More Legacy From Our Friend, Lewis Powell
I haven't followed the IRS stink at all. Why? Well, I've barely been following the news. One good tornado, as shocking as the devastation, transforms any corporate media outlet into a Worst Destruction Footage Evar re-run machine. Why bother watching again what you've seen once?
From the sound of things, though, I'm going to posit a hypothesis as to why the IRS might be digging into right-leaning organizations. Maybe, just maybe, quite a few of them are guilty of just the bias the tax investigators suspected.
I don't lob that bomb lightly. To understand what prompted the forces the IRS might very well be seeking, you have to go back in time to the mid- to late-1960s, where a growing number of young people were having an increasing influence on the country's political future. Many in traditional corporate America grew increasingly frustrated, sometimes outright alarmed, by the direction they foresaw the country taking:
“From 1969 to 1972,” as the political scientist David Vogel summarizes in one of the best books on the political role of business, “virtually the entire American business community experienced a series of political setbacks without parallel in the postwar period.” In particular, Washington undertook a vast expansion of its regulatory power, introducing tough and extensive restrictions and requirements on business in areas from the environment to occupational safety to consumer protection. . . .
In corporate circles, this pronounced and sustained shift was met with disbelief and then alarm.
Reacting to this situation, to these attacks on "the American system," in 1971 Lewis Powell, soon to be a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo to his friend and neighbor, Eugene Sydnor, Jr.
We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.
He identified what he considered targets of interest, mostly politically-motivated revolutionaries and those he thought might be working on behalf of such persons. More importantly, however, might be the strategies he thought best for addressing such threats. Those strategies were taken to heart almost immediately. They continue to be followed almost to the letter.
One of the strategies Powell suggested is to thwart the waves of what he called "guerrilla warfare" with an equally strong counter attack from a variety of fronts, including campus activism and a strong media presence promoting more "American" ideals. He did note that such background strategies would take time, and encouraged business to ". . . not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information." (I underlined for emphasis.) Powell continues:
Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination - without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.
As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.
Many years later, we in the States have the 501(c) non-profit organization. Thanks to the See You Next Tuesdays over at what was originally called the Citizens United, Not Timid organization, formed to fight Hillary Clinton's presidential bid with slant and distortion, we now have the 501(c)(4)s, organizations that can receive tax-exempt money from unlimited corporate coffers and spend it on "charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." (Yes, I did it again.)
"Educational," as in propaganda dedicated to a "more vigorous role in the political arena".
It didn't take long for Powell's memo to mobilize corporate America into damage control, and from there into a direct assault on their perceived enemies.
The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping - a domestic version of Shock and Awe. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980. On every dimension of corporate political activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization of business resources in the mid-1970s.
What the numbers alone cannot show is something of potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how to work together to achieve shared political goals. As members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.
The book excerpt notes the rise of some organizations that headed these efforts of pro-business lobbying, groups like The National Federation of Independent Business and the Business Roundtable, but these were far from even the largest recipients of corporate war chest funding. Consider the Koch Foundation (later renamed the Cato Institute), the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and many, many others. These organizations in turn follow Powell's well-tested strategy and continue spewing publishing all manner of persuasive material related to political identity and philosophy.
And since the 501(c)(4) formation, these and many, many other invested and interested parties have funded smaller, more tactical organizations . . . the funding of which is now confidential. And we all know how things that are confidential bring out the absolute best in people. Which brings us to today.
Here's what we don't know about the IRS's investigations. Were any of these 501(c)(4) orgs found guilty of violating regulations? If so, how many of these were "Patriot" or "Tea" or "Freedom" entitled organizations?
That's what isn't answered, and without these answers, speculation as to the oh so badness of the IRS cannot be addressed. It might well be that these previously-investigated-and-found-guilty-as-hell orgs set the precedent for the current search of the burgeoning 501(c)(4) pile infesting our political system in the same way that a bar known for over-serving its customers becomes the locus of a drunk driving sting by local police.
Still, over-funded orgs have well-funded sponsors with well-established political lackeys at their beck and call, so such an investigative pressure is bound to be resisted. That doesn't mean the pressure is unwarranted, or even undesirable.
PS. to the Mods: Any chance of getting a "corporatism" tag? This stuff isn't really conservative or economic in nature, but that's really all I've got.
From the sound of things, though, I'm going to posit a hypothesis as to why the IRS might be digging into right-leaning organizations. Maybe, just maybe, quite a few of them are guilty of just the bias the tax investigators suspected.
I don't lob that bomb lightly. To understand what prompted the forces the IRS might very well be seeking, you have to go back in time to the mid- to late-1960s, where a growing number of young people were having an increasing influence on the country's political future. Many in traditional corporate America grew increasingly frustrated, sometimes outright alarmed, by the direction they foresaw the country taking:
“From 1969 to 1972,” as the political scientist David Vogel summarizes in one of the best books on the political role of business, “virtually the entire American business community experienced a series of political setbacks without parallel in the postwar period.” In particular, Washington undertook a vast expansion of its regulatory power, introducing tough and extensive restrictions and requirements on business in areas from the environment to occupational safety to consumer protection. . . .
In corporate circles, this pronounced and sustained shift was met with disbelief and then alarm.
Reacting to this situation, to these attacks on "the American system," in 1971 Lewis Powell, soon to be a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court, wrote a memo to his friend and neighbor, Eugene Sydnor, Jr.
We are not dealing with sporadic or isolated attacks from a relatively few extremists or even from the minority socialist cadre. Rather, the assault on the enterprise system is broadly based and consistently pursued. It is gaining momentum and converts.
He identified what he considered targets of interest, mostly politically-motivated revolutionaries and those he thought might be working on behalf of such persons. More importantly, however, might be the strategies he thought best for addressing such threats. Those strategies were taken to heart almost immediately. They continue to be followed almost to the letter.
One of the strategies Powell suggested is to thwart the waves of what he called "guerrilla warfare" with an equally strong counter attack from a variety of fronts, including campus activism and a strong media presence promoting more "American" ideals. He did note that such background strategies would take time, and encouraged business to ". . . not postpone more direct political action, while awaiting the gradual change in public opinion to be effected through education and information." (I underlined for emphasis.) Powell continues:
Business must learn the lesson, long ago learned by labor and other self-interest groups. This is the lesson that political power is necessary; that such power must be assidously (sic) cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination - without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.
As unwelcome as it may be to the Chamber, it should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena.
Many years later, we in the States have the 501(c) non-profit organization. Thanks to the See You Next Tuesdays over at what was originally called the Citizens United, Not Timid organization, formed to fight Hillary Clinton's presidential bid with slant and distortion, we now have the 501(c)(4)s, organizations that can receive tax-exempt money from unlimited corporate coffers and spend it on "charitable, educational, or recreational purposes." (Yes, I did it again.)
"Educational," as in propaganda dedicated to a "more vigorous role in the political arena".
It didn't take long for Powell's memo to mobilize corporate America into damage control, and from there into a direct assault on their perceived enemies.
The organizational counterattack of business in the 1970s was swift and sweeping - a domestic version of Shock and Awe. The number of corporations with public affairs offices in Washington grew from 100 in 1968 to over 500 in 1978. In 1971, only 175 firms had registered lobbyists in Washington, but by 1982, nearly 2,500 did. The number of corporate PACs increased from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 by the middle of 1980. On every dimension of corporate political activity, the numbers reveal a dramatic, rapid mobilization of business resources in the mid-1970s.
What the numbers alone cannot show is something of potentially even greater significance: Employers learned how to work together to achieve shared political goals. As members of coalitions, firms could mobilize more proactively and on a much broader front. Corporate leaders became advocates not just for the narrow interests of their firms but also for the shared interests of business as a whole.
The book excerpt notes the rise of some organizations that headed these efforts of pro-business lobbying, groups like The National Federation of Independent Business and the Business Roundtable, but these were far from even the largest recipients of corporate war chest funding. Consider the Koch Foundation (later renamed the Cato Institute), the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Olin Foundation, and many, many others. These organizations in turn follow Powell's well-tested strategy and continue spewing publishing all manner of persuasive material related to political identity and philosophy.
And since the 501(c)(4) formation, these and many, many other invested and interested parties have funded smaller, more tactical organizations . . . the funding of which is now confidential. And we all know how things that are confidential bring out the absolute best in people. Which brings us to today.
Here's what we don't know about the IRS's investigations. Were any of these 501(c)(4) orgs found guilty of violating regulations? If so, how many of these were "Patriot" or "Tea" or "Freedom" entitled organizations?
That's what isn't answered, and without these answers, speculation as to the oh so badness of the IRS cannot be addressed. It might well be that these previously-investigated-and-found-guilty-as-hell orgs set the precedent for the current search of the burgeoning 501(c)(4) pile infesting our political system in the same way that a bar known for over-serving its customers becomes the locus of a drunk driving sting by local police.
Still, over-funded orgs have well-funded sponsors with well-established political lackeys at their beck and call, so such an investigative pressure is bound to be resisted. That doesn't mean the pressure is unwarranted, or even undesirable.
PS. to the Mods: Any chance of getting a "corporatism" tag? This stuff isn't really conservative or economic in nature, but that's really all I've got.