The Money Power – A Look at the Lobbyist and Nuclear Arms
By Kira Webster
In early February, the Trump administration released its Nuclear Posture Review, and the administration stated they wanted to focus more on “low-yield” weapons. This can be considered alarming since these weapons are more likely to be used in war (many would say this was inevitable following the strike on Syria that followed afterwards).
One of the most influential people behind Trump’s NPR is Frank C. Miller – a principal at The Scowcroft Group and an independent defense consultant. He has always advocated for strong nuclear policy, and is known as a“revolving door profiteer” (a lobbyist that originated in the public sector). Along with being an active board member at EADS North America, Sandia Laboratories, Atlantic Council, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies Security Program, he has been a lobbyist at the Cohen Group and Lockheed Martin.
Lobbying, for the most part, has existed since the 1800’s. However, the profession experienced a huge boom in the 1970’s. In 1975, only 175 corporations had lobbyists, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 companies had them. By 2011, corporations were spending about $3.5 billion per year on lobbying. While lobbying is not inherently corrupt, it has become more so due to the fact that lobbyists will use extremely lucrative deals, huge promises, and deception to convince Congress to support their specific legislation proposals. One nuclear lobbyist has even admitted to spreading messages via third-party opinion in order to deter speculation about pro-nuclear messages.
Healthcare companies are notorious for their lobbyists, however, arms and other defense-related companies have the most by far. Most lobbyists originally start in the public sector under a different occupation, and then eventually transfer to the private sector as a lobbyist (those who have backgrounds in their fields make much more than those who start lobbying without any experience). In fact, lobbyists will even create deals for legislation by proposing huge amounts of money in exchange for guaranteeing the other a job as a lobbyist.
The Defense Department sees some of the most crossover between the two sectors. From 2011-2012, DOD officials and military officers secured 231 jobs in arms-related companies. It does make sense to an extent since the government is the arms industry’s biggest customer, and the DOD remains close to its suppliers. However, their federal contracts are enormously expensive and end up delivering a poor performance for the military. In addition, the contracts aren’t of good value for taxpayers.
The Violence Policy Center reported in 2013 the National Rifle Association’s “Corporate Partners Program” generates between $19.3 to $60.2 million every year for the organization. Eight gun industry partners donate about a million dollars or more each year. The top thirteen nuclear weapon manufacturers spent $243.49 million on lobbyists alone from 2012-2014, not including an additional $44 million in campaign contributions during the 2012 and 2014 federal elections. The majority of these companies’ incomes derive from federal government contracts, and twelve of them made over one trillion dollars in the past three years.
These large corporations who can afford lobbyists also take advantage of the tax code based on 43 tax credits, deferrals, and exceptions. In two years (2008-2010), 29 corporations paid no federal taxes on their combined profits of $164 billion. They also spent $476 million on lobbying, which gave them back $11 million in tax rebates. The result is the companies who can’t afford to hire lobbyists end up having to pick up the tab, as well as regular citizens.
A single corporation is normally full of lobbyists like Miller. The American Legislative Exchange Council brings state legislators together with our largest companies (Walmart,Coca-Cola, FedEx, Amway, Koch Industries, etc.) to conferences where committees comprised of equal numbers of public and private officials draft proposals for legislation. For the past decade, corporations have contributed more than $370 million to state elections, and over 100 laws annually have passed based on ALEC’s model bills. These bills have ranged from prohibiting cities from importing discounted drugs from Canada; no taxes on soda; policies that raise prison occupancy rates; cuts to Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and public schools; “right-to-work” laws; and, of course, more funding in nuclear arms.
Recently, social programs and education have been the first ones to be slashed to support nuclear manufacturing and modernizing, and just like ensuring higher prison occupancy rates, more nuclear arms are not necessarily the best way to keep America safe.President Eisenhower foreshadowed the outside influence to U.S. arms in 1961, and warned:
“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex. The potential for disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process. . . Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
One way to inhibit further influence from corporations to legislation is to enact a law prohibiting lobbyists from donating to politicians. Reform has been proposed at the federal level, and has been gaining more momentum in cities around the country. It is important to research and vote for politicians who do not have heavy connections to corporate lobbyists, and instill pressure on Congress to advocate for anti-corruption. Hopefully, we are not too late to end the pattern of corruption from the past 50 years.
