An example - Did $13 million affect national park policy?
The New York Times (pages A1, A4, November 10, 2011; online article) reported that head of federal parks Jon Jarvis blocked a planned ban on sales of plastic water bottles in Grand Canyon National Park. The NYT article linked that action to $13 million Coca-Cola donated to the National Park Foundation and a recent meeting between Coca-Cola and national park officials. The water bottles are the biggest source of litter in the park and a source of income for Coca-Cola ($400,000/year in sales, profit margin unknown). Mr. Jarvis was reported to block the ban to allow time to "get more information".
Desert Storm - Kuwait - 1991
Coca-Cola argued that imposing the ban would be a mistake because it limited personal choice and that increasing recycling would address the problem. As usual when questions about the effect of money in politics comes up, park officials denied that the money had any impact on the decision to block the bottle ban. The park service also denied that Coca-Cola's donations bought "access". Requests for information turned up not much. Events occurred behind closed doors. Other details are in the article. Presumably the littered bottles in the park are disposed of sooner or later when someone picks them up at taxpayer expense.
Under the circumstances, could $13 million in donations to a foundation dedicated to helping national parks affect the decision to block a planned policy action? In other political contexts, e.g., attempts to impose recycling fees in many states, have been blocked or limited by bottlers and retail outlets who don't want the cost and mess associated with recycling discarded bottles.
Cruise missile launch, Operation Odyssey Dawn
Libya (Mediterranean fleet) - March 2011
(defending Libyan civilians)
Did Coca-Cola's donations affect the federal decision making process and prevent implementing the ban? Is this an example of politics corrupted by special interest money? Will this force taxpayers to foot the bill to implement recycling infrastructure in Grand Canyon National Park so that Coca-Cola can continue to make money as usual without paying for infrastructure to deal with the litter problem?
Its likely that many or most liberals generally hostile to business would see corruption while many or most conservatives would not. How should a pragmatist with no faith in the two-party system or politics as usual look at it? Pragmatically, that's how. Let the facts speak for themselves, ignore political or religious ideology and then draw reasonable common-sense conclusions.
The facts are that special interest money was paid and the special interest argued against a planned federal action that would impair the special interest's economic interest. According to the NYT article, it is a fact that a bottle ban in another national park in Utah was highly successful in reducing litter. It is also a fact that people involved deny anything wrong was done and that there is nothing to be concerned about.
Afghanistan 2010 - U.S. Air Force Capt. Ryan Weld talks with
villagers during a wroowali (brotherhood) mission in
Bakorzai village, Afghanistan, Dec. 22, 2010 -
do you know what they are thinking?
It was corruption: The preponderance of evidence (more likely than not standard) is a reasonable standard of evidence to use if you don't trust the people or interests involved. Applying that without bias one way or the other to the facts at hand, its reasonable to conclude that special interest money corrupted political policy. In other words, $13 million did in fact corrupt a planned federal agency policy. The denials of everyone involved is heard and fully understood but not persuasive. If no money had been donated, the conclusion would have been different. But since money was involved and the policy change was inexplicable, the logical conclusion was that special interest money corrupted politics.
A big problem: That's a major problem in politics. How does one know if corruption occurs in cases where special interest money is involved, government action or policy later favors the special interest, everyone denies that the money had anything whatever to do with it and everything was done in the public interest? That is always the case for that fact pattern. I am aware of no exceptions. Given that, how do you tell an honest government action or policy that is not affected by special interest money from one that is?
If there was reason to have some trust two-party politics or our political system (and maybe apply a different standard of evidence to give the parties some benefit of a doubt), then the conclusion might go the other way. The amount of money involved, $13 million, was relatively small. Or, was it so small? There is no way to know. When special interest money is involved and the special interest inexplicably gets what it wants, then the fair and balanced conclusion is that politics was corrupted. For some people, like me, that's how people can perceive government when trust is lost.
No comments:
Post a Comment