-Caveat Lector-
e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups
deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in
intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e·litist adj. & n.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
elitism
n : the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of
individuals
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
from:
Elite Deviance (Fifth Edition)
David R. Simon
Allyn & Bacon(C) 1996,1993,1990,1986,1982
A Simon & Schuster Company
Needham Heights, Massachusetts 02194
ISBN 0-205-16460-9
-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------
e·litist adj. & n.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
elitism
n : the attitude that society should be governed by an elite group of
individuals
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
-----
FIGURE 1-2 The Capitalist Elite-Links among the Ruling Elite
Aside from the major corporations and the federal government, the rest of the
organizations are included for several reasons:
1. The elite 25 universities and colleges control 50 percent of all
educational endowment funds and include some 656 corporate and other elites
as their presidents and trustees. Moreover, only 50 foundations out of 12,000
control 40 percent of all foundation assets.[70] The officers of such
foundations often have experience in elite corporations, educational
institutions, and/or government.
2. The elite civic associations bring together elites from the corporate,
educational, legal, and governmental worlds. Such organizations have been
described as "central coordinating mechanisms in national policy making."[71]
These organizations issue public position papers and investigative reports on
matters of domestic and foreign policy Membership in one or more of these
organizations is sometimes a prerequisite to a high-ranking post within the
executive branch of the federal government.
For example, the majority of the Carter cabinet (including Jimmy Carter
himself) served on the Trilateral Commission prior to assuming office. The
commission was formed by David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of the
Chase Manhattan Bank; heir to the Exxon fortune; graduate of Harvard; member
of the boards of directors of B. F. Goodrich, Rockefeller Bros., Inc., and
Equitable Life Insurance; and trustee of Harvard. Rockefeller is also the
chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Almost all recent
secretaries of state, including Cyrus Vance and Henry Kissinger, have been
CFR members.[72]
3. The mass media is concentrated in that there are three major television
and radio networks-NBC, ABC, and CBS. These networks are also multinational
corporations that own or are owned by other corporations. For example, NBC is
owned by General Electric, a major manufacturer of appliances and weapons
systems components. Controlling shares in the three television networks are
owned by five New York commercial banks-Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty,
Citibank, Bankers Trust, and the Bank of New York.[73]
The media also includes major wire services, Associated Press and United
Press International, from which most national and international news makes
its way into U.S. radio, television, and newspapers. Regarding newspapers and
news weeklies, The Neu? York Times, The Washington Post, Time, Newsweek
(owned by The Washington Post), and U.S. News And World Report are regarded
as the most influential publications in their field.[74] Most cable TV
networks are also owned by media conglomerates. One exception is the holdings
of Ted Turner, which include the Cable News Network (CNN), stations WTBS and
TNT, and the Atlanta Braves, Hawks, and Falcons sports teams.
Moreover, the major sponsors of television programs on the three networks are
other large corporations. The media tends to portray deviant behavior as
violent behavior that is perpetrated by poor nonelites. As one recent study
concludes, the crime reported in television news and news magazines includes
kidnappings and particularly gruesome murders. "Ordinary people who carry out
nonviolent crimes or violate the mores rarely appear in national news."[75]
On the other hand,
the economically powerful, such as officers of large corporations and holders
of great wealth, are filmed or written about rarely, and then usually for
reasons having little to do with their economic power primarily when they arc
involved in some conflict with the federal government or are having legal
difficulties.[76]
Overall, the media function to portray crime and deviance as a problem
created by nonelites and to describe corporate capitalism as a system
characterized by competition, freedom, and, while flawed, the best of all
existing worlds.[77] As a Time magazine profile put it:
Plainly capitalism is not working well enough. But there is no evidence to
show the fault is in the system or that there is a better alternative.... For
all its obvious blemishes and needed reforms, capitalism still holds out the
most creative and dynamic force that any civilization has ever discovered:
the power of the free ambitious individual.[78]
Such propagandistic exercises are also characteristic of numerous television
commercials and public service announcements (often prepared by the elite
National Advertising Council) that insist that the oil companies are "working
to keep your trust" or that our "economics quotients" (knowledge about the
U.S. economic system) could stand improvement. Thus, one overall function of
the mass media is to ensure the continuation and growth of the system of
corporate capitalism.
4. Twenty-eight super law firms do much of the legal work for the
corporations, mass media, and educational and civic foundations. In addition,
senior lawyers in such firms often fill posts on various foundations and
civic and educational institutions and from time to time assume various posts
within the executive branch of the federal government. A good example of one
such super lawyer is Paul Warnke, President Carter's chief negotiator in the
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT). Warnke is also a member of the
Trilateral Commission, a director of the CFR, a former assistant secretary of
defense, and partner in a Washington law firm that includes former Defense
Secretary Clark Clifford.[79]
5. Finally, there is a host of elite-related think tanks, primarily research
institutes. In general, these operations receive monies from both public and
private sources, depending on the type of research they do. For example,
about 5 percent of the Department of Defense's research and development
budget in the 1960s and early 1970s went to such research organizations.[80]
Think tanks perform a very wide variety of research tasks. For instance, The
Rand Corporation and the Stanford Research Institute (owned by Stanford
University until 1970) are annually awarded about 5 percent of the Pentagon's
research and development budget. The American Enterprise Institute, on the
other hand, is closely allied with the business arm of the American power
elite, and the conservative wing of the Republican party and Southern
Democrats. Its activities primarily involve studies, the end products of
which are policy proposals aimed at enhancing the profitability and power of
its corporate clients.[81]
Item: In the 1970s, new "think tanks," especially The American Enterprise
Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation were established and richly
endowed by corporate money The right-wing Heritage Foundation was started
with a $250,000 donation from Colorado beer tycoon Joseph Coors. AEI's
patrons included AT&T ($125,000), Chase Manhattan Bank ($125,000), Exxon
($130,000), General Electric ($65,000), General Motors ($100,000), and
Proctor & Gamble ($165,000). AEI quickly became a "primary source of
Washington opinion" shaping the policy positions of Washington politicians
and the mass media.[82]
The American Enterprise Institute and other think tanks also prepare studies
for influential big business lobby groups, such as the National Association
of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce. In short, think
tanks provide valuable research aid in achieving the policy aims of elites,
both inside and outside of government. Figure 1.2 depicts the structures that
supply personnel, money, and policy to the federal government but does not
describe the processes used by or the benefits sought by elites from the
state. Such means and benefits are important in that, when they are abused,
they constitute forms of elite deviance. These benefits will be discussed in
following sections.
Lobbying
The principle of majority rule is sometimes violated by special interests,
which, by deals, propaganda, and the financial support of political
candidates, attempt to deflect the political process for their own benefit.
Individuals, families, corporations, and various organizations use a variety
of means to obtain numerous benefits from congressional committees,
regulatory agencies, and executive bureaucracies. To accomplish their goals,
lobbyists for the special interests,
along with the slick brochures, expert testimonies, and technical reports,. .
. still have the slush fund, the kickback, the stock award, the high paying
job offer from industry, the lavish parties and prostitutes, the meals
transportation, housing and vacation accommodations, and the many other
hustling enticements of money.[83]
The existence of lobbyists does not ensure that the national interests will
be served or that the concern of all groups will be heard. Who, for example,
speaks for the interests of schoolchildren, minority groups, the poor, people
who are mentally retarded, renters, migrant workers-in short, for the
relatively powerless? And if there is a voice for these people, does it match
the clout of lobbyists backed by the fantastic financial resources of the
elite?
In fairness, it must be stressed that the success of such lobbies is not
ensured:
Big economic interests don't always win. The cargo preference bill was
defeated. So was the 1979 sugar quota. The Consumer Cooperative Bank bill
passed the House by one vote and became law. Sometimes scandal or the weight
of evidence can push Congress in the right direction. And it must be noted
that when a congressman from Michigan votes to bail out Chrysler, or a
congressman from Wisconsin votes for dairy price supports, he is also voting
to benefit his own constituents. This may not favor the public interest, but
it is predictable politics, not personal corruption.... To receive money from
an interest doesn't mean a member of Congress is controlled, per se. There
are indentured politicians and there are principled conservatives-the former
virtually auction their souls to the highest bidder while the latter may
truly believe that the government shouldn't be forcing pharmaceutical firms
to pre-market test their drugs.[84]
Nevertheless, corporate lobbies usually do exert a significant influence.
Financing Political Campaigns
Perhaps one of the most elite-dominated and undemocratic features (at least
in its consequences) of the U.S. political system is a result of the manner
in which campaigns are financed. Political campaigns are expensive, with
statewide campaigns sometimes costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and
national campaigns running into the millions. These monies are raised from
contributions. For example, Nixon received $47.5 million from ninetyfive
persons for his 1972 campaign (including $2 million from W. Clement Stone, an
insurance executive). Such contributions are given for a number of reasons,
including the hope of future favors or payoffs for past benefits.
Between 1983 and 1988, 163 savings and loan (S&L) political action committees
(PACs) gave $11 million to congressional candidates, with donations
increasing 42 percent just before the S&L bailout was authorized by
Congress." The campaign donations from the S&L industry resulted in the most
massive financial scandal in U.S. history Members of various S&Ls allowed
Democratic congress members to use S&L-owned yachts for fundraising purposes,
and even paid for one influential congressman's dinners which amounted to
$20,000 for a single year. S&L lobbyists also contributed to the
establishment of a business school for Utah Senator Jake Garn, who coauthored
a bill allowing S&Ls to engage in all manner of questionable financial
practices. The final cost to the public may be over $1 trillion. (See Chapter
2 for details.)
Thus, the passage of favorable laws or the defeat of unfavorable ones may
directly result from the finances of special interests. So, too, may the
special interests receive beneficial governmental rulings and the maintenance
of tax loopholes. Since these investments pay off, it is only rational for
the special interests to donate to the candidates of both parties to ensure
that their interests are served. The result is that the wealthy have power
while the less well-to-do and certainly the poor have little influence on
office holders.[86]
By law, corporations cannot directly contribute any of their funds to
political parties or candidates. However, because corporations apparently
find that political contributions help them, many have contributed to
political campaigns illegally. This can be done either by giving money to
employees, who in turn make individual contributions, or by forcing employees
to contribute to a party or candidate as a condition of employment. Watergate
showed that many companies engaged in fraudulent bookkeeping practices to
cover up their political expenditures.
To counter the potential and real abuses of large contributors, the 1976
presidential campaign was partially financed from public funds; about $20
million was allocated to each of the two major candidates. Congress, however,
refused to provide a similar law for its members or potential members. As a
result, the monies contributed to congressional candidates rose sharply. In
1978, the total gifts from all reporting interest groups to candidates for
Congress was $35 million, compared to $22.6 million in 1976 and only $12.5
million in 1974. The most discussed phenomenon in campaign financing today is
undoubtedly the political action committee, or PAC.
PACs are "nonparty," "multicandidate" political committees that maintain a
separate, segregated fund for political contributions: "nonparty" because
they are set up by interest groups, "multi-candidate~' because they
distrib-ute their largesse to at least five candidates ("political
contributions" only; no charity to be mixed in here).[87]
While some PACs are established by a host of single-issue groups-such as the
National Rifle Association, environmental or antiabortion causes-the vast
majority of PAC money stems from corporate interests. Thus, in the 1981-1982
congressional campaign, corporate PACs spent $50 million of the $83 million
given to candidates, a tenfold increase over the amount given to candidates
in 1972. Seven million dollars of that money (over 7 percent) came from oil
and gas interests. The chairs of the House and Senate Energy Committees
received funds from thirty-four and thirty-seven energy PACs,
respectively.[88]
PAC money is now far and away the largest source of congressional campaign
funds, with business PAC contributions favoring Republicans over Democrats by
a ratio of two to one. Indeed, in the 1970s, there were about 600 Political
Action Committees (PACs) in Washington. By the 1992 election, there were
4,585, and all but about 365 of these are corporate in nature. "Candidates
have become so dependent on PAC money that they actually visit PAC offices
and all but demand contributions."[89]
The beer distributors' PAC is called six-PAC. There is also a beef-PAC, and
an ice cream-PAC. These PACs may donate up to $5,000 to each congressional
candidate in both primary and general election campaigns. During the
1991-1992 political campaign, all Democratic congressional candidates raised
$360 million, while Republican candidates raised $293 million. The GOP
National Committee raised an additional $85.4 million while the Democratic
National Committee raised $65.7. The vast majority of these funds (about 80
percent) came from PACs.
What do PACs expect from congresspersons receiving their funds? Votes on
important pieces of legislation. For example, in 1992, Senator David Prior,
an Arkansas Democrat, sponsored a bill that would link a huge tax break for
establishing factories in Puerto Rico with stable prices for prescription
drugs. Nine of the top ten recipients of drug PAC money from 1981 to 1991
voted for tabling (thus killing) this unfavorable legislation.[90]
By the late 1980s, politicians from all sides had become alarmed about the
dangers of PACs to democracy. Senator Charles Mathias remarked that the
current system of financing congressional elections threatened to "erode
public confidence in the electoral process and in government itself."[91]
Conservative Barry Goldwater stated that unlimited spending in political
campaigns "cuts at the very heart of the democratic process."[92] Despite
such pronouncements, in 1988, the ill effects and influence of PACs remained
unabated.
Item: The oil industry lobbied for and received the repeal of the windfall
profits tax. One leader of the repeal was Senator Lloyd Bentsen, later
Treasury Secretary, owner of an interest in a petroleum distribution company
Oil industry contributions to congressional campaigns in 1988 were $2.35
million.
• Item: Fifty-one U.S. senators and 146 members of the House of
Representatives are either founders or officers of Washington D.C. tax exempt
organizations that produce either research statistics or corporate propaganda
for lobbying purposes.[93]
• Item: In 1960, there were fewer than 400 lobbyists registered with the
U.S. Congress. By 1992 there were 40,000 so registered.[94] These 40,000
people represent mostly U.S. and foreign corporations. Much of this growth
came in the 1970s and 1980s when the capitalist class decided it was
underrepresented in the nation's capital. Eighty percent of the Fortune 500
corporations established "public-affairs offices" (lobby groups) in
Washington.[95]
• Item: Congress allowed a group of multinational corporations to deduct
their research expenses from corporate income taxes, giving them an
additional $211 million in tax breaks (on top of the $1 billion tax savings
received in previous years). This PAC gave $2.627 million to Congress in
1988.96
These examples not only illustrate the dangers of PAC influence in Congress
but also indicate why many of the laws designed to control corporate crime
were so weakened during the Reagan years. (See Chapter 2 for further
discussion of these issues.)
Meanwhile, in Congress, one effect of PAC money has been to alter the very
structure of power within the institution. Representative Jim Wright of Texas
was elected speaker of the House after giving $312,000 of his own campaign
funds to 141 members. Moreover, consider that senators now spend 60 to 70
percent of their time raising the money needed to be reelected; during an
entire six-year term, as much as $10,000 per week must be raised.[97]
Finally, political parties have found loopholes in election laws, laundering
monies through state party committees, which allows them to spend beyond the
$54 million limit in presidential campaigns. Such monies have included
massive contributions from individuals (e.g., $1 million from Joan Kroc of
McDonald's and $503,263 from a former U.S. ambassador) that federal financing
of election laws was designed to stop.[98]
Candidate Selection. Closely related to the discussion of PACs is the process
by which political candidates are nominated. Being wealthy or having access
to wealth are essential for victory because of the enormous cost of running a
successful campaign. It cost up to 5.5 million to elect a senator and or
representative in 1992.99 This means, then, that the candidates tend to
represent a limited constituency-the wealthy. "Recruitment of elective elites
remains closely associated, especially for the most important offices in the
larger states, with the candidates' wealth or access to large campaign
contributions. "[100]
The two-party system also works to limit candidates to a rather narrow range.
Each party is financed by the special interests especially business.
When all of these direct and indirect gifts (donations provided directly to
candidates or through numerous political action committees of specific
corporations and general business organizations) are combined, the power
elite can be seen to provide the great bulk of the financial support to both
parties at the national level, far outspending the unions and middle-status
liberals within the Democrats, and the melange of physicians, dentists,
engineers, real-estate operators, and other white-collar conservatives within
the right wing of the Republican party.[101]
Since affluent individuals and large corporations dominate each party, they
influence the candidate selection process by giving financial aid to those
sympathetic with their views and by withholding their support from those who
differ. The parties, then, are constrained to choose candidates with views
congruent with the elite moneyed interests.
The Benefits That Elites Seek from the State
A number of factors about the current historical era bear on the nature of
elite deviance. Over the last twenty years, the United States has experienced
the most dramatic economic and political change of the post World War II era.
Unfortunately, this unprecedented change has contributed to a wave of elite
deviance that is virtually out of control.
Economically, the United States is no longer the dominant power it once was.
Its share of the world's income is now half what it was two decades ago. The
U.S. manufacturing base has severely declined, and millions of manufacturing
jobs located in the nation's Northeast and Midwest have been relocated
overseas, where labor is cheaper, taxes are lower, and raw materials are more
accessible (see Chapter 5). Two-thirds of the workforce now engages in
service-sector positions, and one quarter of all jobs are now government
related.
As a result of these changes, corporations grow not by expanding plants and
equipment, thus creating new jobs, but by buying other corporations. Another
related effect of these economic changes is insider trading scandals on Wall
Street.
In addition, the United States has experienced an era of inflation
accompanied by unemployment. Although the rate of inflation has slowed in
recent years, in real terms, U.S. workers are no better off economically than
they were twenty years ago. One result has been an outbreak of criminal and
unethical behavior at all levels of society. The unemployment rate has
settled at about 7 percent, a level that would have been viewed with some
alarm twenty-five years ago. Today, it is viewed as an improvement, which is
an indication of just how much economic decline Americans have become
accustomed to.
Central to our understanding of elite deviance is the relationship between
the corporate and political institutions. Many contemporary conflict
theorists believe that the central contradiction of the capitalist order is
now focused on the state. The political institution is being asked to perform
two contradictory functions. On the one hand, politically influential
corporations demand state assistance in capital accumulation (profit
expansion) through tax relief, lucrative government contracts, subsidies,
loans, and loan guarantees. Corporations also receive military protection of
their overseas markets and investments. But on the other hand, in order for
its legitimacy to be maintained, the state must meet the demands placed on it
for public assistance: social programs designed to aid those suffering from
poverty, unemployment, homelessness, mental illness and retardation, drug
addiction, and other problems arising in modern capitalist societies.
The result is that the state is caught in the middle: The demand for state
services and expenditures consistently exceeds state revenues. One
consequence of this situation is massive deficit, which can be reduced in
only three ways.
1. Reduce support for corporate programs (e.g., defense contracts, subsidies,
loans, corporate taxes). This is unlikely, due to corporate influence in the
policy-making process.
2. Cut social programs for the unemployed, poor, elderly, and other needy
groups. If too much is cut, it will appear that the government is serving the
wealthy and powerful at the expense of those in need, which would prompt a
massive withdrawal of legitimacy by ordinary people. This in turn might
result in mass resistance to fighting additional wars to preserve corporate
holdings, a tax revolt that might increase debt, or a new political movement
designed to redistribute wealth, income, and political power in a more
democratic fashion.
3. Raise taxes for citizens. This is unpopular among those who vote and is
thus something that no serious candidate wishing to be elected would
propose.[102]
The situation is made worse by the competitive sector of the economy, the 12
million small- and medium-sized businesses that suffer the crises of farm
foreclosures, bank failures, and bankruptcy In recent decades, these
businesses have struggled against high interest rates and suffered declining
demand for their goods and services because corporate America has transferred
millions of jobs to places with lower wage scales, both in the United States
and overseas.
Corporate deviance also plays a role in these processes. Indeed, Harold
Barnet has argued that marketing unsafe products, polluting the environment,
and violating health, safety, and labor laws all help increase corporate
profits by transferring various costs to consumers, workers, and the public
in general. 1113 Moreover, the appalling lack of enforcement of corporate
crime laws and the lenient sentences handed down in the few cases that get
convictions, serve further to indicate that the state functions largely to
encourage capital accumulation, not to repress elite wrongdoing.
The Higher Immorality and Links among
Various Kinds of Crime
Many have characterized the 1980s as a period where the individual focus was
on self-concern, personal survival, and greed.[104] This personal focus was
aided and abetted by a conservative, probusiness administration that somehow
made greed seem moral and corruption an everyday fact of political life (see
Chapter 2). The result was a wave of scandal in the corporate, political, and
military worlds. It was spawned by the centralization of power within large
organizations composing the elite and covered up by the mass media, which
continually provided diversion, distraction, and socialization to the very
norms of the elite.
Mills argued that the power elite had managed to institutionalize deviant
behavior within its ranks. This is significant, in part because sociologists
usually consider deviant behavior as constituting abnormal episodes and
characterizing a minority of people. Various chapters ahead contain evidence
demonstrating that deviance and crime among many segments of the nation's
economic, political, and military elite are frequent. Moreover, the deviance
within the elite differs markedly from that of other social classes because
it involves so much more money, power, and resources than are available to
people in other strata.
The higher immorality consists of a group of acts and behaviors intended to
increase profit and power (see Chapter 2). However, the nature of the higher
immorality has changed within recent years. Corporate crime and political
scandal are now interrelated not only to each other but to other types of
crime and deviance, as well.
The U.S. drug problem is a central example. Over $200 billion of the world's
$750 billion in illegal drugs is consumed in the United States. Drugs can be
smuggled into the United States with the cooperation of banks (which launder
drug money) and political elites (who accept payoffs), both here and in
countries of origin. General Manuel Noriega, one-time leader of Panama, was
convicted in 1992 of accepting bribes from the Latin American cocaine cartel.
At the same time, Noriega was a longtime employee of the CIA, who for years
had known of his involvement in the drug trade. The CIA has also been
involved in various aspects of drug trafficking for over forty years in
Europe, Southeast Asia, and most recently Latin America (see Chapter 2).
After being smuggled in, the drugs are often distributed to street gangs and
peddlers by organized criminal syndicates, one of whom is the ItalianAmerican
Mafia. At its lowest level, the U.S. drug problem is directly related to the
vast majority of property crimes committed by so-called street criminals who
seek money in support of drug habits. Hundreds of murders each year are
committed by gangs seeking to control territory in the drug trade. Thus,
crime at all levels of U.S. life is now interrelated, as organized crime and
supposedly legitimate elites cooperate for a variety of reasons in
international drug traffic.[105]
>From what we have said about lobbying, election financing, and candidate
selection, it is obvious that much of the higher immorality involves
political activities-and for good reasons. The state not only regulates the
capitalist economy but also (federal, state, and local government) now
accounts for 32.2 percent of the gross national product. Two-thirds of these
goods and services stem from spending by the federal government alone.[106]
Thus, elites seek favorable legislation (or prevention of unfavorable
legislation), as well as tax breaks, subsidies, and lucrative government
contracts. Such contracts include everything from multibillion-dollar weapons
systems to office furniture and paint. These contracts are not only
influenced by the decisions of congressional members but are often the charge
of various bureaucrats with the federal government.
For example, the General Services Administration (GSA) is in charge of
securing virtually all office supplies for the entire federal government.
Thus, favors from lobbyists are also from time to time dispensed to
bureaucrats, as well as elected members of Congress. These favors are illegal
when they include kickbacks (payments by contractors that usually involve a
certain percentage of the contract in which a firm is interested). But other
favors may simply include the promise of a job with the company upon
completion of government services. While not illegal, these types of deals
are unethical.
In addition, a host of independent regulatory agencies (e.g., Federal
Communications Commission, Interstate Commerce Commission, Federal Trade
Commission) have some impact on virtually every large and small business in
the United States. The personnel in these agencies are not infrequently the
target of various lobbying and other efforts (e.g., the promise of a job in
the industry they regulate). Often, certain staff members of these agencies
come from the industries they oversee, and in some cases, the industries
involved requested the initial regulation.
Finally, it is important to realize the influence that elites possess over
the enactment or lack of enactment of legislation that defines what is and is
not against the law in the first place. Examples of such influence are legion.
• Item: In 1977, the House passed a bill to create a Federal Consumer
Protective Agency by a vote of 293 to 94; it was defeated in the Senate by a
filibuster. The bill was opposed by the National Association of
Manufacturers, the National Association of Feed Chains, and some 300 other
companies and trade associations.[107]
• Item: The automobile industry got the Justice Department to sign a
consent decree that blocked any attempt by public or private means to sue
them for damages occurring from air pollution.
• Item: Many of the nation's antitrust laws appear, on the surface, to be
actions that regulate business. However, many of these laws were actually
requested by big business. Such laws, as we will see in Chapter 2, exclude
new competitors from the marketplace and have been used to reduce the
influence of labor unions. These laws have also functioned to increase public
confidence in the quality of food and drugs by having such products certified
safe by government inspection. For example, the 1906 Meat Inspection Act
received a lot of support because of the muckraking activities of Upton
Sinclair, who exposed the bad conditions in the meat processing industry
However, this also delighted the large meat packers; it helped them export
successfully by meeting the high safety standards required by European
countries. Nonetheless, the action crippled smaller companies. Americans were
left with poor quality meat and low wages.[108]
Such laws often help create uncompetitive (monopolistic) situations and are
usually welcome (even favored) by big business. Moreover, such laws are
rarely enforced, and the penalties for breaking them tend to be minuscule.
Numerous additional examples could be cited, showing how, time and time
again, corporate officials and politicians have, without penalty, violated
laws or prevented acts from being made public that involved the theft of
great amounts of money or the taking of many lives.
Another of the great problems in dealing with elite deviance is that all laws
are not administered equally Those laws that are administered most seriously
tend to be those related to the deviance of the powerless nonelites. This
process works in very subtle ways but nevertheless ensures a bias in favor of
the more affluent.
One way in which this bias operates is illustrated by examining the priority
given investigation and prosecution of corporate crimes within the federal
government. Despite some advances noted in recent years, corporate crime
remains a low priority.[109] As of 1992, the federal government still
possessed no centralized statistical capability to index the extent of elite
and other white-collar crimes. Yet for years, the FBI, via its Uniform Crime
Reports, has monitored so-called street crimes involving both violence and
crimes against property (e.g., burglary).
Quite clearly, white-collar crime does not draw the attention of government
and law enforcement officials. And for this reason, it does not draw the
resources. In fact, the Reagan administration cut back funding designated for
white-collar prosecutions by the Justice Department. By 1990, the FBI had
only 650 agents to investigate 7,000 fraud claims in connection with the
massive S&L scandal. The FBI has estimated that it needs a minimum of 1,000
agents to do an adequate job.[110]
The Criminal Justice section of the American Bar Association issued this
conclusion:
For the most part within the Federal agencies with direct responsibility in
the economic crime offenses area, available resources are unequal to the task
of combating economic crime....
In cases where "seemingly adequate resources exist, these resources are
poorly deployed, underutilized, or frustrated by jurisdictional
consider-ations." [111]
Thus, the bias of the federal law enforcement effort, as well as state and
local efforts (see Chapter 2), remains slanted toward the crimes of nonelites.
-----
de·vi·ant Pronunciation Key (dv-nt)
adj.
Differing from a norm or from the accepted standards of a society.
n.
One that differs from a norm, especially a person whose behavior and
attitudes differ from accepted social standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English deviaunt, from Late Latin dvins, dviant- present participle
of dvire, to deviate. See deviate.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
devi·ance or devi·an·cy n.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
deviance
n 1: an aberrant state or condition [syn: aberrance, aberrancy, aberration]
2: deviate behavior [syn: deviation]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
