The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Should Fund Agroecology Over These Big Ag Schemes

By putting its money toward agroecology research and farmer support, the Gates Foundation could make a huge contribution to sustainability and smallholder farmers' well-being.

Bill Gates, billionaire, speaks onstage at 2019 New York Times Dealbook on November 06, 2019 in New York City. (Photo: Michael Cohen/Getty Images/The New York Times)

MILLION BELAY, HEATHER DAY, STEVE GLOYD

COMMONDREAMS

December 5, 2021

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced a $922 million investment to address global malnutrition and hunger at the controversial United Nations Food Systems Summit this September.

We commend the foundation for investing in nutrition; unfortunately, its focus on food fortification, technical assistance and research into new “high-impact” innovations misses the mark on the root causes of hunger and malnutrition — and the needed solutions.

As articles announcing the foundation’s commitment have noted, rates of hunger increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the Seattle Times reported, “Economic downturns in 2020, exacerbated by the pandemic, led to increases in world hunger as more people found it difficult to afford healthful diets ... [T]he number of undernourished individuals was more than five times greater in 2020 than it was at any point within the last two decades.”

Let’s read that again — economic downturns were responsible for increased hunger, because people could not afford healthy diets. The issue is not that poor people simply don’t know about maternal nutrition, nor that their flour isn’t “enriched” with vitamins and minerals, but that they cannot afford to purchase the nutritious foods that they and their families need. Critical nutrient deficiencies like vitamin A deficiency and anemia are highly correlated with poverty and food insecurity, and they increase amid economic crises and recessions.

Malnutrition and food insecurity are caused by how we have set up our societies, prioritizing productivity, profits and commodities over ensuring universal access to healthy, nutritious and culturally appropriate food that is produced without negative impacts on the biosphere. They are symptoms of the racialized, gendered and classed structural violence that produces poverty and inequality. This structural violence explains why more than 700 million people still experience hunger, even as the world produces enough food to feed 10 billion (3 billion more than currently live on Earth).

However, the Gates Foundation’s investments tackle malnutrition and food insecurity as though they were technical, production-related problems. Since 2006, the foundation has been one of the leading donors of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which promised to increase farmer incomes and reduce hunger in African countries. AGRA’s programs and the Gates Foundation’s other agricultural development programs in Africa have prioritized interventions designed to increase crop yields, like chemical inputs and new seed varieties. Leaving aside the question of whether yields have indeed significantly increased (the available evidence suggests that they have not ), these programs have failed to reduce hunger or improve nutrition.

This is not to suggest that there is no place for fortification with essential vitamins and minerals, or for much-needed support for maternal nutrition. But the technical solutions funded by the Gates Foundation and other philanthropic and development institutions will never effectively address the structural reasons why many people cannot obtain sufficient and/or nutritious food.

So what should the Gates Foundation do instead?

In the short-term of the fallout from COVID-19, the foundation and other donors should get money directly into the hands of those who need it. Direct cash transfers are extremely effective at reducing hunger, enabling families to provide for basic needs, and allowing people to cultivate longer-term economic opportunities.

In the medium term, civil society movements in Africa have repeatedly asked the Gates Foundation to provide more support for agroecology, which is an evidence-based and widely accessible agricultural model based on using ecological processes and resources without damaging them.

Agroecology is severely underfunded, in spite of being one of the best tools for achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. By putting its money toward agroecology research and farmer support, the Gates Foundation could make a huge contribution to sustainability and smallholder farmers’ well-being.

In the long-term, solving hunger and malnutrition requires dismantling the systems that commodify food and perpetuate processes of exploitation — of both humans and nature. It’s possible that Bill Gates could play a powerful role in advocating for such a process — but we haven’t seen evidence of it yet.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

MILLION BELAY
Million Belay is the coordinator of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa.

HEATHER DAY
Heather Day is co-founder and Executive Director of Community Alliance for Global Justice. In 1999 she helped organize the WTO protests while working with CISPES, Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador, and hosted an event, "Voices from the Global South", featuring organizers from multiple continents. She cut her teeth as an organizer with the NAFTA-GATT Justice Committee after graduating from The Evergreen State College. She holds a Masters in Geography from the University of Washington; her research focused on how the Free Trade Areas of the Americas was defeated by activists collaborating transnationally.

STEVE GLOYD
Steve Gloyd is a physician who has been at the University of Washington since 1986. He has worked for over 40 years in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and the United States.

Dems Mark Anniversary of 13th Amendment With Calls to 'Close the Slavery Loophole'

"Prison labor is slave labor. 

Pass the #AbolitionAmendment."


Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) participates in a news conference on July 21, 2021. (Photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)


JESSICA CORBETT

COMMONDREAMS

December 6, 2021

Congressional Democrats on Monday marked the 156th anniversary of the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by calling on federal lawmakers to end a form of slavery that has been allowed to persist in the United States.

"Abolishing slavery can't come with a loophole."

Passed by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states in the wake of the U.S. Civil War, the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery and involuntary servitude "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

Leading up to Juneteenth earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Nikema Williams (D-Ga.) reintroduced the Abolition Amendment—which, as they put it, would "close the slavery loophole" by overriding that clause in the 13th Amendment.

Related Content

Dems Introduce Abolition Amendment to Scrap Constitution's 'Slavery Clause'

Since the amendment was ratified in 1865, "that sinister loophole has driven discriminatory policing and mass incarceration," Merkley noted Monday. "Abolishing slavery can't come with a loophole."

Williams similarly pointed out that "prisons disproportionately exploit the labor of Black and Brown folks for profit, while stripping them of their individuality and liberty."

"Prison labor is slave labor. Pass the #AbolitionAmendment," she tweeted, urging fellow lawmakers to #EndTheException.

Supporters of the Abolition Amendment also used those hashtags to draw attention to the proposal on social media Monday.

"As long as prison labor continues to exist, slavery will persist in America," said Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.). "Today, 156 years after our nation ratified the 13th Amendment, it is long past time we take what it stands for seriously. Enough is enough."

Others who highlighted the proposal on Monday include Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.), Troy Carter (D-La.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.), and Marc Veasey (D-Texas).

Along with several Democratic lawmakers in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, the Abolition Amendment is supported by dozens of human rights groups.

Two-thirds of each chamber of Congress would have to vote for the proposal, then three-quarters of state legislatures would need to ratify it, for the amendment to take effect.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Dems Urge DOJ Antitrust Probe Into $43 Billion Discovery-WarnerMedia Merger

"Giant corporations must not be allowed to stomp out competition, put up barriers to enter the market, and continue to exclude Latinos from the media industry."


U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) wears a face mask during a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing looking into the firing of State Department Inspector General Steven Linick on September 16, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch-Pool/Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT

COMMONDREAMS

December 6, 2021

Nearly three dozen congressional Democrats revealed Monday that they are calling on the Biden administration to investigate the proposed $43 billion merger of Discovery and WarnerMedia for antitrust law violations and whether it will reduce diverse content.

"Corporate consolidation and monopolistic practices come at the direct expense of workers, consumers, competition, innovation, fairness, and equity."

The 33 Democrats—led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) along with Reps. Joaquin Castro (Texas), David Cicilline (R.I.), and Pramila Jayapal (Wash.)—made the request in a Saturday letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, head of the Antitrust Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

"The proposed merger between WarnerMedia and Discovery will not only lead to the enhanced market power of an already humongous company—it may also lead to less racial representation in the media and entertainment industry," Warren said in a statement. "We must stop harmful mergers, and the Department of Justice should thoroughly investigate this proposed merger to ensure diverse content and workers are protected."

Acknowledging President Joe Biden's executive action "to promote competition across the U.S. economy" as well as the DOJ's recent "efforts to underscore the importance of competitive labor markets," the letter says that "we wholeheartedly agree with the importance of protecting workers and pursuing economic justice through vigorous antitrust enforcement."

"Enforcement of our anti-merger laws is especially critical for workers from marginalized communities," the letter explains. "In the past, mergers across all industries have disproportionately led to job losses for workers identifying as racial and ethnic minorities compared to their white counterparts."

The lawmakers point to the Government Accountability Office finding that "the media and entertainment industry had a lower rate of Hispanic workers than any other sector," and a 2020 House Judiciary Committee hearing about the lack of diversity of people of color in the field.

They also express concern that—and urge the DOJ to investigate whether—the deal "will reduce the amount of diverse and inclusive media and entertainment content available to consumers," warning that "less diversity and inclusion on-screen and across the media industry leads to a perpetuation of harmful stereotypes."

Castro, who is of Mexican descent, noted Monday that "for far too long, Hollywood studios have excluded Latinos from opportunities in the industry, perpetuating dangerous stereotypes and inaccurate portrayals. Latinos are nearly 20% of the U.S. population, one-in-five Americans, but we're almost invisible on-screen and behind the camera."

"Giant corporations must not be allowed to stomp out competition, put up barriers to enter the market, and continue to exclude Latinos from the media industry," he continued. "Discovery and WarnerMedia need to demonstrate a real commitment to the widespread inclusion of Latinos and Latinas that is commensurate with their market participation."

Cicilline highlighted that "there already has been rampant consolidation" in the United States while Jayapal emphasized how "corporate consolidation and monopolistic practices come at the direct expense of workers, consumers, competition, innovation, fairness, and equity."

"As we learn more about WarnerMedia's $43 billion merger with Discovery," Jayapal said, "it is clear that the Justice Department must scrutinize whether this transaction violates antitrust law while also examining whether this corporate merger will further reduce diverse content in an industry that far too often excludes the voices, perspectives, talents, and ideas of Black, brown, immigrant, and Indigenous people."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Comments

'We Won't Stop Fighting,' Vow South African Activists After Judge OKs Shell Seismic Blasting at Sea

"We must do everything we can to undo the destructive colonial legacy of extractivism, until we live in a world where people and the planet come before the profits of toxic fossil fuel companies."

A giant marionette of a snoek, a type of common local mackerel, is displayed during a December 5, 2021 protest in Cape Town against a plan by Dutch oil company Shell to conduct underwater seismic surveys along South Africa's East coast. (Photo: Rodger Bosch/AFP via Getty Images)

BRETT WILKINS

COMMONDREAMS

December 6, 2021

South African activists on Monday vowed to keep fighting after a court ruling allowing fossil fuel giant Shell to proceed with massive underwater explosions off the ecologically sensitive Wild Coast, a move environmentalists say would cause "irreparable harm" to marine life.

"Our ancestors' blood was spilled protecting our land and sea, and we now feel a sense of duty to protect it for future generations."

"We won't stop fighting," tweeted Greenpeace Africa following Sunday's nationwide protests. "Shell must immediately stop oil and gas exploration off S.A.'s Wild Coast."

Demonstrators from more than 30 organizations—including 350.org, Clean Seas, Extinction Rebellion, The Green Connection, Greenpeace Africa, Oceans Not Oil, and Sea The Bigger Picture—turned out for over 70 protests nationwide, according to The Cape Argus.

At Surfers Corner at Muizenberg Beach in Cape Town, activists carried a giant marionette of a snoek, a snake mackerel found in area waters, and held placards with slogans including "Stop killing our coast" and "To hell with Shell."

"The purpose of this protest is to send a message to Shell bosses and shareholders to stop the company from carrying out the seismic survey on the Wild Coast," the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) said in a statement.

"Offshore oil and gas drilling... has the potential to destroy our beautiful ocean heritage as well as negatively affect... the livelihoods of millions of people who depend on the ocean for a living, like the fisherfolk, tourism and recreational industry," the alliance added.

On Friday, Makanda High Court Acting Judge Avinash Govindjee rejected a bid by four plaintiffs including local fishers and Greenpeace Africa to stop planned seismic blasting along the coast, ruling that their claims of "irreparable harm" to wildlife—especially migrating humpback whales—were "speculative at best."

In seismic surveys, barrages of powerful sonic pulses are blasted into the ocean floor with airguns; the reflected sound waves are then analyzed to map the seabed for potential oil and gas reserves. The blasts reach more than 250 decibels and kill, injure, and terrorize marine life.

Reinford Sinegugu Zukulu, director of the advocacy group Sustaining the Wild Coast, told the court that the blasting would occur every 10 seconds for five months, would be "louder than a jet plane taking off," and would be heard underwater for more than 60 miles.

Elaine Mills, a representative of Greenpeace volunteers in Cape Town, told The Cape Argus that the potential destruction "is beyond belief. Really, it's unimaginable."

"The harm that [the blasting] can do to marine life is permanent hearing loss, organ rupture as dolphins and whales breach too fast to escape the auditory onslaught, and beach strandings," she added.

Related Content

Shell Slammed for Plan to Blast South African Coastline for Oil and Gas During Whale Season

Shell claimed in a statement that it had "long experience in collecting offshore seismic data" and that "the welfare of wildlife is a major factor in the stringent controls we use."

Mills accused Shell of failing to adequately consult the public about the planned blasting.

"They did not consult the fishing and coastal communities who stand to suffer huge economic losses as a result of Shell destroying the marine heritage," she said.

Last week, Shell announced that it would halt plans to drill for oil in the Cambo field off the coast of Scotland's Shetland Islands following a grassroots campaign against the project. Activists are seeking a similar outcome in South Africa, and a new urgent application to stop the seismic blasting has been filed by environmental groups, local Indigenous leaders and fishers in Port St. Johns.

"We will continue to support the nationwide resistance against Shell and pursue the legal avenue to stop Shell," said Greenpeace Africa senior campaigner Happy Khambule. "We must do everything we can to undo the destructive colonial legacy of extractivism, until we live in a world where people and the planet come before the profits of toxic fossil fuel companies."

Zukulu of Sustaining the Wild Coast said the region "is a place of stunning natural beauty. Indigenous people have maintained continued possession of this land, despite waves of colonial and apartheid aggression."

"Our ancestors' blood was spilled protecting our land and sea," he added, "and we now feel a sense of duty to protect it for future generations."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Biden Continues Drilling Boom on Public Lands Despite Campaign Pledge, Analysis Shows

"The reality is that in the battle between the oil industry and Biden, the industry is winning."

Pump jacks are seen at the Belridge Oil Field and hydraulic fracking site in Kern County, California. (Photo: Citizens of the Planet/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)


JULIA CONLEY

COMMONDREAMS

December 6, 2021

Despite pledging as a presidential candidate that he would allow "no ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period," President Joe Biden's White House has approved more drilling permits for public lands each month than the Trump administration, a new analysis shows.

In a report titled Biden's Oil Letdown, released Monday, Public Citizen showed that since Biden took office, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has approved an average of 333 oil and gas drilling permits per month this year—40% more than it did in the first three years of Trump's presidency.

"Without aggressive government action, the fossil fuel industry will continue creating enormous amounts of climate-destroying pollution exploiting lands owned by the public."

Although one of Biden's first actions as president was to sign an executive order instructing the Interior Department to pause all sales of federal gas leases and review policies related to the federal leasing program, just three months later, the number of monthly permit approvals hit its peak at 652 in April.

"This doesn't look great for Biden," Alan Zibel, the lead author of the analysis and the research director of Public Citizen's Corporate Presidency Project, told the Washington Post on Monday.

The administration has claimed it is simply complying with a court order as it continues to approve drilling leases, which last year allowed for the extraction of 246 million tons of coal, 314 million barrels of oil, and 3.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the analysis.

Oil companies and 14 Republican-led states sued over the executive order, claiming Biden was violating a federal law requiring quarterly lease sales, and in June, a federal judge appointed by Trump ruled that Biden lacked the authority to pause leasing and issued a preliminary injunction.

The Biden administration is appealing that decision, but climate action groups say the White House should go further and defer leasing of proposed land parcels.

The BLM, said groups including the Center for Biological Diversity, Earthjustice, and Friends of the Earth in October, must "take a hard and comprehensive look at the cumulative climate change impacts of authorizing new leasing, together with committed emissions under lease, and immediately defer ANY sale of new leases... pending demonstration of compatibility with U.S. and global climate goals."

Instead, just after the conclusion of the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in November, the BLM moved ahead with an auction of more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas companies, and plans to lease more public lands for drilling purposes in February.

"When it comes to climate change policy, President Biden is saying the right things. But we need more than just promises," Zibel said in a statement. "The reality is that in the battle between the oil industry and Biden, the industry is winning. Despite Biden's campaign commitments to stop drilling on public lands and waters, the industry still has the upper hand. Without aggressive government action, the fossil fuel industry will continue creating enormous amounts of climate-destroying pollution exploiting lands owned by the public."

According to Public Citizen's report, nearly 1,300 metric megatons of planet-heating greenhouse gases are expected to be emitted over the next 12 months as a result of drilling on public lands, demonstrating, as the International Energy Agency warned earlier this year, that "additional oil and gas exploration fields are incompatible with the international goal of limiting the most catastrophic climate harm."

Related Content

'The IEA Is Starting to Get It': World Energy Body Praised for Finally Admitting Fossil Fuels Must Stay in the Ground

Public Citizen's analysis also shows that even as the Biden administration follows through on part of the executive order issued in January—ordering a report on needed reforms to the leasing program, which was released in late November after being delayed—it is failing to confront the damage that will be done by the drilling.

The Interior Department's report "endorsed much-needed and reforms to the federal oil and gas leasing program but was largely silent on the need to confront the climate pollution caused by oil and gas production on federal lands and waters," Zibel wrote in the analysis.

Public Citizen also showed that Republicans' attempts to blame high gas prices on Biden's work to "keep American energy buried in the ground" are "disingenuous."

The group endorsed reforms included in the Build Back Better Act, currently being negotiated by lawmakers, which would raise federal royalty rates and require competitive bidding for oil and gas leases on federal lands, which would "shrink oil's power over our politicians," according to Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen.

"In the coming months, energy companies are likely to mount a well-funded campaign to continue business as usual," reads the group's analysis. "Congress and the Biden administration must resist that pressure and push aggressively to move the nation—and the world—away from planet-destroying fossil fuels."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Big Oil Profits Surge to $174 Billion in 2021 Amid Rising Gas Prices: Report

"Americans looking for someone to blame for the pain they experience at the pump need look no further than the wealthy oil and gas company executives who choose to line their own pockets."


The high price of gasoline is displayed at a Los Angeles gas station on November 24, 2021. 

(Photo: Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images)


KENNY STANCIL

COMMONDREAMS

December 6, 2021


While rising gasoline prices have adversely affected millions of working people in the U.S., the world's biggest fossil fuel corporations have benefited immensely, raking in a combined $174 billion in profits during the first nine months of this year.

"Oil corporations are reveling in their massive profits and using that money for their real priorities: stock buybacks and lining shareholders' pockets."

In the third quarter of 2021 alone, two dozen of the most profitable oil and gas companies—a group that includes Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron—recorded $74.9 billion in net income, according to an analysis released Monday by the watchdog group Accountable.US.

Big Oil's soaring profits come as "gasoline prices have hit a seven-year high in the U.S. due to the rising cost of oil, with Americans now paying about $3.40 for a gallon of fuel compared with around $2.10 a year ago," The Guardian reported.

Warning that higher gasoline prices are detrimental to the pocketbooks of low-income households, the administration of President Joe Biden has on more than one occasion, including during COP26, urged the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to ramp up production—an unsuccessful effort denounced by climate justice advocates, who say that such demands undermine calls to transition swiftly from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Following a coronavirus-driven decline in drilling, fossil fuel corporations in the U.S. have also been reluctant to increase supply despite growing consumer demand, prompting the Biden administration last month to order the release of 50 million barrels from the national Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a bid to reduce costs at the pump.

Big Oil is "taking advantage of bloated prices, fleecing American families along the way," Accountable.US says in its new report. "Rather than taking steps to lower prices, oil corporations are reveling in their massive profits and using that money for their real priorities: stock buybacks and lining shareholders' pockets."

"Americans looking for someone to blame for the pain they experience at the pump need look no further than the wealthy oil and gas company executives who choose to line their own pockets rather than lower gas prices," Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, said in a statement.

Most of the 24 fossil fuel corporations analyzed by the watchdog group shower their CEOs with annual compensation packages that surpass $10 million dollars, and 16 of them raised their dividend at least once in 2021.

Accountable.US found that 11 oil and gas companies gave a total of $36.5 billion in payouts to shareholders this year. In addition, a dozen bought back over $8 billion worth of stock, with plans to purchase even more in future quarters.

As The Guardian pointed out, "A glut of new oil drilling has made the U.S. awash with oil in recent years," transforming the country into a major exporter of fossil fuels but keeping prices low, much to the chagrin of investors.

The unwillingness of oil and gas companies to boost production "has been driven by investor sentiment," Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, told CNN last month. Wall Street, she said, doesn't want producers "to spoil the party" by expanding supply.

Notably, the oil and gas companies that have been disregarding Biden's pleas to increase production are part of the same industry that resisted his now-defunct moratorium on new fossil fuel leasing on public lands and waters.

"It's not the government that is banning them from drilling more," Pavel Molchanov, an analyst at Raymond James, told CNN last month. "It's pressure from their shareholders."

Progressives, meanwhile, have argued that Biden can and should pursue solutions to higher energy costs that don't rely on increasing the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, which pollute the atmosphere with planet-heating emissions and deadly smog.

As political economist and Green New Deal proponent Robert Pollin explained in a recent interview, the federal government has the capacity to subsidize energy costs to guarantee affordable transportation and heating for all.

With energy prices expected to skyrocket this winter, Pollin argued that congressional lawmakers should make it a priority to keep expenses low for working families—not by strong-arming OPEC or Big Oil into boosting supply but by providing rebates that will help people "absorb the increased cost of energy."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Thoughts On the Left's Response to Capitalism's Global Death Spiral

We need more imaginative thinking and discussion about how to rid the planet of corporate capitalism and the psychopathic predator class's power and control that's responsible for monstrous crimes, obscene inequality, and an accelerating death spiral toward mass extinction.

GARY OLSON

December 5, 2021

For those whose personal and political identities are virtually indistinguishable, these are especially vexing times. Specifically, during this historical stage of capitalism it's challenging to abide by Gramsci's optimism of the will and heart and not acquiesce to pessimism of the mind, to the intellect's awareness of certain recalcitrant realities in our world. And residing in the belly of the global beast also compounds one's sense of personal responsibility.

We need a multiracial, class-based movement willing to engage in waves of sustained, non-violent civil disobedience where the risk of arrest is likely.

In the Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx, with assistance from Friedrich Engels wrote "All that is solid melts in the air, all that is holy is profaned and man is at last compelled to face facts with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relation to his kind." It hasn't exactly come to pass, has it? It's true, as the two young German philosophers predicted, that to survive, capitalism must constantly revolutionize the means of production but its current global iteration presages a dystopia that promises to destroy us all. Will this occur before the working class slips off its chains and, shovels in hand, begins digging the graves of the bourgeoisie? The time frame is perilously short but can we honestly claim to be near the Manifesto's "sober sense" today, that capitalism has forced us to see things as they really are? And even if that moment arrives, what then?

Several weeks after penning a long piece about my Norwegian-American ancestors and U.S. settler colonialism, my personal muse had remained ominously silent and until today, I've been forced to follow suit. My Facebook page continue to feature daily doses of memes, photos,Thursday music, and inspiring quotations but they mostly functioned to keep flagging morale (my own and others) in check until new or refashioned old ideas surfaced.

In that vein, as I peruse the usual left wing web sites I note that working class grievances remain in heavy rotation where they receive insightful treatment by some immensely talented writers. I don't for a moment discount the importance of fighting to prevent matters from getting worse or pursuing genuine non-reformist reforms.

However, except for a few exemplary essayists like Chris Hedges, I also discern a paucity of pieces addressing the "big picture," the larger framework under which everything else is subsumed and especially, how to dismantle that system. Even the most witheringly effective indictments of our social, economic, political and intellectual life will mention the causal link to capitalism but then invariably trail off and conclude with permutations on the tired coda "We are the solution."

It's my strong sense that we need more imaginative thinking and discussion about how to rid the planet of corporate capitalism and the psychopathic predator class's power and control that's responsible for monstrous crimes, obscene inequality, and an accelerating death spiral toward mass extinction.

Even authors who take on the daunting task of delineating what a better future might look like, rarely engage in or encourage speculation on how to get there. And let me quickly add that I'm as guilty as anyone for reiterating alarmist warnings that "the sky is falling" (Henny Penny was right) but then assuming that simply laying out irrefutable facts will convince people that revolutionary measures are not only warranted but overdue.

Bob Dylan once wrote "When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose." But just how often is this the case in First World settings like the United States where members of the working class know they're getting screwed over but also know that they've at least survived. Further, they're also realizing that "working within the system"—like expecting salvation from the deplorable Democrats—is a transparent fool's errand.

Even as people increasingly "get" this, taking the next step is very serious business. Conjuring up Shakespeare's Hamlet, Greek economist Yanis Varoufakis has poignantly posed the question, "Should I conform to the prevailing order, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous forces bestowed upon me by one of history's irresistible forces? Or should I join those forces, taking up arms against the status quo and, by opposing it, usher in a brave new world?" Quite understandably, people are hesitant, even fearful. For us not to acknowledge that fear is disingenuous, self-defeating and patronizing. It also fails to convey sufficient humility because we can't offer any guarantees about the future. However, keeping this reality in mind, we must attempt to move forward.

By my lights, the only remaining viable option—and its chances for success are exceedingly slim—is "street heat" that our overlords and their enablers can't absorb and co-opt. The latter has already happened with Black Lives Matter and the once promising Poor People's Campaign. Both performed inestimable service but now behave more like adjuncts to the Democratic Party.

We need a multiracial, class-based movement willing to engage in waves of sustained, non-violent civil disobedience where the risk of arrest is likely. Embracing creative tactics involving occupations (think, indigenous people's resistance encampments in U.S. and Canada) wildcat strikes, protest pop-ups, unofficial walkouts and selective sabotage will assume important roles. A multitude of activities, all of equal value, are indispensable to success.

Kim Petersen, an astute political analyst and former co-editor at Dissident Voice, notes that ideally this would morph into a general strike requiring a "steadfastness of purpose" and solidarity in the face of a certain ruthless response to crush it. At that point, it's not inconceivable that defections within the ranks of the army, national guard and police will occur.

A first step in this process is encouraging people to think and converse about the immediacy of this threat. Reminding people of all the radical resistance in U.S. history is important as is participating in small acts of resistance that can be the embryonic stage, the catalyst for major social and political transformation. They can be useful exercises for those experiencing physical and emotional discomfort at breaking the law for the first time, a sort of confidence building dress rehearsal.

We are left with the following: On the one hand, prematurely engaging in large-scale resistance without further educational efforts, patience and due diligence is tantamount to undisciplined, ultra-left childishness. It would be gift to the ruling class. On the other hand, waiting too long to act is to court mass death. It's not hyperbole to assume that if don't take matters into our own hands, survival itself will be problematic for our children and grandchildren.

Finally, although much of the above sounds Dr. Gloom and Doomish, even bordering on existential dread, that would be a misreading of my intent. As long as I remain a sentient being, I won't give up or give in to the dark side. For me and many others the Rosa Luxemberg's "socialism or barbarism" remains the only alternative. The numbers are overwhelmingly on our side and my will and heart tell me that "A People United Can Never Be Defeated!" isn't just a catchy rally chant if enough people believe it.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Gary Olson is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Moravian College in Bethlehem, PA. His most recent book is "Empathy Imperiled: Capitalism, Culture and the Brain" (NY: Springer, 2013.) Contact: olsong@moravian.edu

California Halted Executions, Now It Should End the Death Penalty Once and for All

Newsom should use his political capital to persuade Californians that ending the death penalty is the right thing to do.


Anti-death penalty activist Judy Coode of Pax Christi International demonstrates in front of the U.S. Justice Department's Robert F. Kennedy Building July 13, 2020 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)



SCOTT MARTELLE

December 5, 2021

the Los Angeles Times


It has been five years since California voters approved Proposition 66, a measure that ostensibly was going to speed up the time between handing down a death sentence and an execution. But as a practical matter, nothing has really changed. In fact, it has been 15 years since California last executed someone, leaving us with a Death Row population of nearly 700 people, none of whom face execution in the foreseeable future.

So much for the fix that death penalty advocates promised. Here's a better one: End the death penalty in California once and for all.

That's a failed justice system. And when the final step in the process is an execution, the potential for putting the innocent to death is unconscionable.

Of course, there are stronger reasons for getting rid of capital punishment than the slowness of the legal process. The moral arguments align against killing even convicted murderers, and a legal system as imperfect as ours has proved to be should never be used to determine whether someone lives or dies. In fact, the California Committee on Revision of the Penal Code finalized a report last month calling for abolition primarily because "the death penalty as created and enforced in California has not and cannot ensure justice and fairness for all Californians."

"More than forty years of experience have shown that the death penalty is the opposite of a simple and rational scheme," the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code concluded. "It has become so complicated and costly that it takes decades for cases to be fully resolved and it is imposed so arbitrarily—and in such a discriminatory fashion—that it cannot be called rational, fair, or constitutional."

Capital punishment magnifies broader racial and class divides in the United States. Death sentences fall disproportionately on Black and Latino defendants, and on the poor. It's no accident of history that former slave states cling stubbornly to this barbaric sentence. And capital punishment is applied inconsistently. For instance, whether to seek a death sentence depends on the views of local prosecutors, so a murder charge filed under California law might be deemed a capital offense in one county but not in a neighboring jurisdiction. That can't be called justice.

Since 1978, according to the office of the state public defender, California juries have handed down more than 1,000 death sentences. Over those 43 years, only 13 of the condemned have been executed (two more were put to death in other states for convictions there). More than 235 of the condemned have had their sentences reversed, which means at least one in five death sentences or convictions were legally flawed, with hundreds more appeals in other cases still pending. A parade of death row exonerations nationwide has made more people aware of how susceptible the legal system is to manipulation by law enforcement and prosecutors, and by witnesses who are either mistaken or who lie.

That's a failed justice system. And when the final step in the process is an execution, the potential for putting the innocent to death is unconscionable. It's remarkable that so many conservatives support such an expensive exertion of government power over the individual (let alone believe the government can get capital punishment right), though it's heartening that in recent years more conservatives have joined the call for abolition.

One of California's more vocal opponents of the death penalty is Gov. Gavin Newsom, whose personal convictions on the issue led him in March 2019 to declare a moratorium on executions. He also shut down the unused execution chamber at San Quentin and withdrew the state's lethal injection protocol, leaving the state with no place and no method for carrying out death sentences. If Newsom wins reelection next year—he just breezed through a recall and faces no current significant opposition—his moratorium can continue until his successor takes office in January 2027.

Unfortunately, a gubernatorial pledge of inaction is not a solution. California voters affirmed capital punishment in a 1972 initiative, so it is up to them to get rid of it. And yes, voters have been asked to do this before, and declined. When they approved Proposition 66 five years ago, they also rejected the alternative Proposition 62, which would have ended capital punishment.

But public sentiment has been changing. A UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll in May found that 44% of those surveyed said they would vote to repeal the death penalty and only 35% said they would keep it, with 21% undecided. If those undecided voters split evenly, the poll suggests repeal is possible.

So the ground is prepared for another initiative to end this inhumane and unjust practice. Over the next few months Newsom should work with legislative leaders to move a bill introduced by Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-Greenbrae), to put the issue before the voters once again in 2024. And then Newsom should use his political capital to persuade Californians that ending the death penalty is the right thing to do.

© 2021 Los Angeles Times

SCOTT MARTELLE is an author and editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times. He tweets at @smartelle.

Must Reads: Critical Exposés Abound But American Fascism Marches On
Sixty-five books that should be on your Christmas lists

RALPH NADER

December 6, 2021

Franklin Delano Roosevelt in his 1938 message to Congress warned that when private power becomes stronger than the democratic state itself, we have Fascism. There are many ways to witness the intensifying domination toward a corporate state. One way is to compare exposé books in the 1960s and the present.

Within a span of five years, there were three books in the sixties that put forces in motion leading to significant reordering of our society’s priorities. They were Silent Spring by Rachel Carson (1962), my Unsafe at Any Speed (1965), and The Other America by Michael Harrington (1962).

The message of these bestselling books was expanded by authors going on national TV and radio shows. They spoke around the country, before large audiences at colleges/universities and even high schools. An aroused citizenry prompted congressional hearings, legislation, and the establishment of federal agencies to deal with the problems of toxic chemicals, unsafe motor vehicles, and deep poverty in the U.S.

By stark contrast, now the volume of muckraking indictments of corporate crime, fraud, and tyranny is at least ten-fold that of the nineteen sixties. Books and blogs, documentaries and podcasts are pouring out daily with far less impact and in many cases no effect, for change.

Take a look at 65 recent searing books about corporate violence and malfeasance, crushing influence over our electoral and political systems, and expanding immunities from law enforcement and public accountability.
Corporate Crime and Punishment: The Crisis of Underenforcement by John Coffee
Mass Tort Deals: Backroom Bargaining in Multidistrict Litigation by Elizabeth Burch
Why Not Jail? Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance… by Rena Steinzor
Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty by Patrick Radden Keefe
Closing Death’s Door: Legal Innovations to End the Epidemic of Healthcare Harm by Michael J. Saks and Stephan Landsman
Who Poisoned Your Bacon Sandwich? by Guillaume Coudray
The Monsanto Papers: Deadly Secrets, Corporate Corruption… by Carey Gillam
The Age of Addiction: How Bad Habits Became Big Business by David Courtwright
Frankie: How One Woman Prevented a Pharmaceutical Disaster by James Essinger and Sandra Koutzenko
Killer Airbags by Jerry Cox
Making the World Safe for Coke by Susan Greenhalgh
Big Dirty Money by Jennifer Taub
Business and Human Rights by Ellen Hertz
Industrial-Strength Denial by Barbara Freese
Baseless: My Search for Secrets in the Ruins of the Freedom of Information Act by Nicholson Baker
Too Big to Jail: How Prosecutors Compromise with Corporations by Brandon L. Garrett
Capital Offenses: Business Crime and Punishment in America’s Corporate Age by Samuel W. Buell
Profiteering, Corruption and Fraud in U.S. Health Care by John Geyman
Monopolized: Life in the Age of Corporate Power by David Dayen
Global Banks on Trial by Pierre-Hugues Verdier
Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception by David Michaels
Murder, Inc.: How Unregulated Industry Kills or Injures Thousands of Americans Every Year…And What You Can Do About It by Gerald Goldhaber
Paradise Lost at Sea: Rethinking Cruise Vacations by Ross A. Klein
Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy by Matt Stoller
Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in An Age of Fraud by Tom Mueller
Bottle of Lies: The Inside Story of the Generic Drug Boom by Katherine Eban
GMOs Decoded: A Skeptic’s View of Genetically Modified Foods by Sheldon Krimsky and Marion Nestle
GM: Paint it Red: Inside General Motors’ Culture of Failure by Nicholas Kachman
The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives by Jesse Eisinger
Watchdog: How Protecting Consumers Can Save Our Families, Our Economy, and Our Democracy by Richard Cordray
First Class: The U.S. Postal Service, Democracy, and the Corporate Threat by Christopher Shaw
Un-American: A Soldier’s Reckoning of Our Longest War by Erik Edstrom
Humane: How the United States Abandoned Peace and Reinvented War by Samuel Moyn
Dirty Work: Essential Jobs and the Hidden Toll of Inequality in America by Eyal Press
Why Do We Still Have the Electoral College? by Alexander Keyssar
Public Citizens by Paul Sabin
The United States of War by David Vine
The Wealth Hoarders: How Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions by Chuck Collins
Fulfillment: Winning and Losing in One-Click America by Alec MacGillis
The Case Against George W. Bush by Steven C. Markoff
Tax the Rich: How Lies, Loopholes, and Lobbyists Make the Rich Even Richer by Erica Payne and Morris Pearl
Salt Wars: The Battle Over the Biggest Killer in the American Diet by Dr. Michael Jacobson
Unrig: How to Fix Our Broken Democracy by Daniel G. Newman
Plaintiff in Chief: A Portrait of Donald Trump in 3,500 Lawsuits by James D. Zirin
Stealing Our Democracy by Don Siegelman
Beaten Down, Worked Up: The Past, Present, and Future of American Labor by Steven Greenhouse
All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator by Monique El-Faizy and Barry Levine
Money, Power, and the People: The American Struggle to Make Banking Democratic by Christopher Shaw
Troubled Water: What’s Wrong with What We Drink by Seth M. Siegel
Disrupt, Discredit, and Divide: How the New FBI Damages Democracy by Mike German
United States of Distraction: Media Manipulation in Post-Truth America… by Mickey Huff and Nolan Higdon
The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age by Tim Wu
The End of Ice by Dahr Jamail
Confessions of a Rogue Nuclear Regulator by Dr. Gregory Jaczko
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff
America, Democracy & You: Where Have All the Citizens Gone? by Ronald R. Fraser
Unsettled (on Purdue Pharma and the Sackler Family) by Ryan Hampton
Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World by Anand Giridharadas
China Rx: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine by Rosemary Gibson and Janardan Prasad Singh
Collusion: How Central Bankers Rigged the World by Nomi Prins
Attention All Passengers: The Airlines’ Dangerous Descent and What You Can Do To Reclaim Our Skies by William McGee
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science by Carey Gillam
The CEO Pay Machine: How it Trashes America and How to Stop It by Steven Clifford
World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech by Franklin Foer
The Golden Passport: Harvard Business School, …. and the Moral Failure of the MBA Elite by Duff McDonald

Despite the many books on corporate crooks, there have been no corporate crime law reforms, no additional prosecutions of these CEOs, not even comprehensive congressional or state legislative hearings. The corporate crooks at the top of giant companies still get away with profiting from their corporate crime wave. None of the top Wells Fargo executives or Opioid’s promoters or the sellers of dangerous products and chemicals are facing prosecution. You have to steal a loaf of bread or get caught with a minuscule amount of heroin or cocaine to be incarcerated.

The massive fatality toll annually (about 400,000) from preventable problems in hospitals and clinics gets exposed yet nobody stirs in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state departments of health, or the state legislatures. That’s almost 8000 Americans losing their lives a week!

Profiteering, corruption, and fraud in the health industry are documented by many specialists, including Dr. John Geyman’s many books, but the exposés do not result in any calls for law and order by the politicians or even hearings in Congress.

Access to justice by victims faces increasingly closed courtroom doors and limits on tort laws for wrongful injury.

Meanwhile, the institutions we are expected to rely on to make a difference, with too few exceptions, are asleep at the wheel. These include the legal, medical, and accounting professions, the law enforcement agencies (there is no corporate crime index in the U.S. Justice Department), the toady legislatures, the corporate-owned media, the timid, often compromised labor unions, college campuses, and the silent corporatized organized religious institutions.

Our democracy is in serious decay. The information is readily available about what to do about it, while citizens argue among themselves, having been divided and ruled by corporate propaganda and politicians indentured to corporate supremacists.

Most active people seem unable to coalesce over their common interests at the community level. Remember, less than one percent of citizens stepping forward can turn the tide!

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

RALPH NADER is a consumer advocate and the author of "The Seventeen Solutions: Bold Ideas for Our American Future" (2012). His new book is, "Wrecking America: How Trump’s Lies and Lawbreaking Betray All" (2020, co-authored with Mark Green).

INVESTIGATION: Canadian news media dominated by corporate lobbyists

A study carried out by Ricochet in collaboration with Jacobin Magazine finds Canadian TV panels are stacked with lobbyists, whose interests are often undisclosed

Investigation by Jon Horler

DECEMBER 2, 2021

Photo: AvgeekJoe / Flickr
https://ricochet.media/en

An intensive six-week study of key political shows across multiple networks and a review of lobbyist filings conducted by Ricochet in collaboration with Jacobin Magazine has revealed significant bias in Canadian television news shows. Lobbyists for banks, oil companies, arms manufacturers and other sundry corporate interests routinely appear on news shows without any public disclosure of their big money ties.

In a typical example of the practice, former Liberal New Brunswick premier Brian Gallant appeared numerous times on CBC News Network’s flagship political show, Power and Politics, in the days leading up to this year’s federal election. Viewers of the show were not informed of Gallant’s position as a senior advisor at Navigator Inc., one of the country’s largest corporate PR and lobbying firms.
More than one in every 10 guests analyzing the news worked for firms paid to influence the government and the public. Despite their vested interests, networks often described these panellists as “strategists.”

Political panelists’ corporate lobbying interests are rarely disclosed on Canadian news shows, and this lack of transparency undermines news outlets’ claims to impartiality.

In the wake of the federal election, there was plenty of commentary about how media coverage of the party leaders and campaigns has shaped the views of the electorate. What this framing ignores is that even between elections, our media moulds our politics.

Manufacturing consent

Despite the digital revolution, television remains the dominant source of news in Canada. Last year, a study by the Media Technology Monitor found that nearly half the population finds out about current affairs by watching TV. More than twice as many said TV was their go-to medium rather than online sources, apps and social media.

SHOWS REVIEWED

Power & Politics, The National, Rosemary Barton Live, and CBC News Live were reviewed for the CBC. Power Play, CTV National News, and Question Period were reviewed for CTV. Global’s The West Block and Global National were also reviewed, though they feature far fewer guests of any kind, and no disclosure issues were found for Global during the six-week study period.

Jacobin and Ricochet’s review of Canadian television news commentary and analysis from March 29 to May 9, 2021, catalogued data on more than 860 relevant television appearances. More than one in every 10 guests analyzing the news worked for firms paid to influence the government and the public. Despite their vested interests, networks often described these panellists as “strategists.”

Among on-air commentators, lobbyist or PR professional was the fourth-most-common occupation. Government officials and politicians, journalists, and medical professionals (during a pandemic) were the only occupations more commonly featured.

Corporate influencers are, unsurprisingly, more often present in discussions of certain key issues. Across Canada’s big three networks — CBC, CTV and Global — one in every five guests brought on to comment on climate change, one in every five guests analyzing the federal budget, and a staggering one in every three guests analyzing federal politics were active in the PR industry.

Furthermore, comments made by guests often found their way into other news programs as part of reports or were included in online stories. In some cases, there was no disclosure at all of the guests’ ties. At other times, critical information on a group’s funding was omitted. Often there was a lack of disclosure of guests’ relevant clients or lobbying interests. In still other instances, guests were introduced as being affiliated with one organization or company but no mention was made of their affiliations with other relevant corporations or lobbies.

PR hacks on CBC

Gallant, for example, appeared on CBC’s Power & Politics on five occasions during the study period. CBC’s hosts introduced him as the head of the Canadian Centre for the Purpose of the Corporation (CCPC). No details were provided about the organization on-air.

A review of the CCPC’s website reveals that it is a subsection of the main website for Navigator Ltd. The online news outlet VICE described Navigator as “the company famous Canadians turn to when they face public relations crises.” The PR and corporate lobbying giant created and continues to fund the CCPC.

The CCPC’s website fails to properly explain the organization’s aims. Instead, the company hides behind a series of poorly written platitudes:

The Canadian Centre for the Purpose of the Corporation is an initiative that will help equip Canadian businesses and organizations with insights, tools, and support as they work to redefine and strengthen both the scope of their purpose and the contributions they make more broadly to society.

For clarification, Ricochet and Jacobin reached out to Gallant. Reproducing the policy wonk–speak from his company’s website, Gallant wrote back that the CCPC seeks to help businesses “redefine and strengthen the scope of their purpose and the contributions they make to their stakeholders — and more broadly to society — through insights, tools, and research.”

Aside from being head of the CCPC, Gallant also works as a senior advisor at Navigator. This affiliation is disclosed on the CBC’s website. However, over the six-week viewing period, the audience was not made aware of this fact in five of his six appearances on the CBC, where he was called upon to give his opinion on COVID-19, corporate taxation, infrastructure spending, and climate change.

Gallant was mostly forthcoming in response to media questions, stating that the CBC asks all panellists to self-disclose “any interests that are potentially linked to any of the subjects which will be discussed.” However, he said he could not discuss whether Navigator has any clients with interests in areas that would need be disclosed under these guidelines, due to the company’s privacy policy.

Giving limited disclosure the heave-ho

The CBC introduced Shakir Chambers, another regular TV panellist associated with the firm at the time, as a “political commentator” on four occasions. Viewers were not given any details of his work for Navigator. The CBC is well aware of his work for the firm — at the time of his appearances, the Power & Politics website noted that he “plays a leading role in the firm’s government relations practice and provides strategic counsel for high profile clients.”

On three occasions, former Alberta United Conservative Party president Erica Barootes of Enterprise Canada, a national lobbying firm, provided on-air commentary about COVID-19 for the CBC. The network did not disclose her registration as a lobbyist for both Astellas Pharma Canada Inc. and Shoppers Drug Mart. In addition, she was registered in three provinces as a lobbyist for Purolator — one disclosure filing shows her lobbying was related to COVID-19 vaccine distribution logistics, a frequently discussed news topic given the delay in the vaccine rollout at the time. Only her affiliation to Enterprise was noted during her appearances. The CBC did not make viewers aware of what business Enterprise conducts, let alone any of Barootes’ potentially relevant lobbying or business activities.

One in every seven guests appearing on the CBC programs was from a lobbying or government relations firm.

Earlier this year, in response to a complaint from a member of the public, the CBC’s public ombudsman, Jack Nagler, noted that merely stating the name of a firm during an introduction is “rather pointless.” In his view, the name of a firm is of little use to viewers seeking to understand whose interests they represent. “The reference to their company names is a form of shorthand that might work for people familiar with Parliament Hill but does not work for the rest of us,” he wrote.

The CBC also invited Jenni Byrne, former top aide to Doug Ford and Stephen Harper, to share her opinions on the pandemic while she was a registered lobbyist for Tridan/CBS Group Inc. The company was, at the time of her appearance, pursuing a government contract for its COVID-19 rapid test kits. In addition, Byrne lobbies the Ontario Ministry of Long-Term Care and has also registered to lobby for BioVaxsys Tech, Bausch Health Companies, and Proctor & Gamble. Only her eponymous company name was disclosed by the CBC.

PR on CTV

CTV is also guilty of failing to disclose commentators’ affiliations. In April, the network twice invited former Conservative MP Lisa Raitt to discuss the federal budget and pandemic-related airline bailout packages.

Raitt was introduced as a former cabinet minister, but no mention was made at that time of the fact she is the vice-chair of global investment banking at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Presumably the bank and its clientele would have an interest in the government’s approach to issues such as corporate taxes, wealth taxes, wage subsidies, and federal deficit spending contained in the budget.

In cases where a television commentator’s most relevant company affiliation was noted, the nature of the firm’s lobbying or business activities often wasn’t disclosed by CTV. This was the case even when they were related to the supposed expert analysis being provided to viewers.

CTV did not disclose that Marr is the former CEO of the Petroleum Services Association of Canada, or that the Canada West Foundation is heavily funded by fossil fuel corporations.

Greg MacEachern, the senior VP of Proof Strategies, appeared on CTV News Channel multiple times to discuss subjects such as the federal budget and COVID-19. His affiliation with the lobbying firm was properly disclosed, but the fact that he is a registered lobbyist for companies such as Netflix and eBay was not mentioned. These firms stood to be negatively affected by changes to internet taxation and regulation contained in the federal budget and in Bill C-10, which sought to alter how the internet is regulated in Canada. A review of the federal lobby registry shows that, around the time of his appearances, MacEachern held discussions with the federal government ministries involved in these changes.

Proof Strategies is registered in multiple provinces to lobby on behalf of Scarsin Corporation, a health technology firm seeking COVID-related contracts from provincial governments. MacEachern has led the government relations work at Proof Strategies since 2011, according to the lobby firm’s website.

In response to emailed questions, he stated that he meets with producers “a few hours before the panel is taped and the topics [that will be discussed] are specifically reviewed and flagged for any conflicts.”

Not just the right

One might assume that these undisclosed ties to corporate interests occur mostly among guests representing the right wing of the political spectrum. However, a number of former operatives from Canada’s New Democratic Party have also transitioned into lobbying.

In one instance, former NDP strategist Kathleen Monk — at the time a principal at Earnscliffe Strategy Group — discussed the ongoing pandemic on Power & Politics. CBC did not note that she is listed in the federal lobby registry as a representative of organizations with interests in COVID-related policy. This work includes lobbying for a company named InkSmith. The aforementioned firm has advocated for intellectual property rights on PPE during the pandemic. In fact, Monk met with a senior ministerial staffer to represent InkSmith on files related to COVID-19 issues two days before one of her CBC appearances, according to lobbying filings reviewed by Ricochet and Jacobin.
The “responsibility to disclose and address conflicts of interest to our audience — perceived or otherwise — falls to the lobbyists.”

The publicly funded broadcaster regularly invites Monk onto its shows to represent the NDP perspective. Brad Lavigne, a former senior aide to late NDP leader Jack Layton, is also regularly brought onto CBC shows to discuss current affairs and present the NDP perspective. Lavigne is currently a partner and vice president at Counsel Public Affairs, another national lobbying firm.

On five occasions, Lavigne discussed COVID-19 in on-air appearances without CBC noting that he was a registered lobbyist for a health industry firm in Alberta. The CBC also did not mention Lavigne’s presence in the B.C. provincial lobby registry due to his COVID-19 work on behalf of multiple clients.

Counsel Public Affairs has several other staff lobbying for pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline and other health industry clients on issues that may be linked to the analysis Lavigne provides on national television. Lavigne and Counsel Public Affairs did not respond to questions about this work.

Think tank “shadow lobbying”

Ricochet and Jacobin’s review also provided a glimpse into possible disclosure issues among guests representing think tanks. Such guests can engage in what is often called “shadow lobbying,” in which donors underwrite their work and benefit from seemingly neutral third parties advocating for their interests.

CTV’s Power Play invited Gary Mar, president of the Canada West Foundation, to discuss the potential shutdown of the Line 5 pipeline, which brings fossil fuels to Quebec and Ontario via the United States. The governor of Michigan along with several environmental groups are opposed to the pipeline, which is owned by Alberta-based Enbridge. In his CTV segment Mar stated that he thought that “Enbridge is taking the right position to say ‘we are not shutting down any of the supply until we are ordered to do so by a court.’”

This range of perspectives does not appear to include civil society, or advocacy or activist groups. Such voices were largely absent from the airwaves.

CTV did not disclose that Marr is the former CEO of the Petroleum Services Association of Canada, or that the Canada West Foundation is heavily funded by fossil fuel corporations, including Cenovus, Suncor, Husky Energy, Shell, Imperial Oil, Ovintiv and others. Most notably, Enbridge itself has provided at least $50,000 annually to the think tank, according to its most recent publicly available annual report. This makes the corporation a top donor to the foundation. Enbridge’s funding may in fact be significantly higher than that number — $50,000 and above is the highest donation threshold listed in the report.

The Canada West Foundation declined to comment on whether CTV was aware of Mar’s ties to Enbridge prior to arranging what turned out to be positive commentary on the company's pipeline. A spokesperson responded that the think tank acknowledges supporters publicly on its website and in communications materials: “We think it’s great that engaged citizens and organizations are willing to open their wallets in the pursuit of good public policy.”

Ricochet and Jacobin reached out to multiple CTV staff for comment but did not receive a reply.

Suspicious ratios

The proportion of guests who were journalists or medical professionals was roughly the same across both CTV and CBC. However, the proportion of commentators on CBC whose day jobs were in lobbying or PR was roughly double that of CTV.

Although COVID-19 dominated the news, making up nearly half of the news coverage on both networks, one in every seven guests appearing on the CBC programs was from a lobbying or government relations firm. This is roughly the same proportion as that of medical professionals invited onto panels during a pandemic.

In an email, Chuck Thompson, CBC’s head of public affairs, said that lobbyists are featured “on occasion” due to “their past experience, often as government leaders or decision makers.” He added that they are not invited for their objectivity, but for their ideological perspective and partisan political analysis. Thompson claims that the network achieves the right mix of guests comprising “a cross section of individuals who bring different perspectives to any given discussion.” This range of perspectives does not appear to include civil society, or advocacy or activist groups. Such voices were largely absent from the airwaves.

When guests’ views are informed by their lobbying work, this narrows the spectrum of viewpoints available to an audience. CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices states that “it is important to mention any association, affiliation or special interest a guest or commentator may have so that the public can fully understand that person’s perspective.”

CBC was asked what processes the network uses to adhere to this principle. The public broadcaster replied that it takes the issue seriously, and the “responsibility to disclose and address conflicts of interest to our audience — perceived or otherwise — falls to the lobbyists after speaking with our chase producers. The process we have in place goes a long way to ensuring transparency.”

What this research shows is that these processes clearly do not go far enough.