate-wrecking pollutants.
Then there's pollution of the eight-wheeled sort: untold truck trips to service each fracking site. Per a recent report from Colorado, it takes 1,400 truck trips just to frack a well — and many hundreds more to haul the wastewater away and dump it into evaporation ponds. That's a lot of diesel soot per cubic foot of gas, all in the name of a "cleaner-burning" fuel, which is how the industry is labeling natural gas.  MORE



The Global Scramble for the World's Last Resources

Michael T. Klare.  Picador, Macmillan, 2012.

Michael T. Klare The Race for What's Left

"As Michael Klare makes clear in this powerful book, the heads of our corporate empires have decided to rip apart the planet in one last burst of profiteering. If you want to understand the next decade, I fear you better read this book."---Bill McKibben, author of Eaarth 
The world is facing an unprecedented crisis of resource depletion---a crisis that encompasses shortages of oil and coal, copper and cobalt, water and arable land. With all of the Earth’s accessible areas already being exploited, the desperate hunt for supplies has now reached the final frontiers. The Race for What’s Lefttakes us from the Arctic to war zones to deep ocean floors, from a Russian submarine planting the country’s flag under the North Pole to the large-scale buying up of African farmland by Saudi Arabia and other food-scarce nations. With resource extraction growing more difficult, the environmental risks are becoming increasingly severe---and the intense search for dwindling supplies is igniting new conflicts and territorial disputes. The only way out, Michael T. Klare argues, is to alter our consumption patterns altogether, a crucial task that will be the greatest challenge of the coming century.



·         Author Website


Read an Excerpt

Chapter One
Driven by Depletion In 1971, a Mexican fisherman named Rudesino Cantarell encountered an annoying problem while plying his trade off the Yucatán Peninsula: clots of oil, apparently seeping from underground seams in the Bay of Campeche, were clinging to his nets and reducing his catch. After putting up with this inconvenience for some time, Cantarell described his difficulties to officials of the government-owned oil company Petróleos Mexicanos, known as Pemex. This prompted Pemex to conduct an exploratory survey of the area where Cantarell's nets had been contaminated--and



MORE MEDIA Access more related media on the web


Praise for The Race for What's Left

"A first-rate, well-researched wake-up call."---The Christian Science Monitor
"Outstanding…Exhaustively researched, beautifully written, and convincingly argued."---The Huffington Post
"Stunning."---Rolling Stone

The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empire by Tim Wu.     It is easy to forget that every development in the history of the American information industry — from the telephone to radio to film — once existed in an open and chaotic marketplace inhabited by entrepreneurs and utopians, just as the Internet does today. Each of these, however, grew to be dominated by a monopolist or cartel. In this pathbreaking book, Tim Wu asks: will the Internet follow the same fate.  Could the Web — the entire flow of American information — come to be ruled by a corporate leviathan in possession of “the master switch”? Analyzing the strategic maneuvers of today’s great information powers — Apple, Google, and an eerily resurgent AT&T — Wu uncovers a time-honored pattern in which invention begets industry and industry begets empire. He shows how a battle royal for the Internet’s future is brewing, and this is one war we dare not tune out. “Fascinating, balanced, and rigorous—a tour de force.” — The New York Review of Books “Entertaining. . . . There’s a sharp insight and a surprising fact on nearly every page of Wu’s masterful survey.” — The Boston Globe

[See newsletters on democracy.]

Corporate Tax Breaks: How Congress Rigs the Rules

Robert Borosage, Op-Ed, NationofChange, April 29, 2014: This week, the House Ways and Means Committee is poised to demonstrate exactly how the rules are rigged. On Tuesday, the committee will begin to mark up a series of corporate tax breaks – known as “extenders” because they have been extended regularly every year or two for over a decade. Only now the committee plans to make many of them permanent, at the cost of an estimated three hundred billion dollars over ten years. And it does not plan to pay for them by closing other corporate loopholes or raising rates.

Conservative Group ALEC Trains Sights on City and Local Government 
Ed Pilkington, Guardian UK, Reader Reported News, March 8, 2014 
Pilkington reports: "The rightwing group Alec is preparing to launch a new nationwide network that will seek to replicate its current influence within state legislatures in city councils and municipalities." 

It’s difficult to separate reporting from exposure from exposé from criticism, but here we turn to articles more explicitly on the attack for change. 


The Nation Magazine

Dear Dick,
This week, while the rest of us dutifully sat down to pay our fair share in taxes, some of the most profitable corporations in the country avoided paying billions by exploiting complicated corporate tax loopholes.
Luckily, there is some hope. President Obama can close some of the most egregious loopholes through executive action—without the approval of Congress.
In 1952, the corporate income tax accounted for about 32 percent of all federal tax revenue. Today, despite record-breaking profits, corporate taxes bring in just 11 percent.
Meanwhile, some members of Congress are trying to convince us that we need cuts to Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and other programs that millions of Americans rely on.
All the best,
Sarah Arnold

CEO pay revealed, WRITE SEC

Claiborne D., via 

to James
Corporations will have to start disclosing how much CEOs are paid compared to the typical worker if the SEC implements a new rule. But corporate lobbyists are fighting like mad to stop it.
Tell the SEC to resist corporate pressure and stick to its plan to require disclosure.
Sign the petition
After years of delays, the SEC has just voted to enact a potentially game-changing provision of the Dodd-Frank Act on CEO compensation, and corporate America is fighting like mad to stop it.
The new provision requires corporations to disclose the amount their CEOs make compared to the salary of the median worker. Corporate actors are shocked because the rule is surprisingly strong -- it doesn't allow many of the usual gimmicks that corporations use to skew data. This new rule could set off a revolution at Walmart and other companies that are getting rich off of underpaid staff.
The US Chamber of Commerce and other big business organizations are frightened, and are fighting back, pressuring the SEC to change its mind during a sixty-day comment period going on now. Sign our petition to the SEC today to ensure that your voice is heard, and the SEC makes the right call on corporate disclosure.
This data is valuable for investors, as it helps them determine which companies are dangerously overloaded at the top. The new disclosure will create downward pressure in the industry by rewarding companies with more reasonable salary hierarchies. It will also get workers talking, and put overpaid executives in the spotlight. This could be a game-changer for out-of-control inequality. Help us ensure that the provision stays in place, to stop the wild greed at the top of the largest companies in the US.
Unsurprisingly, corporate lobbyists are doing everything they can to stop these new rules, and if it looks like the public isn't paying attention, the SEC might just give in and water down its disclosure requirements. We can't let them get away with that. Let's flood the SEC with comments demanding the strongest possible rules for holding CEOs accountable to their investors and the public. We know regulatory agencies speak up when the SumOfUs community speaks -- the Federal Communications Commission just cited our comments in its decision making it cheaper for incarcerated people to call their families.
Thanks for all you do,
Claiborne, Taren, and the team at
 Federal Regulators Finally "Mind the Gap", 22 September, 2013SumOfUs is a world-wide movement of people like you, working together to hold corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable path for our global economy. 

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Posted: 04 Nov 2013 12:25 PM PST
That’s what the new rules being smuggled into trade agreements are delivering.
By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 5th November 2013
Remember that referendum about whether we should create a single market with the United States? You know, the one that asked whether corporations should have the power to strike down our laws? No, I don’t either. Mind you, I spent ten minutes looking for my watch the other day, before I realised I was wearing it. Forgetting about the referendum is another sign of ageing. Because there must have been one, mustn’t there? After all that agonising over whether or not we should stay in the European Union(1), the government wouldn’t cede our sovereignty to some shadowy, undemocratic body without consulting us. Would it?
The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago(2). But I left out the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing.
The mechanism is called investor-state dispute settlement. It’s already being used in many parts of the world to kill regulations protecting people and the living planet.
The Australian government, after massive debates in and out of parliament, decided that cigarettes should be sold in plain packets, marked only with shocking health warnings. The decision was validated by the Australian supreme court. But, using a trade agreement Australia struck with Hong Kong, the tobacco company Philip Morris has asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum in compensation for the loss of what it calls its intellectual property(3).
During its financial crisis, and in response to public anger over rocketing charges, Argentina imposed a freeze on people’s energy and water bills (does this sound familiar?). It was sued by the international utility companies whose vast bills had prompted the government to act. For this and other such crimes, it has been forced to pay out over a billion dollars in compensation(4).
In El Salvador, local communities managed at great cost (three campaigners were murdered) to persuade the government to refuse permission for a vast gold mine which threatened to contaminate their water supplies. A victory for democracy? Not for long perhaps. The Canadian company which sought to dig the mine is now suing El Salvador for $315m – for the loss of its anticipated future profits(5).
In Canada, the courts revoked two patents owned by the US drugs firm Eli Lilly, on the grounds that the company had not produced enough evidence that they had the beneficial effects it claimed. Eli Lilly is now suing the Canadian government for $500m, and demanding that Canada’s patent laws are changed(6).
These companies (and hundreds of others) are using the investor-state dispute rules embedded in trade treaties signed by the countries they are suing. The rules are enforced by panels which have none of the safeguards we expect in our own courts(7,8). The hearings are held in secret. The judges are corporate lawyers, many of whom work for corporations of the kind whose cases they hear. Citizens and communities affected by their decisions have no legal standing. There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case. Yet they can overthrow the sovereignty of parliaments and the rulings of supreme courts.
You don’t believe it? Here’s what one of the judges on these tribunals says about his work. “When I wake up at night and think about arbitration, it never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all … Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.”(9)
There are no corresponding rights for citizens. We can’t use these tribunals to demand better protections from corporate greed. As the Democracy Centre says, this is “a privatised justice system for global corporations.”(10)
Even if these suits don’t succeed, they can exert a powerful chilling effect on legislation. One Canadian government official, speaking about the rules introduced by the North American Free Trade Agreement, remarked, “I’ve seen the letters from the New York and DC law firms coming up to the Canadian government on virtually every new environmental regulation and proposition in the last five years. They involved dry-cleaning chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, patent law. Virtually all of the new initiatives were targeted and most of them never saw the light of day.”(11) Democracy, as a meaningful proposition, is impossible under these circumstances.
This is the system to which we will be subject if the transatlantic treaty goes ahead. The US and the European Commission, both of which have been captured by the corporations they are supposed to regulate, are pressing for investor-state dispute resolution to be included in the agreement.
The Commission justifies this policy by claiming that domestic courts don’t offer corporations sufficient protection because they “might be biased or lack independence.”(12) Which courts is it talking about? Those of the US? Its own member states? It doesn’t say. In fact it fails to produce a single concrete example demonstrating the need for a new, extra-judicial system. It is precisely because our courts are generally not biased or lacking independence that the corporations want to bypass them. The EC seeks to replace open, accountable, sovereign courts with a closed, corrupt system riddled with conflicts of interest and arbitrary powers.
Investor-state rules could be used to smash any attempt to save the NHS from corporate control, to re-regulate the banks, to curb the greed of the energy companies, to renationalise the railways, to leave fossil fuels in the ground. These rules shut down democratic alternatives. They outlaw left-wing politics.
This is why there has been no attempt by our government to inform us about this monstrous assault on democracy, let alone consult us. This is why the Conservatives who huff and puff about sovereignty are silent. Wake up people, we’re being shafted.

Rise Up or Die

May 19, 2013
Illustration by Mr. Fish

Joe Sacco and I spent two years reporting from the poorest pockets of the United States for our book “Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt.” We went into our nation’s impoverished “sacrifice zones”—the first areas forced to kneel before the dictates of the marketplace—to show what happens when unfettered corporate capitalism and ceaseless economic expansion no longer have external impediments. We wanted to illustrate what unrestrained corporate exploitation does to families, communities and the natural world. We wanted to challenge the reigning ideology of globalization and laissez-faire capitalism to illustrate what life becomes when human beings and the ecosystem are ruthlessly turned into commodities to exploit until exhaustion or collapse. And we wanted to expose as impotent the formal liberal and governmental institutions that once made reform possible, institutions no longer equipped with enough authority to check the assault of corporate power.
What has taken place in these sacrifice zones—in postindustrial cities such as Camden, N.J., and Detroit, in coalfields of southern West Virginia where mining companies blast off mountaintops, in Indian reservations where the demented project of limitless economic expansion and exploitation worked some of its earliest evil, and in produce fields where laborers often endure conditions that replicate slavery—is now happening to much of the rest of the country. These sacrifice zones succumbed first. You and I are next.
Corporations write our legislation. They control our systems of information. They manage the political theater of electoral politics and impose our educational curriculum. They have turned the judiciary into one of their wholly owned subsidiaries. They have decimated labor unions and other independent mass organizations, as well as having bought off the Democratic Party, which once defended the rights of workers. With the evisceration of piecemeal and incremental reform—the primary role of liberal, democratic institutions—we are left defenseless against corporate power.
The Department of Justice seizure of two months of records of phone calls to and from editors and reporters at The Associated Press is the latest in a series of dramatic assaults against our civil liberties. The DOJ move is part of an effort to hunt down the government official or officials who leaked information to the AP about the foiling of a plot to blow up a passenger jet. Information concerning phones of Associated Press bureaus in New York, Washington, D.C., and Hartford, Conn., as well as the home and mobile phones of editors and reporters, was secretly confiscated. This, along with measures such as the use of the Espionage Act against whistle-blowers, will put a deep freeze on all independent investigations into abuses of government and corporate power.
Seizing the AP phone logs is part of the corporate state’s broader efforts to silence all voices that defy the official narrative, the state’s Newspeak, and hide from public view the inner workings, lies and crimes of empire. The person or persons who provided the classified information to the AP will, if arrested, mostly likely be prosecuted under the Espionage Act. That law was never intended when it was instituted in 1917 to silence whistle-blowers. And from 1917 until Barack Obama took office in 2009 it was employed against whistle-blowers only three times, the first time against Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The Espionage Act has been used six times by the Obama administration against government whistle-blowers, including Thomas Drake.
The government’s fierce persecution of the press—an attack pressed by many of the governmental agencies that are arrayed against WikiLeaks, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and activists such as Jeremy Hammond—dovetails with the government’s use of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force to carry out the assassination of U.S. citizens; of the FISA Amendments Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution was once illegal—the warrantless wiretapping and monitoring of tens of millions of U.S. citizens; and of Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which permits the government to have the military seize U.S. citizens, strip them of due process and hold them in indefinite detention. These measures, taken together, mean there are almost no civil liberties left.
A handful of corporate oligarchs around the globe have everything—wealth, power and privilege—and the rest of us struggle as part of a vast underclass, increasingly impoverished and ruthlessly repressed. There is one set of laws and regulations for us; there is another set of laws and regulations for a power elite that functions as a global mafia.   MORE
Rise Up or Die - Truthdig

The World As It Is: Dispatches on the Myth of Human Progress.   A collection of Truthdig Columns by Chris Hedges.   Keep up with Chris Hedges’ latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more

FOCUS: Ralph Nader | What a Destructive Wall Street Owes Young Americans 

Ralph Nader, The Nader Page , Reader Supported News, March 14, 2014
Nader writes: "Wall Street's big banks and their financial networks that collapsed the U.S. economy in 2008-2009, were saved with huge bailouts by the taxpayers, but these Wall Street Gamblers are still paid huge money and are again creeping toward reckless misbehavior." 

Evening News Ignores Supreme Court Decision That Protects Corporate Immunity By Sergio Munoz, Media Matters for America, 07 July 13.   vening cable and network news have almost completely ignored the Supreme Court's sweeping decision in American Express v. Italian Colors, a 5-3 decision that further privatizes and restricts access to justice for everyday Americans by allowing corporations to immunize themselves from judicial review.

Despite the fact that American Express was a highly contentious pro-business opinion by the conservative bloc of the Supreme Court - even by their extremely corporate-friendly standards - a Media Matters search of Nexis transcripts reveals that with the exception of one brief non-primetime mention on PBS, not one cable or network evening news show addressed the decision.
Traditional contract law has long held that certain unconscionable agreements are unenforceable. Contractual clauses are traditionally voided if they eliminate victims' ability to enforce their statutory rights, making Justice Antonin Scalia's American Express opinion to the contrary "a betrayal of our precedents, and of federal statutes like the antitrust laws," according to Justice Elena Kagan's scathing dissent.
In this case, American Express used its monopoly powers over a group of small business owners to force them to accept exorbitant credit card fees in a seemingly blatant violation of antitrust statutes. When these small businesses grouped together to pursue a class action protecting their consumer rights, American Express pointed to a clause in the card agreement that not only blocked access to the courts in favor of forced arbitration, it also prohibited plaintiffs from joining together in this mandatory forum.
But because of the high cost of bringing actions against this well-defended corporation, individual claims are financially prohibitive, leaving the small businesses without "effective vindication" of their federal rights under antitrust law. Not only are these mandatory arbitration clauses forcing victims of corporate abuse to forego the courts in favor of privatized (and confidential) justice, they are barred from making it remotely affordable. From Justice Kagan's dissent:
Here is the nutshell version of this case, unfortunately obscured in the Court's decision. The owner of a small restaurant (Italian Colors) thinks that American Express (Amex) has used its monopoly power to force merchants to accept a form contract violating the antitrust laws. The restaurateur wants to challenge the allegedly unlawful provision (imposing a tying arrangement), but the same contract's arbitration clause prevents him from doing so. That term imposes a variety of procedural bars that would make pursuit of the antitrust claim a fool's errand. So if the arbitration clause is enforceable, Amex has insulated itself from antitrust liability - even if it has in fact violated the law. The monopolist gets to use its monopoly power to insist on a contract effectively depriving its victims of all legal recourse.
And here is the nutshell version of today's opinion, admirably flaunted rather than camouflaged: Too darn bad.
Unfortunately, American Express is yet another example of the conservative justices' extreme and continued favorability toward corporate interests, especially those pushed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and utter hostility toward class action lawsuits and the consumers and workers who bring them. And these decisions - AT&T v. Concepcion, Comcast v. Behrend, Wal-Mart v. Dukes - are piling up at an alarming rate.    MORE

 [Thanks to David Druding for this and many other postings about US capitalism.
david druding
My credit cards already got cut up when these money handlers all voluntarily {illegally) refused to facilitate $ transfers of litigation donation funds for WikiLeak's Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as they attempted to reveal the truth about US military & foreign policy to the US public & the world. Silencing the truth and surveillance are now a big lucrative biz in the US.
This media ignored decision by the corp shill majority on the Supreme Court will hopefully see a bunch more cut into pieces in our plastic recycle bins.]

From The Nation
Dear J R,
Ralph Nader has fought for over fifty years against the reckless influence of corporations and their government patrons on our society. In his new book Unstoppable, he explores the emerging political alignment of the Left and the Right in embryonic partnership against converging corporate-government tyranny.
Large segments from the progressive, conservative, and libertarian political camps find themselves aligned in opposition to the destruction of civil liberties, the corporate welfare state, the relentless perpetuation of America’s wars, and the unpunished crimes of Wall Street. In Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State, Nader argues it is in the interest of citizens of different political labels to join in the struggle against the corporate state that will, if left unchecked, ruin the Republic, override our constitution, and shred the basic rights of the American people.
Order the book online or buy it at any good bookstore and find out why Cornel West says that “Ralph Nader’s timely book once again makes him prescient in his insights about American politics. His against-the-grain prediction of a Left-Right alliance is not just a hope, but it is grounded in emerging evidence.”
All the best,
Peter Ro

Ignoring Poverty in the U.S : The Corporate Takeover of Public Education, P. L. Thomas, Furman University, 2012. Paperback 978-1-61735-783-1 $45.99. Hardcover 978-1-61735-784-8 $85.99. eBook 978-1-61735-785-5 $50
Ignoring Poverty in the U.S.: The Corporate Takeover of Public Education examines the divide between a commitment to public education and our cultural
myths and more powerful commitment to consumerism and corporate America. The book addresses poverty in the context of the following: the historical and
conflicting purposes in public education—how schools became positivistic/behavioral in our quest to produce workers for industry; the accountability era—how A Nation at Risk through NCLB have served corporate interest in dismantling public education and dissolving teachers unions; the media and misinformation about education; charter schools as political/corporate compromise masking poverty; demonizing schools and scapegoating teachers—from misusing the SAT to VAM evaluations of teachers; rethinking the purpose of schools—shifting from schools as social saviors to addressing poverty so that public education can fulfill its purpose of empowering everyone in a democracy; and reframing how we view people living in poverty—rejecting deficit views of people living in poverty and students struggling in school under the weight of lives in poverty.
 This work is intended to confront the growing misinformation about the interplay among poverty, public schools, and what schools can accomplish while
political and corporate leadership push agendas aimed at replacing public education with alternatives such as charter schools. The audience for the publication  includes educators, educational reformers, politicians, and any member of the wider public interested in public education.

“The Benefit Corporation The Unlikely Hero of a Sustainable Economy?
BY JOHN MONTGOMERY  22 APRIL 2014 The Humanist, May-June 2014
Imagine, if you will, a paradigm shift to a sustainable global economic system in which all corporations act as responsible global citizens. The unlikely hero at the center of this transformation? It’s the newest evolutionary form of a business firm—the benefit corporation.
The prevailing belief that corporations exist solely to maximize profit for shareholders is the single biggest impediment to creating a sustainable economic system. In the current paradigm, it is morally acceptable for corporations to externalize as many of the negative consequences of their behavior on society and the environment as is legally permissible. Corporations have no inherent social and environmental conscience.
Think British Petroleum, which made a series of cost-cutting decisions with respect to its Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. In 2010 such decisions caused the largest accidental oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry. Eleven people died in the accident and the Gulf of Mexico region suffered billions of dollars of environmental and property damage. British Petroleum settled federal criminal charges against it by pleading guilty to eleven counts of manslaughter, two misdemeanors, and a felony count of lying to Congress. Yet profit maximization remains the justification for corporate behavior and the default corporate conscience in the entire global economic system.
Intuitively, we all know there’s something terribly wrong with this picture. The lack of a conscience makes the corporation prone to periodic outbursts of behavior that could be characterized as sociopathic. Antitrust laws, labor laws, environmental laws, and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 are all external attempts by society to regulate corporate conduct and create ethical standards of corporate behavior. With profit maximization normalized as their moral compass and default conscience, corporations are perversely incentivized to increase profits in violation of natural law principles.
Many U.S. corporations, for example, have felt compelled to maximize profit for shareholders and have moved manufacturing offshore to China and other countries where labor and operating costs are cheaper. This practice eliminates domestic manufacturing jobs, which reduces the employment tax base for federal and state governments and erodes manufacturing capacity. Often, these foreign workers toil in oppressive conditions that would be illegal in the United States. Such manufacturers often pollute the air and water in excess of U.S. standards, posing known health risks to people and repeating the same environmental mistakes we made in the United States.
What’s alarming is that corporations have begun to transcend the sovereignty of the nation-states that charter them by operating above the law. Multinationals create byzantine networks of foreign subsidiaries that leverage favorable tax codes and international tax treaties to maximize profit by minimizing corporate taxes. All of these strategies are perfectly legal ways of avoiding taxes that often end up harming society. Like most multinationals, Apple Inc. uses such laws to minimize the corporate tax it pays. Headquartered in California, Apple has accumulated $158.8 billion in cash while the State of California runs a budget deficit and has trouble funding the very public schools and universities that educate its workers.
How did our global economic system become so overrun by corporations that have no social or environmental conscience?
One reason is that we’re still using business methods that were designed for commerce in the seventeenth century. The corporation was primarily designed as an agent to conquer and exploit foreign markets for the crown. The oldest corporation in North America, the Hudson’s Bay Company,  which received its charter from King Charles II of England in 1670, did this particularly well. At one time the Hudson’s Bay Company controlled 15 percent of the landmass of North America.
The king, however, put the corporations on a short leash because he didn’t trust the people operating them. Since these early corporations were largely composed of mercenary forces, the last thing the king wanted was to create a rival political or economic power. The king chartered corporations for his own plans, and if they misbehaved he could simply revoke the charter or refuse to renew it. Because he was the ultimate authority, there was no need for the corporation to have a social or environmental conscience. Society and the environment needed no protection because natives in these far-off markets were considered inferior heathens and, under the prevailing Christian ethos, man was supposed to exercise dominion over nature and the environment.
We got rid of the king in the American Revolution but his corporation slipped unnoticed into the new nation. The truth is that “We the People” never answered the fundamental philosophical question: what should the rights and moral responsibilities of our corporations be? Instead, the chartering function flowed from the king to state legislatures. In the early years of the Republic, it took an act of legislation to charter a corporation.  It was usually chartered for a limited public purpose, such as building and running a canal, and for a limited term of years.
In 1811, the United States was outraged by the high cost of cotton products imported from Great Britain milled from American-grown cotton.  In response and to encourage investment in American mills, New York invented free incorporation and limited liability. Suddenly anyone could form a corporation without any personal liability as a shareholder for its debts and obligations. During the 1800s, these legal innovations spread around the world and spawned the age of industry by freeing capital for investment in new industries without liability exposure. Without any internal architecture to support a social or environmental conscience, such corporations often harmed society and the environment, resulting in new laws to correct such harms.
The first antitrust law, the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, for example, was adopted in response to the emergence of powerful railroad and manufacturing conglomerates that were perceived to have excessive economic power.  In the words of Senator John Sherman (R-OH), “if we will not endure a king as a political power we should not endure a king over the production, transportation, or sale of the necessities of life.”
Naturally, feudal institutions beget feudal behavior. Corporate leaders of today often act like feudal kings, treating the corporations as agents of their personal empires. AIG, for example, paid its executives $165 million in bonuses six months after receiving a $182 billion bailout from the U.S. government. While this action wasn’t technically illegal, it was unconscionable in the court of public opinion.
In short, there is a design flaw in the corporation that makes its present form unsuitable for life in a massively interdependent world with finite resources. Corporations lack a social and environmental conscience by design. Endowed with the power of immortality, corporations aren’t required to act with consideration for the societies that charter them and the planet that ultimately sustains them. Our courts have endowed corporations with many of the rights of citizens without requiring a corresponding moral responsibility appropriate to their size and greater power to adversely affect society and the environment.
We, the people, are waking up and remembering that the ultimate authority to charter corporations and determine the scope of their responsibility lies with us. Occupy Wall Street and its “we are the 99 percent” refrain helped remind us that we, the people, have the ultimate sovereignty over corporations. We now understand that we cannot create a sustainable economic system without the participation of our largest collective life forms, the corporations. The guiding principle of profit maximization must be expanded to include the provision of a material positive impact on society and the environment. External regulations are no substitute for an internal moral compass that not only protects shareholders but also people and the planet.
Happily, the corporation is on its own hero’s journey and is evolving to acquire a conscience. Indeed, a global movement is afoot to correct the corporation’s fundamental design flaw in order to endow it with the legal architecture that activates an internal social and environmental conscience. Twenty states, including California, New York, and Delaware, have adopted legislation creating a new form of corporation, the “benefit corporation,” that by definition is required to act with a social and environmental conscience in addition to the usual pecuniary one. Generally, benefit corporations seek to optimize profit for shareholders and provide a material positive impact on society and the environment from their operations taken as a whole. Such corporations have a public purpose in addition to simply making money.
Benefit corporations generally expand the fiduciary duties of directors to consider the effects of corporate behavior on all of a corporation’s stakeholders, such as employees, vendors and suppliers, the communities in which it does business, the environment, and its shareholders. Benefit corporations generally also require transparency and accountability to shareholders for meeting the public purpose. California’s law, for example, requires that corporations measure their provision of a material positive impact on society and the environment against a third-party standard such as B Lab’s Certified B Corporation assessment. Generally such measurement must be shared annually with shareholders and the public to ensure accountability.
Since the first benefit corporation law was passed in 2010, approximately 500 corporations in the United States, including the California-based outdoor clothing company Patagonia, have become benefit corporations. And the movement among companies to have their social and environmental impact assessed against third-party standards is growing. Today 15,000 businesses have taken B Lab’s Certified B Corporation assessment and 990 businesses in thirty-two countries have become Certified B Corporations. British Columbia passed a law enabling the formation of community contribution companies in July 2013, and Chile is considering adopting benefit corporation legislation.
The benefit corporation is the most important development in the field of business law since the advent of free incorporation and limited liability in 1811. These new corporate laws represent a massive shift in our collective consciousness about business, from a narrow focus on profits to triple bottom-line orientation—people, profit, and planet. Impact investing, corporate social responsibility, and movements like Conscious Capitalism are all part of this global shift in consciousness, which begins to recognize that we are all part of one planet and one human family. The benefit corporation will help businesses shift from an egocentric focus on profits to include consideration of the “we” and the “one.”
What kind of a world would we live in if every corporation optimized the effect of its behavior on society and the environment while still making a profit? B Lab, a non-profit headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania, promulgated the following Declaration of Interdependence a few years ago, providing a vision of what it could be:
We envision a new sector of the economy, which harnesses the power of private enterprise to create public benefit. This sector is comprised of a new type of corporation, the B Corporation, which is purpose-driven and creates benefit for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
As members of this emerging economy and as entrepreneurs and investors in B Corporations, We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That we must be the change we seek in the world.
That business ought to be conducted as if people and place mattered.
That through their products, practices, and profits, businesses should aspire to do no harm and benefit all.
To do so requires that we act with the understanding that we are each dependent upon another and thus responsible for each other and future generations.
What can you do as an individual? Increasingly, you’ll have a choice as to which economy you would like to be a part of—the old economy dominated by corporations, whose sole purpose is to maximize profit for shareholders, or the emerging economy in which corporations exist to optimize good and profit. You can hold corporations accountable by voting with your pocketbook to do business with benefit corporations and Certified B Corporations who are serious about sustainability. Encourage your favorite companies to become benefit corporations and measure their provision of a material positive impact on society and the environment against third-party standards such as B Lab’s. With your actions, you can help create a sustainable economic system.
John Montgomery is a corporate attorney, entrepreneur, leadership consultant, author, and speaker. He is the founder of Montgomery & Hanson, LLP, a corporate law firm in Silicon Valley and author of Great From the Start: How Conscious Corporations Attract Success. He currently advises corporations on how to transform themselves into businesses that not only optimize profit but also provide a material positive impact on society and the environment.


CEOs Play Hide and Seek by Jim Hightower.  The Progressive (July 2013).

How front groups for corporations and wealthy individuals “pour unlimited sums of corporate cash into elections without ever disclosing the names of their funders.”  --Dick



Freedom to Harm

The Lasting Legacy of the Laissez Faire Revival

·         Thomas O. McGarity


How much economic freedom is a good thing? 

This book tells the story of how the business community, and the trade associations and think tanks that it created, launched three powerful assaults during the last quarter of the twentieth century on the federal regulatory system and the state civil justice system to accomplish a revival of the laissez faire political economy that dominated Gilded Age America.  Although the consequences of these assaults became painfully apparent in a confluence of crises during the early twenty-first century, the patch-and-repair fixes that Congress and the Obama administration put into place did little to change the underlying laissez faire ideology and practice that continues to dominate the American political economy.  In anticipation of the next confluence of crises, Thomas McGarity offers suggestions for more comprehensive governmental protections for consumers, workers, and the environment.
Thomas O. McGarity holds the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long Endowed Chair in Administrative Law at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. He is the author of The Preemption War: When Federal Bureaucracies Trump Local Juries and Reinventing Rationality: The Role of Regulatory Analysis in the Federal Bureaucracy. He lives in Austin, TX.

Rev. Public Citizen News (May-June 2013).   Book will help public understand that regulation of business is good for the public.  –Dick


This particular cartoon is about 6 rows down.

Cartoon Corporations & Gov't.jpg
Cartoon Corporations & Gov't.jpg
 View   Download  

Global Warming News

Compiled: November 22, 2013 04:56:01 AM

Dot Earth


Who’s most accountable for the vast emissions of greenhouse gases so far — the companies that extracted the fuels or the citizens using them?

Big Food Companies Want to Call GMO Foods "Natural" 
John Upton, Grist, RSN Dec. 23, 2013 
Upton reports: "Is genetically engineered food natural? The Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group representing some of the world's biggest food and food-related companies, including ConAgra Foods, Bayer CropScience, and the Coca-Cola Company, thinks so." 


“The Global Fight Against Corporate Rule”

Activists are challenging rules that grant corporations the right to sue governments.
Mining protester
A protester holds a sign that reads in Spanish “No to mining” at a protest against Canada’s gold and silver mining operations in northern El Salvador, outside Canada’s Consulate office in San Salvador. (AP Photo/Luis Romero)
Over the past several decades, multinational corporate Goliaths have helped to write and rewrite hundreds of rules skewing tax, trade, investment and other policies in their favor. The extraordinary damage these policies have caused has become increasingly apparent to the communities and governments most directly affected by them. This, in turn, has strengthened the potential of a movement that’s emerging to try to reverse the momentum. But just like David with his slingshot, the local, environmental and government leaders seeking to revise rules to favor communities and the planet must pick their battles carefully. 
One of the most promising of these battles takes aim at an egregious set of agreements that allow corporations to sue national governments. Until three decades ago, governments could pass laws to protect consumers, workers, health, the environment and domestic firms with little threat of outside legal challenge from corporations. All that changed when corporations started acquiring the “right” to sue governments over actions—including public interest regulations—that reduce the value of their investments. These rights first appeared in little-known bilateral investment treaties. Twenty years ago, corporate lawyers embedded them in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Today, more than 3,000 trade and investment agreements and even some national investment laws grant foreign investors these powers. 
The Obama administration is attempting to insert similar anti-democratic investor protections in new trade and investment agreements with countries that border the Pacific and with the European Union. Hoping to expedite the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), congressional leaders introduced fast- track trade promotion legislation on January 9 that would severely limit Congress’s ability to amend such agreements. The widely anticipated move set off a storm of protest from unions, environmentalists, liberal members of Congress and others, and will likely remain a high-profile fight in the coming weeks.
The forces aligned against these proposed agreements are not alone. Activists across the globe are developing creative and increasingly effective strategies to push back against investor assaults on their communities, environment and national sovereignty. An important front has opened up in El Salvador, where a multinational firm is using investor powers to sue the government over the “right” to mine gold. This case represents an extreme assault on democracy, as local communities, the majority of the Salvadoran public and the Salvadoran government all oppose the gold mining. But what’s happening in El Salvador is not an anomaly. There are crucial battles brewing in several other Latin American countries—including Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador—as well as in other parts of the developing world. 
At the very least, these struggles should give the Obama administration pause as it considers the next round of trade agreements. But what makes them so strategic—and promising—is that powerful citizen groups are persuading governments to take up the challenge. As they do, they are building momentum in a broad global fight against investor rights. 
* * *
Salvadoran land sits atop a wide belt of gold running down the middle of Central America, a vein that has enticed profiteers for more than a century. In the early 1900s, the US miner Charles Butters began plundering the region using a lucrative process that employed cyanide to separate gold from rock. Within years, Butters was making millions. But what he seems not to have contemplated—and what the farmers in these parts know well—is that the area is vulnerable to earthquakes and tropical storms, both of which make it difficult to contain the toxic chemicals used to mine gold. And no one appears to have known that the heavily concentrated sulfides found in the rock that often surrounds gold become sulfuric acid when they are exposed to the elements during the extraction process. The acid leaches other toxic materials into the soil and water. In July 2012, at the San Sebastián site of the mine that Butters opened more than a century ago, the Salvadoran environment ministry found levels of cyanide and iron that were through the roof.
The areas affected by gold mining will remain contaminated for centuries unless the companies are kept out and forced to pay for costly cleanup. Yet El Salvador is not suing the mining firms for such destruction. Instead, in 2009, at a tribunal housed in an imposing World Bank building just a few blocks from the White House, firms sued the Salvadoran government for not letting them mine. One of them, Canada’s Pacific Rim Mining Corporation, is demanding either that it be allowed to mine in northern El Salvador or that the government pay it over $300 million in damages, an amount equivalent to more than 1 percent of the Salvadoran economy. 
Over the course of several trips we have taken in recent years to learn about the local movement against mining, corn and bean farmers have led us up and down the hills of northern El Salvador, guiding us through the streams that feed the Lempa River. This river, which flows from Guatemala through El Salvador and then along the border with Honduras before it plunges south into the Pacific Ocean, provides water to more than half the country’s people. One of our guides was Miguel Rivera, a local “pro-water” activist whose older brother Marcelo, a popular educator, was brutally assassinated in 2009 after organizing many in his community against gold mining.
Miguel and his colleagues brought us through different parts of the Lempa watershed to show us pollution from agribusiness, factories, hog farms and gold mining. Along the way, Miguel, who has become a trained water expert, often paused to test it for toxins and other substances. We visited the site of Butters’s San Sebastián mine, which has been closed for years but continues to leach toxic substances into the streams. Some days, the water was Kool-Aid orange; on others, it was Ocean Spray cranberry. 
As the prices of gold and other metals skyrocketed after 2000, multinational firms like Pacific Rim rushed to apply for permits to mine in resource-rich regions like the Salvadoran province of Cabañas, where Miguel lives. Initially, the farmers of this poor region were intrigued by the prospect of good jobs, but a number of them visited the mines in neighboring Honduras and returned with horror stories of disease, polluted rivers and few actual jobs. A community activist told us, “We learned how much water the mining companies would use to mine, and water became a big issue. Mining uses a lot of it, and we had little.” Some visited the old Butters site in San Sebastián, where the orange and cranberry waters sealed their opposition. 
Local activism on the proposed Pacific Rim mine—including cultural work led by Marcelo Rivera and a radio station run by local youth—spread in Cabañas and across El Salvador. Farmers, students, people of faith, lawyers and human-rights activists formed the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining, and won over politicians and even the mainstream Catholic church. By 2007, a national poll showed that more than 62 percent of Salvadorans opposed metals mining. As Miguel Rivera and others continually stressed to us, the slogan of the Roundtable was “We can live without gold, but we can’t live without water.” 
When the progressive FMLN party won the presidency in 2009, the newly elected president, Mauricio Funes, pledged not to issue mining permits during his five-year term, a promise he has kept. In other words, El Salvador has quietly become the first nation on earth to stop destructive gold mining. 
·         1

·         2

·         3

·         next ›

·         last »


The Rise of the American Corporate Security State: Six Reasons to Be Afraid  by Beatrice Edwards. 

An insightful new book from GAP Executive & International Director Beatrice Edwards illustrates how Americans now live in a security state where the government values corporate rights over its citizens. The Rise of the American Corporate Security State: Six Reasons to Be Afraid is a call-to-action for anyone who wants to fight the erosion of our civil liberties.
Edwards draws upon years of experience heading GAP, the nation's leading whistleblower protection and advocacy organization, to reveal the truth. She is directly involved with the cases of intelligence agency insiders William Binney, Tom Drake, John Kiriakou, Edward Snowden and J. Kirk Wiebe, and financial industry whistleblowers like Citigroup's Richard Bowen and anonymous AIG insiders. Edwards is uniquely situated to connect-the-dots and alert the public about the real and present threats to our democracy.
What are these existing threats? Edwards' book effectively outlines what Americans should be alarmed about:
  1. Average citizens are subject to ever-expanding surveillance and data collection by the government-corporate complex.
  2. Control of information by the government-corporate complex is expanding.
  3. The separation of powers established by the Constitution is eroding.   Rights guaranteed by constitutional amendments are becoming irrelevant.  Reporting a crime may be a crime, and informing the public of the truth is treason.
  4. The government-corporate surveillance complex is consolidating. What has become a confidential but informal collaboration now seeks to legalize its special status.
  5. Financial reforms enacted after the 2008 crisis are inoperable and ineffective because of inadequate investigations and intensive corporate lobbying.
  6. Systemic corruption and a fundamental conflict of interest are driving us toward the precipice of new economic crises.
Just how did it come to this? Edwards's beautifully written narrative shows how, after 9/11 created a panic, the intelligence agencies overreached in instituting surveillance programs that violate Americans' constitutional rights. Corporations lined up to secure waste-laden government contracts to sell new technologies that grabbed and shared private customer data, all while using the bogus threat of a "cyber war" as justification. This nefarious partnership is exactly why the Justice Department isn't going after the institutions responsible for the financial collapse of 2008.
Edwards knows all of this from working directly with whistleblowers who witnessed the wrongdoing firsthand.
As the growing national security state embeds with the corporate security complex, Edwards outlines how citizens can take their country back by restoring government transparency and returning privacy controls to personal information.
You can order the book on Amazon or from book publisher Berrett-Koehler.
Praise for The Rise of the American Corporate Security State
Noted opinion leaders and journalists praise Edwards' book for its valuable contribution to society. Accolades include:
"Bea Edwards has written a vital book about the ridiculously cozy relationship between corporate wealth and government power and how it only seems to be getting worse. It's up to the rest of us now to do something about it."
 William Cohan, New York Times and Financial Times reporter and
author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World
"A must-read for those who love this country and wish to preserve its fast-fading democracy. Edwards is an extraordinary writer who brilliantly captures the essence of what whistleblowers such as Snowden have sacrificed their careers and jeopardized their personal liberties to convey. This book has arrived just in time if – and only if – those who are moved by it take concerted practical action."
 Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower and
Director, Freedom of the Press Foundation
Media Coverage
About the Author
Beatrice Edwards is the Executive Director of GAP. She works with whistleblowers from government, corporations and international financial institutions on issues of illegality, abuse, and corruption. For ten years, she was a contributing columnist to The Texas Observer, working under the pseudonym "Gabriela Bocagrande," and she received a Project Censored award in 2002. Currently, she writes for GAP's inhouse blog and for The Huffington Post about corruption and surveillance issues.
Edwards holds an M.A. from the University of Texas and a Ph.D. from American University; she speaks publicly about the need for whistleblower and witness protection, as well as strong anticorruption measures in public and private organizations. She has spoken at conferences in Bangkok, Delhi, Paris, Sao Paulo, Moscow, and Cali, as well as around the United States. In March 2013, she helped to establish an international network of whistleblower protection organizations.

GAP Protecting Whistleblowers since 1977

Contents #7  June 10
Background:  Greenspan
ALEC’S Anti-Environment Legislation
Goodman on Bank of America
Washburn, Corporate Influence in Education
Compassion Commodified
Corporate Foundation of US Imperialism
Reich, Together We Can

Contents #8
TPP: Corporate Coup in Pacific
Greedy CEO’s
Taibbi: Financial Corporations vs. Reform
Hedges Votes Green
Hedges Reviews Eggers, Lies of Global Corporate Capitalism
Corporate Disinformation Campaign Against Climate Truths
Corporations versus the People:  Blame the Government (cartoon)

Contents #9  May 5, 2013
Johnston, How Customers Are Deceived and Fleeced in Contracts
Pizzigati, The Rich Don’t Always Win?
Corporate Accountability International
Cordaro, Christian Critique
Crawford, Control of Internet
Levine, Stand Up Against Corporations
Li Delin, Latest of 2 Books on Goldman Sachs


No comments:

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)

Dick's Wars and Warming KPSQ Radio Editorials (#1-48)