RFK JR and The Corporate Capture of Government — Systemic Reform is Needed.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for the 2024 Democratic party nomination for President. I have been following his campaign, which has been mostly ignored by the MSM or attacked, discredited, and vilified as the efforts of someone who is a wacko or troubled man who is now a discredit and disgrace to his family and the Democratic party. The exception to this is his acceptance and promotion from the right wing, partly because of his policies, but perhaps mainly as a strategy to weaken the likely opponent to the Republican nominee, incumbent Joe Biden.
His campaign is mostly being conducted with his appearance on dozens and dozens of podcasts, with occasional interviews by less than mainstream media (e. g. NewsNation town hall), and with support and interest building, increasingly articles by MSM platforms. We have a few things in common. We were both born in 1954, we are both named after our fathers, and we both believe that the CIA had a key role in the murders of his uncle JFK and father RFK. I also strongly agree with the principal argument and message of his campaign — the need to reign in and address the system we have that is now represented by the Corporate Capture of Government. In nearly every podcast interview with RFK Jr that I have watched, when asked why he wants to be President, he leads with this issue.
Our shared belief in the who and the why regarding the assassination of his uncle is what drew me to following his campaign. My position on his candidacy is that as a registered Democrat and liberal, and someone who admires his late father and uncle, I welcome it. I believe he is raising important issues that must be discussed.
However, I also believe RFK Jr. is not qualified to be POTUS because of his lack of experience in the public sector — he has never run for or been elected to public office nor run and managed any organization near the size and scope and complexity of the US federal government. His very candidacy is quite controversial within his own family, with nearly all of them coming out in support of incumbent POTUS Joe Biden, who happens to have a bust of RFK Sr. sitting on his desk in the Oval Office. That is certainly a red flag for me, particularly given the Kennedy family history in politics and previous familial support for those efforts.
Savior Complex in American Politics — The Art of the Possible
My position above would be my usual criteria for what I would expect to see in a candidate for POTUS, and the baseline criteria I would use to determine if they would make a good President. As a first principle, it was why I immediately and consistently rejected Donald Trump.
However, these are challenging times which requires new thinking and perhaps new risks to address systemic threats of the hyperobjects of our time. Certainly, in America, in 2016, nearly 63 Million Americans were willing to take huge risks in a “savior” of America who was going to “drain the swamp” and rescue America by making it great again, and in 2020, 74 Million did so. Uber Establishmentarian George Bush commented after hearing Trump’s 2017 inaugural address, “That was some weird shit.”
Trump-MAGA is a populist energy and movement in the classic sense. Something like that could happen again with RFK Jr, I am certainly not ruling that out, he is representing similar populist sentiment. Having mentioned that RFK Jr is taking his message to the podcasters, here are just two picked at random, both with very large followings — Joe Rogan discussing media suppression of RFK’s campaign, and Aubrey Marcus speaking with author and spiritualist Charles Eisenstein about their hope and belief in the possibilities of a Kennedy Presidency.
Eisenstein (50-minute mark) discusses the hope and possibility for a “Radical healing” from the “trauma that America suffered on Nov 22, 1963. The root of the poison is America swallowed the lie that JFK’s murder was a lone gunman. We now swim in an ocean of lies. Government lying to Americans is now routine.” The hopefulness from these two men can be captured in the phrase “Make America October of 1963 Again.” When people like these two, along with Jack Dorsey endorsing him, all from completely different philosophical and ethical motivations, get behind him, along with the success of Trump-MAGA movement, one thinks that anything is possible in 2024.
I have taken a lifelong interest in the topic of RFK Jr.’s uncle and father’s assassinations, having read many books, communicated with one JFK biographer, and have been following researchers’ work around those topics. RFK Jr. is really the only living Kennedy that has publicly commented on these murders, (Jackie and RFK privately commented to others their belief that domestic enemies killed JFK, not a lone nut gunman for no reason). His coming forward now, with a presidential campaign as his platform to openly discuss his beliefs in this area along with his other beliefs, brings to the fore issues that mostly are not discussed or addressed by public leaders.
Because of the treatment of RFK Jr’s more controversial positions, I am actually concerned that RFK’s campaign may actually not be helpful with the ongoing efforts to force a public disclosure of all of the related JFK assassination files as required by the 1992 JFK Records Act. With President Joseph Biden’s Executive Order of 6/30/2023, he and the Intelligence agencies are attempting to bypass this law he voted for, close the books on releasing these records, with Biden having given the final say on their release to the CIA and Intelligence agencies.
Former Washington Post journalist, Author, JFKFacts founder and Researcher Jefferson Morley addressed this concern, stating that this issue stands on its own and is not related to the other issues RFK Jr. is discussing in his campaign. Obviously RFK Jr. running and winning could change this completely. Like his father before him would have done, he will completely expose the knowns, the hidden knowns, and may explore known unknowns by possibly seeking some sort of justice and retribution among any perps still living, perhaps with another Congressional investigation or special commission. Biden’s order could even change the dynamic of the race if RFK continues to couple these actions to his other issues that he is highlighting. The next attempt to address this is the lawsuit vs Biden being brought by the Mary Ferrell Foundation.
RFK Jr Overarching Mission — eliminate Corporate Capture of Government
I am not certain Jeff is correct but do believe that those murders and other issues that RFK Jr. is addressing are all related to what I believe is the overarching issue he has raised, the systemic Corporate Capture of Government. His campaign website claims he will transform this system and bring about “honest government”. He does not say how he will accomplish this. I could find no policy papers or reform proposals. His record of advocating and winning in court protecting environmental rights, is admirable but insufficient as an indicator of possibly achieving success in a Kennedy administration for addressing the primary issue of his campaign, or for addressing the many other issues the nation faces. Honesty and truth appear to be his primary claim, with Dick Russell’s soon to be released biography calling him a “Truth Warrior” vs the MSM and liberal left’s label of him as a loony conspiracy theorist and “crank”– read here, here, here, here, and here.
In this essay, I will attempt to answer the following questions: What is Corporate Capture of Government? Has it been analyzed, written about, or embraced as a campaign issue by others previously? How has this Capture been accomplished and how is it maintained, and why? How are the other issues RFK Jr. discuss related to this overarching issue? I will attempt to do this in a non-tinfoil hat manner. I will speculate as to why he has advocated for these issues, and how they all derive from this major issue. I will also attempt to address what could be done to bring about change and reform of this system.
The alternative to a reform-agenda for America addressing this issue is a “burn it all down fascist MAGA” approach to bringing about change. During the 2016 presidential campaign, in 2015, former Maryland Governor and Democratic party candidate Martin O’Malley actually said that the country will have to choose between two options — reform or pitchforks. The country chose pitchforks with MAGA Trump, January 6th insurrection the result, along with election denial and attempted extra-Constitutional overthrow of the democratically elected regime, resulting in the historic second impeachment of a President of the United States. Political violence is now regularly proposed by the MAGA faithful as a solution to the corruption seen everywhere.
The time to address the need for major reform is long past due. I continue to reject in the strongest way possible the MAGA burn it all down approach, I prefer an approach of significant systemic reform. This will only happen when politicians run on this reform agenda, win, and can bring others along in this effort of systemic reform to bring real change. RFK Jr deserves credit for raising this issue and he needs to be heard as he is currently the only politician at the national level that is actively campaigning on this platform. As I did in an essay on history, I will also ask Open AI’s ChatGPT what it “thinks” about this topic.
Corporate Capture Begins with Systemic Corruption
Before we can begin to talk about what RFK Jr means by Corporate Capture of Government, we must first address the underlying issue that has enabled this capture. That issue is public corruption that is now infused within our system of governance. It is this underlying systemic corruption that enables the capture to occur.
Our societal ethics and legal definition of what public corruption is has changed since the founding of the United States republic until today. At the beginning of our republic, public corruption was any activity that provided personal benefit which exploited a person’s work while in the public sector. Today, largely after multiple Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1970 and culminating in the Citizens United decision, corruption is now more narrowly defined as the result of a “quid pro quo” which is much harder to prove. A large recent example of this is President Trump’s offer to Ukraine President Zelensky (aka “The Perfect Phone Call”) to agree to provide him promised US weaponry if he would investigate Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden. This was a straightforward corrupt transaction — “do this and you will get that,” a classic quid pro quo. Trump was impeached for the first of two times for this corrupt offer but was acquitted in the Senate on a largely party line vote. So, even a straightforward quid pro quo offer of a bribe does not meet today’s standard of criminal corruption in the current polarized political environment in the US.
In her book Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United, Zephyr Teachout covers the history of the evolution of what corruption in the US is well. She wrote the book as a “letter to the Supreme Court.” The 2010 Citizens United decision established the rights of Corporations to be the same as individual citizens and equated money, specifically campaign contributions as speech, protected by the 1st amendment, meaning Corporations may give as much money to politicians and political action committees as they like. “Dark Money” is not required to be disclosed by the Federal Election Commission. Other books that review the long history for Corporations gaining this level of power is We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights, by Adam Winkler and Corporations and American Democracy, By Naomi R. Lamoreaux and William J. Novak, and Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right.
Once society changes its social and legal views of what corruption is — and what a person is, when it becomes acceptable and considered a necessary business practice to buy politicians through significant campaign donations, expecting a return on that investment, it is at that moment when corporations have established their control and sets the stage for their being able to capture the government, the authorizing environment, for the establishment of the rules of the system, the nation’s laws and accepted practices.
In the idealized vision of how a representative Constitutional Democracy was intended to work, individual voters elect their Congressional and state legislative representatives and those representatives are public servants that represent the desires of the people and they vote for legislation that is both in the national interest and represents the will of the people they represent, the governed. A 2014 Princeton study puts the lie to that vision, showing how the capture of Congress is complete and how Congress does not consider the opinions of its constituents when writing legislation, it depends on the lobbyists representing the special interests of the large corporations. As Represent.us, an NGO advocacy group for political reform, points out, big businesses and interest groups, which spend large amounts of money on lobbying, get lavish rewards from our increasingly corrupt government. In many state legislatures today, major legislation is first written by the major lobbying group ALEC, and merely slightly reworked by legislators before passed.
Corporate Capture of Government
The preamble to the US Constitution uses the language “We the people”, which means the collective of all individual citizens of the American nation, collectively having multiple roles within American society. These roles include citizen of a city, state and nation, member of a family, member of organizations with shared interests, owner of a business, employee, and worker in a business or public sector institution, member of a religious or faith community. Each of these roles means that the individual in the “We” has a set of interests that they advocate for at each level of society. In a representative democracy, these citizen voters elect representatives they trust to represent their will and to make decisions that are in the best overall interest of the members of the society governed in questions (local, state, national government).
In any relationship for these citizen individuals, representing their personal or collective interests becomes the fundamental challenge of societal governance. In an ideal democracy, the entire citizenry is fully educated and engaged, recognizing the inherent worth and value of each other citizen within their society. They negotiate in good faith and attempt to reach Win-Win solutions for disputes concerning a given set of problems or challenges, providing happiness and justice for all equally. One of the premier organizations in the world today helping citizens conducting negotiations to achieve Win-Win outcomes is the Harvard Program on Negotiation.
However, the democracy in the US is not a fully formed ideal, it is a continuing work in progress, a system consisting of humans that have evolved over many Millenia and have a nature that stems from our tribal past, which means we are still driven by and for power in our relationships and much of the social interactions are about maximizing our social status with others to get sex and our genes into the next generation and for the survival and flourishing of our tribe. In very large complex societies, like most since the start of the Agrarian period, social organization and its constructs were ways to develop, gain and maximize power of the individual, their tribe, and their interests. Seeking maximum power is not inherently a Win-Win approach, it is a Win-Lose approach to governance and cohabiting together.
The entire premise of Robert Wright’s book, Non-Zero — The Logic of Human Destiny, says, using game theory, the opposite, namely that evolution broadly selects for, and favors non zero-sum outcomes, or Win-Win species and life forms. I believe that is true when considering the broad sweep of evolution. Within that broad sweep however, when it comes to homo sapiens, Power-dominant leaders that practice Win-Lose have mostly won power within their societies in the short term. Wright’s hypothesis addresses the long arc of biological and cultural evolution.
Corporate Capture of Government results from Win-Lose approaches to setting the rules of play and controlling who the winners and the losers are and will be. In a society as powerful, varied and complex as America since the Industrial Revolution, the means to establish and gain control of this power requires a myriad of approaches but always in this variety of means is the ultimate arrival at a Win for one team, and a loss for the other. This is not to say that alliances based on Win-Win outcomes within a group of Power-sharing groups is not possible, just that in the broader context, rivals are going to lose. In a multi-polar, interdependent world, these interrelationships and geopolitics means that the complexity increases even more, and those seeking to gain the highest levels of power need to form associations across nation-state boundaries, within nation-state boundaries, and at all levels of society. There needs to be a concerted, focused, and cohesive means to establish and control to maintain the Win while avoiding the Loss.
This means that those seeking power in society, whether a Democracy or dictatorship, need to find ways to organize and represent their unique interests, along with the shared interests of those within their society. There are many ways to think about this, and many have, but the simplest way is the notion of rulers, those with power, and the ruled, those controlled and provided for by those that rule. Since humans have been playing this game for over 10,000 years, there are a set of “best practices” or Rules for Rulers, as developed by CGP Grey, formally trained in physics and sociology, and who offers YouTube educational videos.
The following is a summary of these rules.
Underlying, “Rule 0” — Without power, you can affect nothing.
1- No Man Rules Alone
2- Control the Treasure
3- Minimize Key Supporters
All Societies cannot escape the structures of power. Corruption is a tool of power, and is used to maximize power. Money and patronage influence and control the maintenance of power, particularly for the supporters of those in power. Taxes and Revolts provide a means to pay key supporters while avoiding social disruptions that threaten the ruler’s ability to maintain their power.
In America, the rulers have been referred to as the Power Elite by C. Wright Mills. Angelo Codevilla refers to them as the Ruling Class. Michael Lind also discusses this Ruling Class. G. William Domhoff is a retired Sociology professor who has written numerous books attempting to answer the following questions: Who Rules America? And who sets the rules in America? Is there a ruling class in America, and how are the interests of this ruling elite ensured? Who Rules America is a text book that has gone through eight revisions and his most recent book on this topic is The Corporate Rich and the Power Elite in the Twentieth Century: How They Won, Why Liberals and Labor Lost.
Domhoff notes succinctly that this ruling class maintains power “through lobbying, open and direct involvement in general policy planning on the big issues, participation (in large part through campaign donations) in political campaigns and elections, and through appointments to key decision-making positions in government.” His work explores and analyzes the extensive network of associations and clubs and gatherings where the shared interests of the ruling class can be discussed, codified, and advanced.
The economic system which Corporations operate in today is our current form of Capitalism. This system simply can still be defined as investors, owners and workers that produce goods and services for buyers within an operating marketplace. This has existed in some form since the beginning of Capitalism. Corporations are institutions that make the modern capitalist economy run. From the smallest mom and pop, privately owned firms to the largest multinational corporations. It is the latter category of business institutions that are what has disproportionate representation and has captured the authorizing environment, the government, as well as in its ability to tilt the rules for the governance, operation, and maintenance of the marketplace in which these Corporations operate.
Every Corporation serves the market and its paying customers within a specific industry of like Corporations, and while there is competition in and among specific members/corporations of an industry, collectively these industries have a cohesion and political power because of their benefit to society and the power and influence they can assert within the marketplace.
Public Corporations are run by a CEO, with an executive team, and they have a Board of Directors. They primarily answer to and focus their company’s efforts on providing a return on investment for their shareholders and maintaining a competitive and dominant position in the market and within their industry. The collection of these corporations within an industry give the industry economic and political power. Harvard’s Michael Porter has written and spoken of this and developed a tool of analysis referred to as the Five Forces of Industry Power.
Using Porter’s model as a guide, the central premise behind the Corporate Capture of Government is to ensure the control of new or substitute competitive entrants and maintaining control of industry and corporate power in the marketplace. A simple but powerful example of this is the Oil and Gas Industry’s response to the threat of Global Climate Change and the proposed substitutes of renewable energy in the economy. This has clearly been a market failure but that alone will not and does not stop the Oil and Gas Industry from proceeding to exert its power and control to stave off any and all threats to this power and control globally.
In the US, some industries have been traditionally more powerful than others and as technology has changed, some new industries have emerged that are important and powerful to the ruling class of America. To ensure that no New Entrants or Substitutes may enter the Capitalist field of play, the ruling elite within the dominant corporations within these industries ensure a strategy of capture of the Authorizing Environment, the state legislatures and Congress of the United States, the organizations that set the rules for rulers, the laws, and regulations that these Corporations must operate by.
The Ruling Elite are principals within the top tiers of each of these industries. These industries include: Oil and Gas, Banking/Finance, Military-Security Industrial — aka Defense Industry, Pharmaceutical, Information Technology, Telecommunications, Agriculture, Health Care, Education, Media & Entertainment, Power & Utilities, Retail, Chemical Industry.
If one listens closely to RFK Jr’s main themes, the target for his intention to “Give me a sword, and some ground to stand on, and we will take back our country” are key industries. These include:
1- Oil/Gas and Defense Industry — persons of interest in the murder of his father and uncle
2- Pharmaceutical — his anti-vax perspective and writing and focus on lax regulatory control and elimination of liability for all vaccines, promotion and exploitation of highly addictive Opioid pain killers, resulting in a deadly epidemic in the US.
3- Chemical and other polluters — his work winning environmental justice as an environmental lawyer.
If RFK Jr. were to put meat on the bones of his rhetoric, he would begin to discuss specific policies and specific reforms he intends to implement as part of the reform ground he will stand on as he Makes America October of 1963 again. Perhaps he will do it with forgiveness and kindness, with Truth and Reconciliation, as Charles Eisenstein would hope, but it is impossible to know. To support him, one must take the leap of faith for the possibility of this happening.
Winning at All Costs — Ultimate Power and Control
Returning to our Rules for Rulers and the fundamental underlying principle Without power, you can affect nothing, it is useful to consider the ways in which Corporate power along with industry power, can be used to capture the government, the authorizing environment. The World Economic Forum, which is an annual gathering place for the prominent and powerful in the global capitalist economy, produced in 2016 “Six Sources of Power.” The WEF acknowledges the notion of hierarchy — the leaders and the led, the rulers and the ruled, the powerful and not-powerful, the variety of ways that humans assert their authority over others. It explains the sources of power and how to use them.
These sources of power are:
1- Reward: Giving people what they want
2- Coercion: Using fear to control others
3- Information: When we know something others don’t (a key component of global intelligence agencies, key operators for the Corporate Ruling Elite)
4- Legitimate: Power that derives from mutually agreed upon roles, such as the power of a CEO
5- Expert: Power that comes from the possession of skills or expertise, such as the IT expert at a small firm
6- Referent: The power that comes through fame or charisma
Historically, powerful forces and powerful players can and do use ultimate power to win at all costs. The WEF sources of power are all those within the Legitimate power — power conferred ethically and legally, that has been referred to as the Overworld. Left out is the Underworld, the powerful in society that operate outside this legally and legitimate boundary. The dirty secret of the “legitimate power” is that it too will operate illegitimately while claiming legitimacy, and that is also worth exploring as it begins to get at the challenge RFK Jr. or any other legitimate, ethical, patriotic, non-self-serving leader if there is a desire to significantly reform and change this system.
An Alternative View of Power — the Underworld of Parapolitics furthering Corporate Capture
There are many places one could go to better understand this illegitimate source and use of power, or the practice of what Peter Dale Scott has referred to as Parapolitics. As explained in the books, lectures and courses of repented and reformed “Economic Hit Man” John Perkins, this captured, corrupt system has three levels in how it operates for furthering the objectives of the rulers over the ruled, especially in the pursuit of expansion of the American Empire and hegemony and as a major tool of geopolitics.
1- Captured American Government Makes Economic Offers via Economic Hit Men.
2- If Offer Refused, “Jackals” (Covert Intelligence Operations) force regime change for compliance and acceptance of offer.
3- If #2 fails, US Military Intervention to enforce compliance and acceptance.
As Perkins is also pointing out, China has customized this approach with their Belt and Road and other initiatives, and intends to use key aspects of the US playbook to beat it at its own game.
There is a broad historical narrative that describes how America ideally works, and it delivers the message of American Exceptionalism. The term originated with Alex de Tocqueville, was used again the early 20th century by American communists, then later by historians and usually conservative, right wing politicians. In each case the term provided a narrative that stated the uniqueness and moral superiority of the United States to other nations for historical, ideological, and religious reasons.
Viewing American history through this lens, common historical narratives emphasized America’s divinely inspired founding and positive accomplishments, while minimizing elements in its history that would undermine this narrative. The narrative was used to justify specific policies like expansion within its borders (Manifest Destiny) and beyond US borders in the late 19th century, and post WWII, as the basis for its Cold War fight vs the stated existential threat of Communism as part of what was deemed the American Century, a term coined by Henry R.Luce in a 1941 editorial as the US anticipated the end of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War, which George Kennan established was an existential fight that would ultimately continue for 45 years until the USSR ceased to exist.
A contrast to this and an alternative narrative to American Exceptionalism during the for Post WWII period is one coined by Political Scientist Aaron Good, in his book American Exceptionism which was influenced by the work of Peter Dale Scott and C. Wright Mills, among others.
A central concern of Good’s book is “the relationship between expansive foreign policy and democratic decline.” The focus of his research and this book is “upon the forces that drive the pursuit of (US) dominance.”
Good develops the theory of the tripartite state and the utility of this theory is “an attempt at sense-making using social science theory and empirical evidence — under conditions in which important political and historical events are intentionally obscured by powerful actors. The tripartite theory of the state and the concept of exceptionism have been developed herein to offer a means of understanding and explaining important historical and political realities. These matters include unadjudicated elite criminality, the ceaseless US pursuit of global dominance, and the prevailing regime’s inability to address major crises — namely economic inequality, ecological destruction, and the threat of nuclear omnicide.”
This is new scholarship that extends traditional historical analysis and looks more deeply at past events, offering a completely alternative revisionist historical narrative for America in the American Century. Suffice it to say, this revisionist narrative is not commonly accepted nor taught in most history classes, K-12 or in higher education.
If some of this alleged alternative history has really happened, how could it have happened without the press and/or historians being able or willing to write about it? How could they have been misled from “historical facts” as they occurred or when writing historical narratives about these past events? This is possible because of intentional deception by well trained deceivers. Since Good is writing about American Exception (via deception) in the American Century, Post WWII, it first helps to understand the importance of disguise and deception as key tools of war and nation-state rivalry and conflict. WWII produced many scientific and technological breakthroughs, but it also produced significant intelligence breakthroughs, and since WWII, these capacities have been significantly enhanced and continued to be practiced.
As author Stephen Budiansky has noted, “Any historian who hopes to tell the true story of secret intelligence operations, even from the distant past, quickly discovers that he is up against two formidable obstacles. First is the Kafkaesque system of government classification. Not only do U.S. intelligence agencies routinely refuse to declassify material from 70 or more years ago, they have taken to reclassifying and removing from the National Archives some previously released World War II-era files. The other problem is that spies are professional, if not congenital, liars.”
This means that specific agencies of national governments have a mission to deceive regarding their operations, and those done on behalf of those that they serve, the governed. Since much of this clandestine activity is very nasty business, and given commonly accepted historical narratives — e.g. American Exceptionalism do not include lying, deception, and nasty business as part of the story, these same agencies and their government needs to have the ability to not only disguise these operations, they need a means of communication to the public that paints a picture of reality that has been intentionally disguised.
This deception is important if these governments are democracies and want to maintain the consent of the governed. This requires both sophisticated tools, the Craft of Intelligence, but also sophisticated mass psychological techniques for communicating to a mass audience — the governed population, the ones voting and paying taxes for these services.
Paul Linebargar was an expert on psychological warfare and propaganda and taught a regular class to CIA agents out of his home while undercover in his assignment to the School of Advanced and International Studies. He used to recommend that his students read the classic book, The Big Con — The Story of the Confidence Men. The 1973 movie The Sting with Paul Newman and Robert Redford was based on this book.
In the introduction to his book Intelligence Wars — American Secret History From Hitler to Al Qaeda, Thomas Powers relates an interesting conversation he had with General William Odom at a party hosted by former CIA intelligence officer Haviland Smith. Powers asked General Odom how the CIA could have uncovered and infiltrated Al Qaeda before 9/11. General Odom, the former Army Chief of Staff and director of the National Security Agency said simply — “Like the Sting.” For those working in the field of Intelligence, many refer to this as The Great Game, former CIA man Bill Hitz’s book having the same name.
So beyond disguise and deception of covert operations there also needs to be the same in communications to the masses concerning these events. In their book Manufacturing Consent — The Political Economy of the Mass Media, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky argue that mass communication media are effective at carrying out a “system-supportive” propaganda function. System-supportive often includes the perpetuation of commonly agreed to historical narratives. Historians can be the Mark of a Big Con as well as any citizen consuming mass media.
Propaganda did not begin in WWII, and certainly it has evolved since then. However, with the rise of the Internet and Social Media, propaganda is not what it used to be and completely new techniques are needed to manipulate and influence mass populations and influence them, their culture, and the elections they vote in.
Some theories of social control of the governed that provides consent posits that there is a power elite or ruling class, as previously discussed, that has designed a society that works only for the few, while propagating social and historical narratives that keep the masses happy with their own circumstances, lest they rise up in revolution overthrowing the current order. The major institutions make up this current order include the Mass Media, the school system, the churches, corporations, and the remainder of civil society — those myriad associations that Alex de Tocqueville marveled at in the 19th century.
For the consent of the governed, consent for what the government does and how it does it, for what businesses and corporations do, for how well the system of capitalism in which businesses and the government operates, for what individual citizens can do, all within the notion of social norms, boundaries and laws, consent will be achieved if the society is cohesive in its beliefs about its institutions and the people that run them. It also needs to ideally be in broad agreement about the story of its society, or the accepted historical narrative.
As Daniel Bessner notes, at the end of the American Century, America must now use historical interpretation of how well its policies of Empire during this period has served itself and the world, as it determines its role in addressing the major issues of the 21st century. He argues that by only taking a historicist approach, can we accurately assess the good and bad of American policy during the American Century and arrive at an approach that is likely to better work in the decades and century ahead.
The traditional job of telling the story of how our system of governance works involves the educational system and the mass media. These stories are usually, but not always, accommodated and offered by the “Mainstream Media”. The role of Mass Media is to report on current events as they happen and have recently happened, and to perform investigative analysis and reporting as to causes for events as they occur. The media and journalism is supposed to be skeptical of government and other institutional power and to challenge narratives as they unfold. However, trust in the media, along with other institutions, is at an all time low.
Congressional Efforts at Systemic Reform of the System
There have been efforts within our political system to bring about systemic reform.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse wrote the book on the Corporate Capture of government, Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy. Ralph Nader, political activist, author and three-time presidential candidate, has always led with a reform the system agenda. Massachusets Senator Elizabeth Warren initially led with a reform agenda in her 2020 candidacy and introduced legislation for reform. She has a plan.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive caucus, has introduced legislation to stop corporate capture. In 2019, MD Congressman John Sarbanes introduced the For the People Act (HR1) which provided an extensive reform agenda.
These efforts have yet to attract political momentum for several reasons. The most likely reason is because the authorizers themselves have been captured, those within the authorizing environment do not really want to change it as systemic change will threaten their hold on power and prestige, even if subservient to Corporate masters. Self before country is the guiding mantra of most political leadership. They are the flaccid supporters of their corporate rulers who fund them. This is not an easy change to bring about.
A Reform Agenda for the Congress, Supreme Court, and Executive Branch
There are dozens of ideas for reforming our political system and ending systemic corruption. There have been many previous legislative efforts and continue to be many dozens of NGOs advocating for these changes. Efforts will need to be made across all three branches of government at the federal level, as well as at the local and state level, as the corruption in the system exists in all three branches and in every state. The following is a summary of reform ideas that have been proposed, there are likely many others.
Implement an annual Public Service Conduct Guidelines pledge that must be signed by every member of Congress, the Supreme Court, and all Senior Executives in the Executive branch. I had to do this every year of the 34 that I worked for IBM. The Office of Government Ethics in each branch could implement and ensure compliance with these annual pledges.
Campaign Finance Reform considering its history.
Eliminate All Revolving Doors.
End Gerrymandering — plenty of ideas and some efforts in states have begun with mixed results.
Term Limits for Congress and Supreme Court.
Implement consistent nationwide Voter Identification system.
Implement Easy Access to voting. Support and encourage all citizens to vote.
Implement Ranked Choice Voting in all primary elections.
Summary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is running for President of the United States and is campaigning to become the Democratic nominee in 2024, following in the footsteps of his late father and Uncle, both of whom he is invoking often as a “Kennedy Democrat” running in their tradition. His overarching theme is eliminating the Corporate Capture of Government by “telling the truth” about this system and what it has produced, and that he will accomplish this by implementing “Honest Government.” This is a worthy and needed mission and message, with this candidate being a controversial and imperfect choice to bring about the changes he, myself, and many others seek.
Much has been written about the Corporate Capture of Government and there have been and are many initiatives and ideas to reform this captured system, many of them have been discussed and included in this essay. Supporting RFK Jr. in this effort would be a major leap of faith for anyone to take. When asked about his family history and the risks of speaking out and challenging this system like both of them did, RFK Jr. told a podcaster and Fox host, “There are worse things than death.”
References
Who Rules America? — G William Domhoff.
Harvard Law — Corporate Capture of the US
The Hill — How to End Corporate Capture of Regulatory Process
International Corporate Accountability Recommendations for ending Corporate Capture
Center for American Progress on Corporate Capture
Center for Constitutional Rights — Corporate Capture
Roosevelt Institute — Corporate Power Program
Roosevelt Institute — Capturing the Government: Big Pharma’s Take Over of Policymaking
Revolving Door Project — Corporate Capture Scorecard
American Prospect, Book Reviews, Winkler and Lamoreaux
Time — Koch Industries and the Rigging of America
Harvard Business Review — The Conundrum of Corporate Power
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Op-Ed “Cutting Back The Dangerous Levels Of Corporate Power”
Open Markets Poll — 76% of Americans say corporations have too much power
The Democracy Center on Corporate Power
NY Times — Big Business is Swallowing the World, Sep 2020
Kirkus Book Reviews — Corporate Power in America, 1972. Edited Ralph Nader
How the Corporate Takeover of American Politics Began, Common Dreams, Robert Reich, 12/29/2022
Pew Research, 2019 — Views on Economic Power and the Social Safety Net
Washington Post, 6/28/2023 — Bidenomics
Harvard Business Review, The Five Forces for Industry Power, Michael Porter
RFK Jr. on CIA MKUltra Program — Not a Conspiracy, 6/29/2023
Redfield & Wilson Poll — Newsweek, 6/30/2023 Democratic support for RFK Jr.
The Hill Blog, 2/9/2022 How to end corporate capture of the regulatory process
Aubrey Marcus and Charles Eisenstein on RFK Jr.
Books
Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
We the Corporations: How American Businesses Won Their Civil Rights, Adam Winkler
Corporations and American Democracy, By Naomi R. Lamoreaux and William J. Novak.
Corruption in America: From Benjamin Franklin’s Snuff Box to Citizens United, Zephyr Teachout
Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right
Oil, Power, and War — A Dark History, by Matthieu Auzanneau.
Attenuated Democracy A Critical Introduction to Government and Politics, David Hubert
What Is Populism? Jan-Werner Muller
Advocacy Groups
Internatinal Corporate Accountability Roundtable
Open AI’s ChatGPT Weighs in on this topic — Jim Loving Asks ChatGPT
Jim: Write an essay answering this question: In the United States and Globally, what is Corporate Capture of Government?
ChatGPT: Title: Corporate Capture of Government: A Threat to Democracy
Introduction:
Corporate capture of government refers to a phenomenon in which powerful corporations exert significant influence over the decision-making processes and policies of governments at both national and global levels. This capture undermines the principles of democracy, as it allows corporate interests to supersede the well-being and interests of the general public. In this essay, we will examine the concept of corporate capture of government in the United States and globally, highlighting its implications for democratic governance and the need for robust safeguards to counteract this threat.
The United States:
In the United States, corporate capture of government has become a pervasive issue, exemplified by the close relationship between corporations and policymakers. One of the primary mechanisms through which this capture occurs is through campaign financing. Large corporations and wealthy individuals can contribute significant sums of money to political campaigns, effectively influencing the electoral process and subsequently shaping legislative agendas. Consequently, elected officials may feel indebted to these corporations, compromising their objectivity and prioritizing corporate interests over those of the general public.
Furthermore, the revolving door phenomenon exacerbates corporate capture. The revolving door refers to the movement of individuals between positions in the corporate world and government regulatory agencies. This creates a symbiotic relationship between regulators and the regulated, often resulting in regulatory capture. Corporate insiders who become government officials may be inclined to favor the interests of their former employers or industry, rather than working in the best interests of the public.
Globally:
Corporate capture of government is not limited to the United States; it is a global phenomenon with far-reaching consequences. Globalization has increased the power and influence of multinational corporations, providing them with the resources and leverage to shape policies across borders. These corporations often exploit regulatory gaps and engage in aggressive lobbying to weaken regulations that protect public welfare, labor rights, and the environment.
International trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) or the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), have faced criticism for enabling corporate capture. These agreements often contain investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, allowing corporations to challenge national laws and regulations that they perceive as detrimental to their profits. This undermines the sovereignty of nations and hampers their ability to implement policies in the public interest.
Implications for Democracy:
Corporate capture of government poses a significant threat to democracy. It distorts the democratic process, as the voices and concerns of ordinary citizens are overshadowed by the influence of wealthy corporations. When public policies prioritize corporate interests, societal inequality is exacerbated, and the social contract between citizens and the state is undermined.
Moreover, corporate capture erodes public trust in democratic institutions, as people perceive a lack of accountability and responsiveness to their needs. This disillusionment can lead to a decline in civic engagement, further weakening democratic participation and diminishing the prospects for meaningful change.
Countering Corporate Capture:
To counter corporate capture of government, robust safeguards and reforms are necessary. These should include:
1. Campaign finance reform: Implementing stricter regulations on campaign financing, including limits on contributions, transparency requirements, and public financing options, can help reduce the influence of corporations in elections.
2. Strengthening transparency and accountability: Governments should enforce greater transparency in lobbying activities, political donations, and the revolving door phenomenon. This includes stricter disclosure requirements and cooling-off periods for officials transitioning between public and private sectors.
3. Empowering civil society: Encouraging civic participation, promoting independent watchdog organizations, and protecting the rights of whistleblowers can help expose corporate capture and hold both corporations and policymakers accountable.
4. Promoting international cooperation: Addressing corporate capture requires global cooperation. International frameworks and agreements should prioritize the public interest over corporate profits, and mechanisms that enable regulatory capture should be reformed or eliminated.
Conclusion:
Corporate capture of government represents a threat to democracy both in the United States and globally.
Jim: Has it been analyzed, written about, or embraced as a campaign issue by political leaders previously or currently?
ChatGPT: Yes, the issue of corporate capture of government has been analyzed, written about, and embraced as a campaign issue by political leaders in the past and present. Many scholars, journalists, and activists have highlighted the detrimental effects of corporate influence on democratic governance.
In terms of political leaders, some have explicitly addressed the problem of corporate capture and made it a central part of their campaigns. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders in his 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns in the United States frequently criticized the influence of big corporations and Wall Street on politics. He called for campaign finance reform, stricter regulations on corporate lobbying, and an end to the revolving door between government and industry.
Similarly, Senator Elizabeth Warren has been a prominent advocate for combating corporate influence. She has proposed policies such as banning corporate PAC donations, implementing stronger lobbying regulations, and increasing transparency in corporate political spending. These issues have become central themes in her campaigns and policy platforms.
Other political leaders and organizations across the globe have also addressed the issue of corporate capture. For instance, in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, many politicians in Europe criticized the undue influence of the banking sector on policymaking and called for greater accountability and regulations.
Additionally, civil society organizations, advocacy groups, and grassroots movements have worked to raise awareness about corporate capture and push for systemic changes. These efforts have often influenced the public discourse and put pressure on political leaders to address the issue.
While the extent to which political leaders embrace corporate capture as a campaign issue may vary, it is clear that the topic has gained attention and significance in recent years. The public’s growing awareness of the detrimental effects of corporate influence has prompted politicians to respond to these concerns and incorporate them into their policy agendas.
Jim: How does Robert F. Kennedy Jr intend to address this issue of the Corporate Capture of Government?
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I can provide information based on the knowledge available up until September 2021, and I do not have real-time updates on specific individuals’ plans or intentions. Therefore, I cannot provide detailed information on Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s current intentions regarding the issue of corporate capture of government.
However, it’s worth noting that Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an American environmental attorney, activist, and author, has been a vocal advocate for various causes, including environmental protection, public health, and corporate accountability. He has expressed concerns about the influence of corporations on government decision-making and has criticized the role of corporate interests in shaping policies.
In his work, Kennedy Jr. has often focused on issues related to corporate influence in specific sectors such as the pharmaceutical industry, agriculture, and the environment. He has emphasized the need for transparency, regulatory reforms, and increased public awareness to counteract corporate capture.
While it’s important to consult reliable and up-to-date sources for the most accurate and current information on an individual’s intentions, Kennedy Jr.’s past statements and activism suggest that he may prioritize measures such as campaign finance reform, stronger regulations on corporate lobbying, and increased transparency as potential ways to address the issue of corporate capture of government.
Jim: How has this Capture been accomplished and how is it maintained, and why?
ChatGPT: Corporate capture of government is achieved and sustained through various mechanisms and factors. Here are some key ways in which this capture is accomplished and maintained:
1. Campaign financing: One of the primary methods through which corporate capture occurs is through campaign financing. Corporations and wealthy individuals can contribute significant sums of money to political campaigns, enabling them to gain access and influence over elected officials. This financial support often leads to a sense of indebtedness and can sway policymakers to prioritize the interests of these donors over the general public.
2. Lobbying: Corporations employ lobbyists who engage in direct advocacy with government officials, attempting to shape legislation, regulations, and policies in their favor. Lobbying efforts involve providing information, making persuasive arguments, and sometimes offering incentives to policymakers. The sheer financial resources and access to expertise give corporations significant advantages in influencing decision-making processes.
3. Revolving door phenomenon: The revolving door is a phenomenon where individuals move between positions in the private sector and government regulatory agencies. This creates a close relationship between the regulated industries and the regulatory bodies overseeing them. Individuals who transition from the corporate world to government positions or vice versa often bring industry-friendly perspectives and biases. This can lead to regulatory capture, where regulations are weakened or tailored to benefit the industries being regulated.
4. Regulatory capture: Regulatory capture occurs when regulatory agencies, tasked with overseeing corporate activities and protecting public interests, end up being influenced or controlled by the very industries they are supposed to regulate. This capture can happen through various means, such as industry lobbying, the revolving door, and regulatory agencies being understaffed or underfunded, limiting their capacity to act independently and robustly.
5. Influence over think tanks and research institutions: Corporations often fund think tanks, research institutions, and academic research, providing financial support to shape narratives, policy recommendations, and public discourse. This influence can shape the research agenda, the framing of issues, and the solutions proposed, often aligning with corporate interests.
6. Capturing international institutions: At the global level, multinational corporations leverage their economic power and influence to shape international trade agreements, investment treaties, and regulatory frameworks. Through these agreements, corporations gain mechanisms to challenge national laws and regulations that they perceive as obstacles to their profitability, thereby undermining national sovereignty and the ability of governments to protect public welfare.
The maintenance of corporate capture relies on a combination of financial resources, lobbying power, influence over policymakers, and the ability to shape public narratives. Corporations often maintain long-term relationships with policymakers through continuous lobbying efforts and campaign contributions. The revolving door phenomenon perpetuates this capture as individuals move between government and corporate positions, reinforcing the symbiotic relationship between the two sectors.
Moreover, the influence of corporations is sustained by their ability to shape public opinion through media control, public relations campaigns, and funding research institutions. This helps maintain a favorable narrative that aligns with corporate interests, making it more challenging for alternative perspectives to gain traction.
The reasons behind the maintenance of corporate capture are multifaceted. Corporations seek to maximize their profits and protect their market dominance, and influencing government policies is a way to achieve these goals. The concentration of wealth and power in the hands of corporations often leads to a disproportionate influence over decision-making processes. Additionally, regulatory capture and the revolving door can create a culture of industry-friendly policies, perpetuating a system that favors corporate interests over those of the general public.
However, it’s essential to note that not all corporate influence is inherently negative, as the private sector plays a vital role in driving economic growth and innovation. The issue arises when corporate influence undermines democratic principles, erodes public trust, and leads to policies that prioritize narrow interests over the well-being of the society as a whole.
Jim: What are current societal issues that can be attributed to the Corporate Capture of Government?
ChatGPT: Corporate capture of government has far-reaching implications for society, contributing to a range of societal issues. Here are some current societal issues that can be attributed, at least in part, to corporate capture of government:
1. Rising economic inequality: Corporate capture often leads to policies that favor the interests of corporations and the wealthy, exacerbating economic inequality. This can include tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy, weakening labor rights and protections, and limited investment in social welfare programs. As a result, wealth and power become concentrated in the hands of a few, widening the gap between the rich and the rest of the population.
2. Erosion of workers’ rights: Corporate capture can lead to the weakening of workers’ rights and protections. Policymakers influenced by corporate interests may support anti-labor policies such as suppressing unions, opposing minimum wage increases, and undermining worker safety regulations. This can result in exploitative labor practices, precarious employment, and stagnant wages, further contributing to economic inequality and social instability.
3. Environmental degradation: Corporate capture often hampers environmental regulation and protection. Industries such as fossil fuels, agriculture, and mining may exert influence to weaken environmental regulations, delay the adoption of sustainable practices, and resist efforts to address climate change. This can have devastating consequences for ecosystems, contribute to pollution, and exacerbate the climate crisis, impacting the well-being of communities and future generations.
4. Healthcare and pharmaceutical industry influence: The influence of the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries can lead to policies that prioritize profit over public health. This can include high drug prices, limited access to affordable healthcare, and undue influence on healthcare regulations. Corporate interests may impede efforts to expand access to quality healthcare and hinder the development of effective public health measures.
5. Influence on media and information: Corporate capture can also extend to the media industry, leading to biased reporting and limited diversity of viewpoints. Media organizations owned or influenced by corporations may prioritize corporate interests, shaping public narratives and limiting the dissemination of alternative perspectives. This undermines the quality of information available to the public, inhibiting informed decision-making and democratic discourse.
6. Regulatory capture and public safety concerns: When corporations exert undue influence over regulatory agencies, it can compromise public safety. For example, industries such as pharmaceuticals, food production, and transportation may influence regulatory processes, leading to lax safety standards and inadequate oversight. This can result in harmful products entering the market, compromised public health, and safety risks for consumers.
These are just a few examples of the societal issues that can arise from corporate capture of government. It is crucial to recognize and address these issues to ensure that public policies prioritize the common good and protect the well-being of society as a whole.
Jim: What are some recommended solutions to address the issue of the Corporate Capture of Government?
ChatGPT: Addressing the issue of corporate capture of government requires a multi-faceted approach that involves both systemic reforms and societal engagement. Here are some recommended solutions to tackle this issue:
1. Campaign finance reform: Implement stricter regulations on campaign financing, such as limiting the amount of money that individuals and corporations can contribute to political campaigns. Consider publicly funded elections to reduce the influence of private interests and ensure a level playing field for candidates.
2. Transparency and disclosure: Enhance transparency by requiring comprehensive disclosure of political donations, lobbying activities, and funding sources for think tanks and research institutions. This can help expose potential conflicts of interest and undue influence.
3. Revolving door regulations: Enact stricter regulations to mitigate the revolving door phenomenon between industry and government. Implement cooling-off periods to prevent former corporate insiders from immediately moving into positions of power within regulatory agencies. Strengthen conflict of interest rules and enforce restrictions on lobbying activities by former government officials.
4. Strengthen regulatory agencies: Bolster the independence, capacity, and resources of regulatory agencies to resist capture. Ensure that regulators have the expertise, staffing, and funding necessary to effectively oversee and enforce regulations.
5. Public financing of elections: Consider public financing options for elections to reduce the reliance on corporate and wealthy donors. This can help level the playing field, encourage more diverse candidates, and prioritize the interests of the general public over special interests.
6. Strengthen anti-corruption measures: Enforce existing anti-corruption laws and regulations to hold individuals and corporations accountable for illegal or unethical practices. Enhance whistleblower protections to encourage individuals to come forward with information on corporate capture.
7. Promote independent research and expertise: Support and fund independent research institutions, think tanks, and academic organizations that are not influenced by corporate interests. This can provide a counterbalance to industry-funded research and help inform evidence-based policymaking.
8. Civic engagement and public awareness: Promote civic education and engagement to empower citizens to participate actively in the political process. Encourage public awareness campaigns and grassroots movements that highlight the issue of corporate capture and its impact on society.
9. International cooperation: Foster international cooperation to address corporate capture at the global level. Develop and strengthen international regulations, agreements, and frameworks that prioritize public interests over corporate profits. Ensure that trade and investment agreements include provisions to protect public welfare, labor rights, and the environment.
10. Strengthen media independence: Support independent journalism and diverse media ownership to ensure a plurality of voices and viewpoints. Promote media literacy and critical thinking skills among the public to counter misinformation and propaganda.
It is important to note that these solutions should be tailored to the specific context of each country or jurisdiction. Combating corporate capture requires a comprehensive and sustained effort from policymakers, civil society organizations, and engaged citizens to protect the integrity of democratic governance and prioritize the interests of the general public.