California's Proposition 16 Makes a Corporate Mockery of the Democratic Process

Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people -  Theodore Roosevelt

In a time of 527s and corporately funded political groups disguised as grass roots organizations, it really comes as no surprise that 'public' initiatives such as California's Proposition 16 are being funded directly by major corporations.  We're used to the 'golden rule' of politics - he who has the gold makes the rules.  Many of us are weary of hearing how the Big Money has shaped our once democratic landscape and, quite honestly, want little to do with it anymore.  Money influences politics.  It's as simple as that.  Maybe we should all just get over it.  However, when a corporation turns out the be the sole financial supporter and spokesperson of such proposed legislation, even the most jaded political expatriate is forced to take notice.  And Proposition 16 - a monopolistic giveaway to Pacific Gas & Electric Company - will directly affect the lives of millions of Californians. 

The proposition - which will be voted on in a statewide election today - calls for a two-thirds majority public vote any time a California municipality wants to get involved in a public utility.  In other words, if a local government found a cheaper, cleaner form of electrical power - perhaps solar or wind - to supply its citizens, it would be forced to put the issue to a vote before it spent one penny on creating that value.  The initiative is even called the "Taxpayers' Right to Vote Act".  A vote on how to spend taxpayer dollars sounds eminently democratic on the face of it.  However, this not-so-subtle deception attempts to thwart the democratic ideal of majority rule.  Like so much legislation that continues to cripple California's economic future, PG&E is counting on the fact that getting a 67% majority in almost any election is nigh impossible - especially if the opposition puts enough money into the 'no' vote.

So what?  Government shouldn't be running businesses anyway, not matter how good of a deal it is for its citizens or how sustainable it may be.  It ruins choice and puts people in the thrall of Big Brother.  At first glance, this might seem to be the case.  But there's more to it than that.  The two-third vote would have to pass any time a municipality attempted to even loan money to or subsidize a business that was competing with PG&E.  In other words, PG&E would have a democratically imposed monopoly on northern California's energy industry.  They would finally be free to ignore the innovation of sustainable alternatives currently being developed by smaller energy operations and could raise their prices at any time to increase profits and satisfy growing shareholder greed.  So what's worse?  A government that can be hired and fired by the will of the people, or a single massive corporation that answers to no one but the bottom line?  

The issue, in fact, revolves around Marin County, CA - just north of San Francisco - and its desire to get more of its energy from renewable resources - as much as 25%.  This would require doing business with suppliers other than PG&E.  Marin is not asking to take over the entire energy industry, just partner with alternate vendors.  PG&E has taken exception to such challenges to its virtual monopoly in northern California.  So, by utilizing California's often abused ballot initiative system, a PG&E is trying to secure its stranglehold on the state's citizens and hoping no one is paying attention.

But this is still taxpayer money, right?  Shouldn't there be some sort of vote to ensure the proper stewardship of tax dollars?  A reasonable question.  However, according to SF Public Press, this belief that large amounts of tax revenue will be involved is mistaken:

There is an important distinction to be made between “taxpayer” and “ratepayer.” Many Community Choice Aggregation programs, like San Francisco’s, would not be run through the municipality’s general fund. Instead, they would be funded by the consumers, who would pay for the electricity as they do with any other provider.

To get an idea of how serious PG&E is about pushing this legislation through to protect their virtual monopoly, just take a look at all the stakeholders involved:

Yes on 16 is almost entirely funded by PG&E. The organization has received a total of $44,206,358.17, according to campaign finance documents on the California secretary of state’s website. All of this came from PG&E, except for $91,258.17 from the CA Business PAC, which in turn is paid for by the California Chamber of Commerce. One of the board members of the Chamber is Christopher P. Johns, the president of PG&E.

Basically, this is PG&E's baby.  Just about every last bit of it.  There is no voter uprising demanding that Marin or any other locality put the use of these monies to a vote.  There are no grass roots efforts to claim that government implementing energy alternatives is a misuse of funds.  In fact, not one consumer protection group in California supports this obvious ruse to solidify PG&E's position as the only provider of energy in the region.  This is why the "Taxpayer's Right to Vote Act" makes such a mockery of the democratic process.  Much like the deceptively named Clear Skies Act of 2003, Proposition 16 will do just the opposite of what it claims, effectively locking consumers into a system in which they have no choice.

Proposition 16 will likely not pass, though we'll find out soon enough.  It should, however, serve as a cautionary tale for the rest of the country.  The "floodgates" are open.  The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the inalienable right to free speech in the form of money.  And that money cannot be limited regardless of how many congress people it buys or what elections it tips in favor of corporate interests.  This is just the beginning.  It might not be long before we see constitutional amendments proposed by a consortium of industry leaders, devoid of the will of actual citizens, consumers, employees...human beings.  But the corporation will never stop framing its interest in clever branding and catchy sound bites.  It will, at every opportunity, attempt to deceive us into believing that what's good for Big Business is good for America.  It falls to us as citizens to recognize those fallacies.

By the way, does it disturb anyone else that it requires only a simple majority vote to pass a law that requires a two-thirds majority vote.  But hey, that's California.

Image Source

Slavery is the legal fiction that a person is property.  Corporate personhood is the legal fiction that property is a person.

Comments

[Business Power]

Your blog is very motivating. When I was reading it, I get drawn in. I am totally agreed with your thoughts. Thanks for sharing this beautiful thoughts with me.

[nike air max]

I am just new to your blog and just spent about 1 hour and 30 minutes lurking and reading. I think I will frequent your blog from now on after going through somedd of your posts. I will definitely learn a lot from them.

[free lance writer]

That is great that there people who care!

[gucci outlet]

human beings. But the corporation will never stop framing its interest

[SendGeogueneD]

sixBleacece jufufduy Flubresse

[Ricardo Zolondek]

It is sad that technology like this one, that can save so much energy is not more known among society.

[lexapro active ingredients]

stopping cymbalta and starting lexapro lexapro mgs lexapro and grapefruit interaction http://escitaloprambuyonline.info lexapro abdominal muscle contraction lexapro dilated pupils

[Monica Bellucci]

It will, at every opportunity, attempt to deceive us into believing that what's good for Big Business is good for America. It falls to us as citizens to recognize those fallacies.!!!GooD luck!!

[Moncler]

sertgerfs e tyrh yujk yu6rter tjr I think this is the most beautiful in the world the article, there must be many people like it your works will get everyone recognized you is the best I will always support you