David Sirota is the author of the upcoming book Hostile Takeover (Crown Publishers, May 2006) which explores how corporate interests have corrupted public policy. He is the co-chair of the Progressive Legislative Action Network, a research and advocacy organization that supports state lawmakers .
When Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in Mississippi by declaring support for "states' rights," many felt uncomfortable. The term had become a codeword for bigotry when racist politicians demanded the federal government allow states to preserve segregation.
Thankfully, the federal government, through the Civil Rights Act, responded by waging a successful war on states' supposed "rights" to these racist policies. But now, 40 years later, the federal government is waging a new and very different war on states' rights—one motivated not by altruism and equality, but by greed and corruption. This war is being waged not to protect millions of disenfranchised minorities from racism, but instead to protect the wealthiest corporations in America from statutes that defend ordinary citizens' economic interests.
This war was on full display this month when the House of Representatives passed legislation to prohibit states from having food-contamination standards and warning labels that are stricter than federal requirements. The bill, backed by the supposedly pro-states' rights Republican Party, is the product of almost $40 million in campaign contributions from the food industry. And its effects would be devastating. As just one example, it would likely invalidate California's 20-year-old Proposition 65 which requires warning labels about chemicals causing “cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.”
This is no anomaly. Over the last five years, political power has been usurped from state and local governments in a way not seen before in American history. That may seem like just a concern for academic types, but it should worry every American, as the power grab increasingly creeps into almost every aspect of citizens' economic life. This is not by accident, and the motives are obvious: the more political power is concentrated at the top echelons of government, the more removed that power is from ordinary citizens and the more easily Big Money interests can use their influence to corrupt public policy.
The evidence is most pronounced in the financial sector—not surprisingly, one of the Republican Party's biggest backers. In 2003, both parties in Congress joined hands to pass legislation barring states from having stricter financial privacy laws than new federal standards, which were far looser than states like California already had on the books. The financial services industry, which has made almost $1 billion in donations to both parties since 2000, salivated.
In 2004, the Bush Treasury Department issued an edict invalidating state laws that were cracking down on some of the most abusive credit card practices. The credit card industry, having invested $18 million in the GOP since 2000, was thrilled.
In 2005, they sued New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in an effort to force him to halt an investigation into banks that may have violated state civil rights laws. The banking industry, handing over $53 million to Republicans since 2000, was let off the hook.
And this year, Rep. Bob Ney—the same congressman connected to the Abramoff investigation—is pushing legislation to prohibit states from regulating predatory lending in the mortgage industry—an industry which has given the GOP $17 million since 2000.
These were only the most high-profile examples—there are many others, in the seemingly strangest of places, using the most creative tactics.
Buried in the recent Central American Free Trade Agreement, for example, are provisions preventing states from giving preferences to local companies, or to businesses that are socially or environmentally responsible. The archconservative Eagle Forum, headed by Bay Buchanan, issued an alert noting that "Under CAFTA, state legislatures would relinquish their right to regulate utilities, land use, and taxpayer-funded contracts." But after a massive lobbying campaign by Big Business, the pact was pushed through by Republicans and signed into law.
In 2003, Bush appointees at the National Labor Relations Board backed a Chamber of Commerce lawsuit against a California law prohibiting companies that do business with the state from using revenues from state contracts to fund union-busting campaigns.
And then in 2005, there was the class action "reform" bill—a more covert attack on state power, but no less insidious. The bill moved multi-state cases into federal courts, which often don't recognize or enforce state laws. The bill was so extreme, it was even opposed by the organization representing the federal judges whose power it was designed to increase. Yet, at the behest of companies that don't like being sued for abuse, Republicans pushed the bill into law.
At the local level, various southern and western states passed "wage repeal acts " banning local governments from enforcing local minimum wages higher than the federal minimum wage level. The moves, backed by business interests, were in response to cities passing popular living wage ordinances.
Not surprisingly, the desire to concentrate power is palpable in the Bush White House. Just a few weeks ago, President Bush demanded Congress give him "line-item" veto power, allowing him to circumvent constitutional checks and balances and edit already-passed bills. He is also pushing to stop congressional "earmarks." Undoubtedly, earmarking abuses need to be curbed through much stricter disclosure rules. But wholly eliminating the ability of lawmakers to direct spending would simply move the power of the purse out of Congress and into the White House. Meanwhile, the administration has tamped down on approval of Freedom of Information Act requests, in order to prevent the public from even knowing how this newly-concentrated power is being wielded.
At the start of the "Republican Revolution" in 1995, Newt Gingrich said, "We are committed to getting power back to the states." It was a promise that conservatives would be ideologically committed to more democratic control o fgovernment. But what we see now is that their ideology has nothing to do with democracy, nothing to do with states' rights, and everything to do with serving the Big Money interests who really run the show.
