Thursday, November 18, 2004

Oligopolies get their payoffs    It’s no secret that large companies, many of them oligopolies, were major financial supporters in the last US election campaign, especially for Republicans, And quite understandably, they expect that their concerns will be addressed by the increased Republican majority. What is also alreday clear is that other groups that voted for the Republicans, thanks to the patriotic and moral appeals for that party, are likely to lose out whenever their desires cross those of the biggest corporate donors.   Among the first post-election actions to be taken up by Congress will be the country-of-origin legislation tacked on to the 2002 farm bill, which requires food processors, manufacturers and retailers to label the products they sell with the name of the country of origin. That way, it was figured, consumers who wanted to buy American meat, fruit, or vegetables, would know where these products or were concerned about, say, health conditions in some country, could get the information needed from  labels (as is typical in Europe).   This legsdlation was strongly favored by both consumers and especially by US farmers, a constituency that voted heavily for the Republicans. But big companies like Kraft, Cargill, and Safeway, opposed the measure, claiming it would add significant costs. The real reason, it seems apparent, that it would indicate just ho much food is imported and tie the hands of the big companies, as they move more and more agricultural operations overseas.  At the inistence of industry, the labeling requirement wa sput off until 2006.   Even before the new Congress is sworn in, theat legislation look like it will be repealed. The program will be made “voluntary” if the proposed new law passes, meaning it would have the force of a mere suggestion. A coalition of farmer groups and consumer groups are critical of the revised plan, but they may be powerless to stop this rewriting of the law in favor of the oligopolies.   A second area of corporate influence is revealed in what will not happen. After the Janet Jackson Superbowl “Nipplegate” incident, there was a furore, especially among the Republicans, that such degeneracy should be stopped by even more stringent fines for broadcasters. That furor was used to activate the religious base of the party, and bills to pass a draconian indecency bill which would strike hard at networks and stations that dared to show such a thing. The House rushed through a bill. But it took longer for the Senate to consider it. Now comes news, after the election, that the Senate won’t take up the bill in this Congress.   Des this change of heart have anything to with the major political contributions given to the winners by the major networks and their corporate parents? We can't help thinking so.  Not least of these was Viacom (CBS), which was the Superbowl broadcaster in question, even though its chairman had a history of supporting Democrats. And not to mention Fox Network’s parent company News Corp., a company whose lineup is full of sexual innuendo and half-clothed babes.   Whenever  the desires of major corporate contributor conflict with those of partisan voters, the ones with the money are likely to win .  The PR will contradict it, the rhetoric will stay th same, but through rule changes and inertia, the grateful party rewards the corporations first. Rules and regulations are boring, voters get confused easily or lose interest, or can be distracted by symbolic gestures. The ooligopolies keep refining the ways to get their quidproquo, and often in manipulating the regulations in the back rooms. 8:00:17 PM

comment []