What's a poor multinational corporation to do?
Doris Haddock's speech to 800 members of Business for Social Responsibility in New York City, November 8, 2000
Thank you very much.
I am delighted to be in the presence of so many people who care deeply about the serious issues of our day, and who are striving to make important changes.
I believe the brightest business leaders--those capable of planning three or four chess moves ahead-- are by necessity reformers; for there can be no sustainable commerce without a sustainable earth, and there can be no free enterprise and no enjoyment of the fruits of enterprise without sustainable democracies to guarantee those freedoms.
I set out on my walk across the United States at a time when the leaders in Congress were saying that no one cared much about campaign finance reform. I wanted to demonstrate that I indeed cared, and I hoped to meet others along the way who cared. That is what I found.
Not very many people understood the term "campaign finance reform," but nearly all of the thousands of people I met felt and still feel that they no longer have senators and congressmen who represent their interests. They believe that wealthy special interests have taken away their opportunity for a representative democracy. And many, many people got teary-eyed or they cried outright about it. They sent me on my way with a prayer for success for all of us, and many of them --over 2,000 of them-- came to join me for the last mile in Washington, D.C. That was a joyful day, but despair, sadness and anger were the typical emotions I encountered along my way.
On that last day of my walk, we started from the graves of Arlington--rows upon rows of white stones that mark the sacrifices that have been made for the idea of freedom and self-governance. I felt those honorable spirits walk with us to the Capitol to demand an end to the political bribery that now dominates Washington. This bribery nicely calls itself campaign finance--much as a prostitute might wish to be called a personal companion. But it is what it is.
We gave witness against it on the Capitol steps and later from the very Capitol rotunda, where some of us were arrested and jailed for peaceably assembling and petitioning our government for the redress of our grievance. I had very good company in jail, by the way, including young people from some very notable families, as Mr. Moyers may be aware.
My long walk was a 14-month and 3,200-mile opportunity to think about what cures might apply to this corruption. Time and again, people agreed that the full public financing of our campaigns is the only real way to insure that ideas and character will count again in our politics. I was surprised to hear this opinion voiced from progressive California to conservative Texas, Arkansas and West Virginia. People are so truly sick of the present system of special-interest dominated politics that they are ready for that change. I was surprised, as I was not ready for public financing of campaigns when I began my walk. The people convinced me that there is no other chance for real reform.
Four states already have public financing of campaigns. A candidate for the Arizona legislature, for example, needs to find 200 people living in his or her district who will contribute no more or less than $5 each. Once those qualifying contributions have been raised by the candidate, all further campaign funds, up to $40,000, will be provided by the state clean election fund. No special interests need apply. It has worked beautifully in the election cycle that concluded yesterday. Arizona political experts say that nearly all candidates will probably use the system in the next election. In Arizona, and in Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont, the citizen listening to a candidate at a neighborhood forum can now, for the price of $5, be the one and only fatcat in the system. That is a breath of fresh air for democracy --isn't it? It is a victory for the human scale.
Yesterday, Missouri voters turned down a public financing system, and Oregon voters turned down the same such system. It is difficult to overcome the massive advertising that comes against these reforms, but I believe they will move ahead over time to all the states, as the experience of the reformed states becomes widely known, and as the corruption in the unreformed states continues to create a wind in the sails of change.
I am certain that public financing will also come to our federal elections. We have it in a modified way now for our presidential elections, but the presidential candidates who take the federal funds are not restricted from raising and spending other funds. That restriction does, however, apply in the reformed states, and is essential to the success of the system.
What else will drive the success of this reform? Continuing damage to the weather system, to the healthy diversity of nature, and to the healthy diversity of local economies, I believe, will create a rising demand for effective leadership and proper representation, without the interference of shamelessly self-interested commercial interests.
I know you are here because you are reformers. I am sure it gives your efforts some urgency when you hear that the polar ice cap is a third thinner than it was in 1980, and that the ozone in the upper atmosphere is disappearing at an alarming rate, and that plants and animals are dying off at a rate that qualifies our age as the planet's sixth major extinction. I am sure that you must be ready--if you have not already done so--to add your own voice to those demanding serious action on these fronts. I doubt that you would waste you time on window-dressing issues while these fundamental issues of global consequence are filling the streets and the jails with young and old protesters around the world. We do not want to repair our representative democracies for the fun of it; we see urgent issues that are not otherwise being addressed properly.
A young carpenter from Chicago, Nick, who helped me across a good many states in my recent walk across the U.S., and who more recently helped me across Missouri in my walk that concluded last week, was one of the many young people who peaceably protested in Philadelphia during the Republican convention. He cares deeply about non-violence, and went all the way to India to study its principles from the followers of Mr. Gandhi. He was nevertheless jailed in Philadelphia for no good reason, and held for ten days under purposefully brutal conditions. If you want to know why many Nader voters would not compromise to support Mr. Gore, it is because an entire generation is becoming radicalized against corporate-dominated politics, and it is just beginning. It grows with every change of weather, and it grows as every big-box discount store destroys a main street of family businesses--and I walked through hundreds of such ruined communities. It is the human scale resisting the scale of the monstrous, and history has shown that it always wins in the end.
So, what's a poor multinational corporation to do?
College campuses, even high schools, are now filled with militant reformers, intent on defending the earth and their own freedoms against the anti-environment and anti-democratic power of the new corporate-government complex.
What is a good strategy for survival for a large, corporate organization? Let me offer three modest proposals.
First, I would suggest that, the larger the organization, the more democratic --internally and externally -- it must become, developing ways within it to preserve the human scale and help people retain significant power over their own lives. There is nothing modern about any organization that relies upon the absolute power of the prince.
Second, I would suggest that corporations must serve people's interests more than they inconvenience people's lives. Those inconveniences may take the form of no leisure or family time, or no ice for your drink, even at the North Pole. This much I think is certain: a sustainable economy is not what we have today, because of the tremendous hidden costs--hidden by collusion between corporations and their bought governments. Is that really a free market? Of course not--nor can it long preserve itself.
Third, corporations must withdraw their power from areas where the very exercise of power will do them long term damage.
Specifically, I suggest that you abandon local, state and national politics over to the human scale, even if you may in fact have the ability to buy it up wholesale and retool it to your purposes. If the people have the personal power to decide how they will live and how their communities and nations will be shaped, you need never fear them. You well may fear their decisions from time to time, but those occasional losses will be small compared to your long term gain as the economic institutions that accommodate their never ending needs.
Government got big, starting in the Progressive Era in this country, in response to over-large businesses, monopolies and trusts. It happened in my lifetime. There has been a power race between business and government, and neither side can afford to unilaterally disarm. So you may feel the need to own a few dozen senators, because the government can make or break your business. But the game has gone on now to a point where half the people don't vote and the other half aren't too happy either, because they don't think it's a democracy so much as it is a rigged game of special interests. That is what sends people to the streets instead of the ballot boxes. How do you step back from this brink without putting your company at risk?
You do it with courage.
If you need a role model, Arnold Hiatt ought to do fine for you. He was the second largest individual political donor in the 1996 election, according to my friend Ellen Miller at Public Campaign. He saw that, long term, political giving was a losing game.
Let me quote him exactly. Mr. Hiatt has said:
"Breaking the link between candidates and big donors would inevitably contribute to a more equitable, and efficient, allocation of our country's ample resources. Wasteful subsidies that serve narrow economic interests rather than the national interest--like the $500 million a year subsidy that goes to the sugar lobby, or the tax break for ethanol producers that has cost taxpayers more than $7 billion since 1979--would wither away. Instead, government would probably find the money to subsidize, for example, every child in need with high-quality day care: many studies have shown that every $1 spent in quality day care saves $7 in later remedial costs."
He continues: "Such changes in our spending priorities would help create a healthier and more productive work force, and a better climate for business in general. I've seen this occur with individual companies and I'm convinced it can occur on a wider scale. This is not only a moral imperative -- it is good business sense. The well-being of a company cannot be separated from the well-being of society."
I agree with every word he said. Further, the less involved corporations become in government, the easier it will be to reduce the size and cost of unnecessary government.
Now, in the short term, if you are concerned that your withdrawal from political participation will allow other business interests to take your place, let me remind you that you can head them off by supporting the full public funding of elections. Effective organizations, such as Public Campaign and the Alliance for Democracy, are in place and need your participation. They have supported these reforms in the first states. Help them with their next battles.
Now, I'll bet you thought you had outlived or divorced all the old women who would dare nag at you like this. But I love free enterprise and all that it brings to a free world. We all, whether we are major stockholders or customers in line, have an interest in a healthy system of commerce. We have that in common.
Further, you and I share a deep feeling for all those who have given their lives to defend our freedoms and our government of, by and for the people. We know these brave souls--many of whom we knew and loved--did not die so that special interests might steal away our representative democracy. Part of you cares more about that than your business profits, and I tell you that you must listen always to that valiant voice within yourself.
When you are my age, it is the only voice still worth listening to.
Thank you for the privilege of meeting you and speaking with you, and good luck in your meetings here today.