‘’I’ve received numerous emails over the last two weeks asking my views on a number of statewide issues on the November 4 ballot — Issues 1, 3 and 5. For what it’s worth, below is the first of my humble assessments of these three ballot measures seen through the lens of corporate power/democracy. The questions that are important to me in examining each Issue are:
Will passage of the Issue provide business corporations more or less rights, rules and/or powers to do what they want, when they want, where they want?
Relatedly, will passage of the Issue make it more or less difficult for citizens to govern themselves?
With these two questions in mind, below is my assessment of state Issue 1. Similar assessments on Issues 3 and 5 will be shared over the next few days.
------
State Issue 1
The main provision of Issue 1 calls for an earlier filing deadline for citizen-initiated statewide ballot issues from 90 days before an election to 125 days. It also establishes deadlines for county board of elections to validate citizen petitions. Its last provision calls for streamlining citizen-initiative petition legal challenges by bypassing lower courts in favor of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Citizens concerned about their power to directly create laws (i.e. called a “citizen initiative”) should be extremely skeptical whenever any proposals are offered to amend the citizen initiative process.
It was the 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention, which created 3 direct democratic tools — the initiative, referendum and recall. These tools permitted citizens to create and undue laws considered to be unjust, as well as to replace public officials between elections acting against the interests of the people. These democratic tools were added to the state constitution as a way to counter the corporate influence to mold, shape, and create public policies...and politicians. These tools are still needed today more than ever.
Anyone who has ever been involved in any citizen initiative campaign knows the extreme difficulty in collecting valid signatures. The more grassroots the initiative, the fewer the resources and petition circulators. Every single day is needed to collect names with the goal of gathering at least 50% more than the number of valid signatures required to account for those that will be tossed for any number of reasons.
Under current state law, completed citizen initiative petitions need to be submitted 90 days before the November election to qualify for that election. For those keeping track, that means early August. Issue one would move back the deadline 35 days — to the middle of June.
This stifles democracy.
It’s much more difficult to collect signatures in the winter and spring than during the summer here in Ohio. A mid-June deadline for signature submissions would effectively reduce the ability to organize a successful petition drive.
One might argue that petition circulators should just move indoors. Unfortunately, inside spaces are increasingly corporate spaces. One is generally not permitted to circulate petitions in workplaces or in corporate establishments — including malls. The first amendment right to petition doesn’t exist on corporate property. The corporate enclosure of what formerly had been public town squares significantly reduces the ability to speak, organize...and petition.
Issue 1 is being promoted as a means to increase efficiency and effectiveness of boards of elections to count and verify citizen petitions. Such is the perspective from the top looking down.
For citizens dedicated to making creating rules and laws that bypass legislative and executive bodies (people at the bottom looking up), making it more difficult to organize a successful citizen initiative petition is a step in the wrong direction.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
No Blank Check Bailout of Wall St. Financial Corporations
Call, write, vigil, demonstrate this week
- Feel free to use AFSC national toll-free # to contact your congressperson and Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich: 1-800-473-6711.
Call today!
- TrueMajority will have a new website up later today permitting citizens to self-organize local actions at congressional offices, Federal Reserve banks, or other key locations. Organize an event in your own community or join one already planned.
Congress as soon as Friday will likely vote on a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. The Bush administration wants “clean” legislation with few if any strings or conditions — just a $700 BILLION blank check...at least...and a massive transfer of power and authority from the legislative to executive branch. This is a historic moment to ACT!
SAY NO TO A BLANK CHECK CORPORATE BAILOUT!
Groups across the country are demanding that any package to help Wall Street must:
Help Main Street
Help those who have had their homes foreclosed
Provide a stimulus package to taxpayers who will be paying off this massive additional debt for decades
Ensure that bankers and banking institutions are held accountable for their past financial decisions
Stipulate that no CEO of Wall Street corporations to be bailed out receives “Golden Parachutes,” pay raises or bonuses. CEO pay should be capped, if not reduced.
Guarantee that power and authority not be transferred from the legislative to executive branch. Given Wall Street’s financial meltdown and lack of recent Congressional oversight, needed now is greater public control of financial affairs.
Establish that any firm to be bailed out can’t lobby politicians or make political campaign contributions/investments
Include that future profits gained from bailed out companies be returned to the government.
Audit the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, which hasn’t had its books examined.
Below is an excellent letter written by Marian Lupo from Columbus.
NOTE: For those in the Akron area:
Vigil: No Blank Check Corporate Bailout of Wall Street
Thursday, September 25, Noon
1655 W. Market St., Akron
(UFCW building which contains office of US Rep. Betty Sutton)
--------------
To: Representative Kucinich, Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, By Fax: 202-225-5745; 216-228-6465
Please exercise your power and influence to address the below.
To: Senators Dodd, Schumer, Shelby and Representatives Frank and Boehner.
By fax: 202-224-1083; 202-228-3027; 202-224-3416; 202-225-0182; 202-225-0704
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008
I am writing today to you as a United States citizen regarding a matter of urgent concern. Although I do not reside in your district, I believe my letter captures the sentiments of millions of Americans who cannot write to you.
I strongly oppose bailing out the speculative, greedy, and irresponsible investment banking firms. My neighbors have lost their homes, and no one bailed them out.
I want you to audit the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private corporation, and which has never produced their financials for audit by Congress.
I also want you to revoke the legislation, passed under President Wilson, which created the Federal Reserve Bank. Congress needs to resume their Constitutional responsibilities for the U.S. currency.
Further, I want Paulson investigated – as well as the investment bankers who, in my opinion, are at a minimum criminally negligent.
My neighborhood averages 3 to 7 foreclosures a week. These are working people. Homes are vacant and not cared for now, because the banks are negligent. The banks do not even bother to mow the lawns, and they are bankrupting the city budget for code enforcement. My whole neighborhood has declined, and now children are getting into trouble because these houses present attractive nuisances.
It is a disgrace what the banks have done to the U.S. people. There is a sign down the street from me that advertises a very nice home for $13,500.
As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay to help everyone stay in their home – but not to salvage institutions that have destroyed my neighborhood and are destroying my country, or in any way whatsoever to compensate the people whose greed led to this debacle: they should be in prison.
Thank You,
Marian Lupo
- Feel free to use AFSC national toll-free # to contact your congressperson and Senators Sherrod Brown and George Voinovich: 1-800-473-6711.
Call today!
- TrueMajority will have a new website up later today permitting citizens to self-organize local actions at congressional offices, Federal Reserve banks, or other key locations. Organize an event in your own community or join one already planned.
Congress as soon as Friday will likely vote on a massive taxpayer bailout of Wall Street. The Bush administration wants “clean” legislation with few if any strings or conditions — just a $700 BILLION blank check...at least...and a massive transfer of power and authority from the legislative to executive branch. This is a historic moment to ACT!
SAY NO TO A BLANK CHECK CORPORATE BAILOUT!
Groups across the country are demanding that any package to help Wall Street must:
Help Main Street
Help those who have had their homes foreclosed
Provide a stimulus package to taxpayers who will be paying off this massive additional debt for decades
Ensure that bankers and banking institutions are held accountable for their past financial decisions
Stipulate that no CEO of Wall Street corporations to be bailed out receives “Golden Parachutes,” pay raises or bonuses. CEO pay should be capped, if not reduced.
Guarantee that power and authority not be transferred from the legislative to executive branch. Given Wall Street’s financial meltdown and lack of recent Congressional oversight, needed now is greater public control of financial affairs.
Establish that any firm to be bailed out can’t lobby politicians or make political campaign contributions/investments
Include that future profits gained from bailed out companies be returned to the government.
Audit the Federal Reserve Bank, a private corporation, which hasn’t had its books examined.
Below is an excellent letter written by Marian Lupo from Columbus.
NOTE: For those in the Akron area:
Vigil: No Blank Check Corporate Bailout of Wall Street
Thursday, September 25, Noon
1655 W. Market St., Akron
(UFCW building which contains office of US Rep. Betty Sutton)
--------------
To: Representative Kucinich, Member, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, By Fax: 202-225-5745; 216-228-6465
Please exercise your power and influence to address the below.
To: Senators Dodd, Schumer, Shelby and Representatives Frank and Boehner.
By fax: 202-224-1083; 202-228-3027; 202-224-3416; 202-225-0182; 202-225-0704
Date: Sunday, September 21, 2008
I am writing today to you as a United States citizen regarding a matter of urgent concern. Although I do not reside in your district, I believe my letter captures the sentiments of millions of Americans who cannot write to you.
I strongly oppose bailing out the speculative, greedy, and irresponsible investment banking firms. My neighbors have lost their homes, and no one bailed them out.
I want you to audit the Federal Reserve Bank, which is a private corporation, and which has never produced their financials for audit by Congress.
I also want you to revoke the legislation, passed under President Wilson, which created the Federal Reserve Bank. Congress needs to resume their Constitutional responsibilities for the U.S. currency.
Further, I want Paulson investigated – as well as the investment bankers who, in my opinion, are at a minimum criminally negligent.
My neighborhood averages 3 to 7 foreclosures a week. These are working people. Homes are vacant and not cared for now, because the banks are negligent. The banks do not even bother to mow the lawns, and they are bankrupting the city budget for code enforcement. My whole neighborhood has declined, and now children are getting into trouble because these houses present attractive nuisances.
It is a disgrace what the banks have done to the U.S. people. There is a sign down the street from me that advertises a very nice home for $13,500.
As a taxpayer, I am willing to pay to help everyone stay in their home – but not to salvage institutions that have destroyed my neighborhood and are destroying my country, or in any way whatsoever to compensate the people whose greed led to this debacle: they should be in prison.
Thank You,
Marian Lupo
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Constitution Day
Today, September 17, is Constitution Day. It was on this day in 1787 that the United States Constitution was signed.
The Constitution has been celebrate throughout our nation’s history in our schools, civil associations, religious institutions, and media as a profoundly democratic document. Afterall, it’s about We the People. What could be more democratic than that? Right?
Elements of the Constitution are inclusive. Many are not.
Several articles previously posted here have delved into this issue. In commemoration of this day, several are linked below.
A critical understanding of the Constitution is essential in any quest for true self-governance, justice, and peace. Social change movements in other countries in other places and/or in other times have not only worked for a change of faces (via elections) and a change of laws, but also a change of defining rules (i.e. removing undemocratic impediments in national Constitutions).
This last point is often overlooked here since it is assumed and culturally reinforced that the US Constitution promotes equality, justice and fairness — and contains provisions to easily alter it in places needing revision.
Analyzing the US Constitution is an essential step to understanding and eliminating impediments to real self-governance.
Below are three articles examining the undemocratic provisions of the US Constitution and suggestions for change. It’s followed by an article describing Ecuador’s proposed constitution granting inalienable rights to nature.
A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND
Second of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Spring, 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy [POCLAD]
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/DemocracyInMind.pdf
The U.S. Constitution: Pull the Curtain
First of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Winter 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD)
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/PullTheCurtain.pdf
The Case Against Judicial Review
by David Cobb
From “By What Authority,” a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law and
Democracy (POCLAD), Vol. 9, No. 2 • Fall, 2007.
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/JudicialReview.pdf
Published on Thursday, September 4, 2008 by The Christian Science Monitor
Ecuador Constitution Would Grant Inalienable Rights To Nature
by Eoin O'Carroll
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-7
The Constitution has been celebrate throughout our nation’s history in our schools, civil associations, religious institutions, and media as a profoundly democratic document. Afterall, it’s about We the People. What could be more democratic than that? Right?
Elements of the Constitution are inclusive. Many are not.
Several articles previously posted here have delved into this issue. In commemoration of this day, several are linked below.
A critical understanding of the Constitution is essential in any quest for true self-governance, justice, and peace. Social change movements in other countries in other places and/or in other times have not only worked for a change of faces (via elections) and a change of laws, but also a change of defining rules (i.e. removing undemocratic impediments in national Constitutions).
This last point is often overlooked here since it is assumed and culturally reinforced that the US Constitution promotes equality, justice and fairness — and contains provisions to easily alter it in places needing revision.
Analyzing the US Constitution is an essential step to understanding and eliminating impediments to real self-governance.
Below are three articles examining the undemocratic provisions of the US Constitution and suggestions for change. It’s followed by an article describing Ecuador’s proposed constitution granting inalienable rights to nature.
A U.S. Constitution with DEMOCRACY IN MIND
Second of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Spring, 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy [POCLAD]
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/DemocracyInMind.pdf
The U.S. Constitution: Pull the Curtain
First of two articles on the U.S. Constitution Winter 2007
By What Authority, published by the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy (POCLAD)
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/PullTheCurtain.pdf
The Case Against Judicial Review
by David Cobb
From “By What Authority,” a publication of the Program on Corporations, Law and
Democracy (POCLAD), Vol. 9, No. 2 • Fall, 2007.
http://www.poclad.org/deminsurgency/JudicialReview.pdf
Published on Thursday, September 4, 2008 by The Christian Science Monitor
Ecuador Constitution Would Grant Inalienable Rights To Nature
by Eoin O'Carroll
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/09/04-7
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Starting to get it
Read today’s New York Times editorial entited Wall Street Casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
The last paragraph states:
“Making and enforcing new rules is necessary, but that will not be enough. The nation needs a new perspective on the markets, one that acknowledges the self-destructive bent of unfettered capitalism and its ability, unchecked, to wreak havoc far beyond Wall Street.”
The Times is starting to get it.
A new perspective on “the markets” is a good start, one containing these (and no doubt other) components:
capital being rooted much more to communities
people having a fundamental say in basic political AND economic decisions affecting their lives
financial structures accountable to elected officials and the public
recognition that economics, politics, society, and environment cannot and should not be treated as separate compartments to be thought about and acted upon independently from each other
acknowledgment that “the market” is not some invisible, untouchable, superior God-like force but a human-designed system which can be redesigned, refit, reshaped, remolded and recast to fit the needs of people, local communities, and the planet.
This new perspective must, of course, be followed up with new policies and practices reflecting these new perspectives. A new political movement is essential to make it happen — one focused on political and economic democracy.
Is there room in such a system for transnational, undemocratic, top-down business corporations (including financial corporations) which have been bestowed with constitutional rights to govern? The financial corpses through their First Amendment free speech “rights” made political campaign investments (some call them political “contributions” ) and lobbied public officials to gut financial controls and limits. Privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae years ago proved disastrous. The current financial system is unsustainable.
The Times is right. A new perspective is sorely needed. So are new policies and practices. Leading it all, however, must be people united in a political movement independent of political parties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
The last paragraph states:
“Making and enforcing new rules is necessary, but that will not be enough. The nation needs a new perspective on the markets, one that acknowledges the self-destructive bent of unfettered capitalism and its ability, unchecked, to wreak havoc far beyond Wall Street.”
The Times is starting to get it.
A new perspective on “the markets” is a good start, one containing these (and no doubt other) components:
capital being rooted much more to communities
people having a fundamental say in basic political AND economic decisions affecting their lives
financial structures accountable to elected officials and the public
recognition that economics, politics, society, and environment cannot and should not be treated as separate compartments to be thought about and acted upon independently from each other
acknowledgment that “the market” is not some invisible, untouchable, superior God-like force but a human-designed system which can be redesigned, refit, reshaped, remolded and recast to fit the needs of people, local communities, and the planet.
This new perspective must, of course, be followed up with new policies and practices reflecting these new perspectives. A new political movement is essential to make it happen — one focused on political and economic democracy.
Is there room in such a system for transnational, undemocratic, top-down business corporations (including financial corporations) which have been bestowed with constitutional rights to govern? The financial corpses through their First Amendment free speech “rights” made political campaign investments (some call them political “contributions” ) and lobbied public officials to gut financial controls and limits. Privatizing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae years ago proved disastrous. The current financial system is unsustainable.
The Times is right. A new perspective is sorely needed. So are new policies and practices. Leading it all, however, must be people united in a political movement independent of political parties.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Challenging Measure T is an Opportunity
In most cases a challenge to a law promoting and protecting democracy is a challenge to democracy itself. That’s not totally the case with the legal challenge to Measure T, the 2006 citizen initiative enacted by voters in Humboldt County, California prohibiting out-of-county corporate political contributions/investments. The law is unique in the United States — asserting that local communities can protect their communities by enacting laws that run counter to the Supreme Court’s determination that corporations are “people” and possess First Amendment free speech rights.
The legal challenge by the pro-corporate Pacific Legal Foundation does, in one sense, threaten Humboldt County’s right to decide to prohibit out-of-county corporations from engaging in one form of political activity —namely giving money to political candidates and issue campaigns.
In another sense, the legal challenge presents an enormous opportunity. It’s an opportunity to shed light on questions that the corporate crowd would rather keep shrouded in darkness: “Should business corporations be treated under the law as people?” “Should business corporations possess greater power (since they have unlimited money and an unlimited life-span) than individuals in elections at all levels of government?” “Is democracy furthered by permitting business corporations to donate/invest in elections?” “Wasn’t the Bill of Rights meant to protect the weak individual from the government rather than the powerful business corporation from the people?”
Thus, the legal challenge by Pacific Legal Foundation against Measure T is, in a sense, a tremendous grassroots and legal opportunity:
to educate our fellow breathing persons on the innate power business corporations possess thanks to, in large part, Constitutional bestowed rights.
to organize the legal community to defend Measure T and by doing so help them legally challenge what is currently considered legal — just as in the past prohibition against women voting, slavery, and separate but equal were all considered legal.
Stay tuned.
---------------------------------------------------------
News and Announcements from
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
~ National Press Release - Please Forward Widely! ~
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, August 29, 2008
CONTACT: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, (707) 362-0626
Right Wing Legal Firm Takes on Humboldt County, California Over Local Democracy Law
EUREKA, CA - A groundbreaking law forbidding out-of-county controlled corporations from making political contributions in Humboldt County, CA elections was challenged in federal court this week. The Pacific Legal Foundation, an anti-government legal organization, filed suit on behalf of O & M Industries and Mercer Fraser Corporation over a local corporate reform and election integrity law. The Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Fair Elections and Local Democracy was passed by citizens' initiative in June 2006 with 55% of the vote.
Known locally as "Measure T," the initiative was run by a broad coalition of community organizations, individuals and local businesses concerned by the growing influence of corporate power in elections. Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a local grassroots organization, spearheaded the effort by writing the initial legislation and the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights campaigned for the law.
Upon passage, Measure T received national attention because it includes a direct challenge to "corporate personhood," which is the legal doctrine that allows a corporation to claim constitutional rights such as the First Amendment. Corporations have argued that the First Amendment protects their right to give political contributions.
"Money does not equal speech, and corporations should not be allowed to claim First Amendment rights - 'We the People' have an obligation to challenge unjust doctrines," said Democracy Unlimited Director Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap. "Measure T follows in the footsteps of the suffragists, the abolitionists and the Civil Rights activists who fought against segregation by challenging Supreme Court precedents that held unjust laws to be Constitutional."
“The County’s donation restriction runs the First Amendment through a shredder,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Damien Schiff in a press release. “The County’s ordinance is an outrageous assault on these free speech rights, because it targets aclass of employers to be shut out of the political process.”
"Not true," said Sopoci-Belknap, "Measure T specifically protects an individual's right to participate in elections. It ensures that owners of corporations will operate as individuals in the political process, just like every other citizen, rather than gaining undue influence through their corporations."
The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 to support pro-corporate causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies. It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded to support big business and oppose environmental and health protection policies and government regulation.
Measure T opponents repeatedly threatened to sue to overturn the law if it passed. Billionaire financier Robin Arkley Jr., who is one of California Governor Schwarzenegger's largest contributors, sent a memo to the County Board of Supervisors during the campaign warning them of a lawsuit after the measure qualified, and demanding they remove the measure from the ballot. Arkley's late father Robin Arkley, Sr., served on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"We are not surprised by this action, but we are certainly disappointed that the Pacific Legal Foundation has so little regard for the will of the people of Humboldt County," said Sopoci-Belknap. "Communities have the right and duty to protect our democracy. Voters enacted Measure T based on a legitimate concern that corporate influence in elections undermines the integrity of the process. Humboldt County has taken a stand for the rights of people and communities over the so-called 'rights' of corporations, and we ask other communities to stand with us."
For more information: http://DUHC.org
The legal challenge by the pro-corporate Pacific Legal Foundation does, in one sense, threaten Humboldt County’s right to decide to prohibit out-of-county corporations from engaging in one form of political activity —namely giving money to political candidates and issue campaigns.
In another sense, the legal challenge presents an enormous opportunity. It’s an opportunity to shed light on questions that the corporate crowd would rather keep shrouded in darkness: “Should business corporations be treated under the law as people?” “Should business corporations possess greater power (since they have unlimited money and an unlimited life-span) than individuals in elections at all levels of government?” “Is democracy furthered by permitting business corporations to donate/invest in elections?” “Wasn’t the Bill of Rights meant to protect the weak individual from the government rather than the powerful business corporation from the people?”
Thus, the legal challenge by Pacific Legal Foundation against Measure T is, in a sense, a tremendous grassroots and legal opportunity:
to educate our fellow breathing persons on the innate power business corporations possess thanks to, in large part, Constitutional bestowed rights.
to organize the legal community to defend Measure T and by doing so help them legally challenge what is currently considered legal — just as in the past prohibition against women voting, slavery, and separate but equal were all considered legal.
Stay tuned.
---------------------------------------------------------
News and Announcements from
Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County
~ National Press Release - Please Forward Widely! ~
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Friday, August 29, 2008
CONTACT: Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, (707) 362-0626
Right Wing Legal Firm Takes on Humboldt County, California Over Local Democracy Law
EUREKA, CA - A groundbreaking law forbidding out-of-county controlled corporations from making political contributions in Humboldt County, CA elections was challenged in federal court this week. The Pacific Legal Foundation, an anti-government legal organization, filed suit on behalf of O & M Industries and Mercer Fraser Corporation over a local corporate reform and election integrity law. The Humboldt County Ordinance to Protect Fair Elections and Local Democracy was passed by citizens' initiative in June 2006 with 55% of the vote.
Known locally as "Measure T," the initiative was run by a broad coalition of community organizations, individuals and local businesses concerned by the growing influence of corporate power in elections. Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, a local grassroots organization, spearheaded the effort by writing the initial legislation and the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights campaigned for the law.
Upon passage, Measure T received national attention because it includes a direct challenge to "corporate personhood," which is the legal doctrine that allows a corporation to claim constitutional rights such as the First Amendment. Corporations have argued that the First Amendment protects their right to give political contributions.
"Money does not equal speech, and corporations should not be allowed to claim First Amendment rights - 'We the People' have an obligation to challenge unjust doctrines," said Democracy Unlimited Director Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap. "Measure T follows in the footsteps of the suffragists, the abolitionists and the Civil Rights activists who fought against segregation by challenging Supreme Court precedents that held unjust laws to be Constitutional."
“The County’s donation restriction runs the First Amendment through a shredder,” said Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney Damien Schiff in a press release. “The County’s ordinance is an outrageous assault on these free speech rights, because it targets aclass of employers to be shut out of the political process.”
"Not true," said Sopoci-Belknap, "Measure T specifically protects an individual's right to participate in elections. It ensures that owners of corporations will operate as individuals in the political process, just like every other citizen, rather than gaining undue influence through their corporations."
The Pacific Legal Foundation is a Sacramento, California-based legal organization that was established March 5, 1973 to support pro-corporate causes. In recent years, it has taken a lead in pursuing anti-affirmative action policies. It is the key right-wing public interest litigation firm in a network of similar organizations funded to support big business and oppose environmental and health protection policies and government regulation.
Measure T opponents repeatedly threatened to sue to overturn the law if it passed. Billionaire financier Robin Arkley Jr., who is one of California Governor Schwarzenegger's largest contributors, sent a memo to the County Board of Supervisors during the campaign warning them of a lawsuit after the measure qualified, and demanding they remove the measure from the ballot. Arkley's late father Robin Arkley, Sr., served on the Board of Trustees of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
"We are not surprised by this action, but we are certainly disappointed that the Pacific Legal Foundation has so little regard for the will of the people of Humboldt County," said Sopoci-Belknap. "Communities have the right and duty to protect our democracy. Voters enacted Measure T based on a legitimate concern that corporate influence in elections undermines the integrity of the process. Humboldt County has taken a stand for the rights of people and communities over the so-called 'rights' of corporations, and we ask other communities to stand with us."
For more information: http://DUHC.org
Monday, August 25, 2008
Corporatized Conventions
The “historic” Democratic National Convention (DNC) will be just like all recent ones in one critical respect — business corporations will bankroll it. Corporate investments/donations are buying, at the very least, access to candidates and officeholders. It’s the same with the Republicans.
The DNC “Host Committee Partners” on their website http://www.denverconvention2008.com/index.cfm?page=sponsorlist reads like a list of the major US-based corporations.
Campaign Finance Institute issued an in-depth study http://www.cfinst.org/president/conventions/pdf/CFI_Conventions08_Report2_Donors.pdf of 2008 convention investments/donations. It showed that the more than 100 organizational (largely corporate) donors to the host committees of both party conventions have been deeply involved in political influence peddling -- $100 million in political action committee (PAC) contributions/investments and $700 million in lobbying since 2005. These same entities are providing $55 in financing to the DNC and $57 to the upcoming Republican Convention — just to show that they don’t play favorites.
Leading up to the DNC was an aggressive campaign courting corporations to invest in a “Once in a lifetime opportunity” to reach 35,000 visitors at the convention, including “232 Members of Congress, 51 Senators, 28 Governors [and] more than 6,000 delegates and Super delegates” with sponsorship levels ranging from 25 grand to $1 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/click%20here%201%20-%20one%20in%20a%20lifetime%20dnc.pdf
Among the 1200 parties thrown at the DNC will be a very touching one by the AT&T corporation for Democrats who voted to grant the company immunity for illegal wiretapping of Americans http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support
But aren’t there limits to corporate campaign cash? Ah, not really. A loophole in recent campaign finance “reforms” allows literally unlimited contributions/investments http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5185766&page=1
All this adds up to a “golden rule” political system -- (s)he who has the gold rules. If you don’t have money to invest in politics, you’re/we’re left trying to organize massive social movements. Social movements have in the past been effective in winning basic rights for whole classes of people — including, women, slaves, children, and gays/lesbians. Grassroots social movements, however, on whatever issue you care most about would be considerably easier to mobilize if business corporations no longer possessed Constitutional “rights” to be involved in politics. Such “rights” give these entities access, influence and direct power. Conversely, they limit our access to influence, if not create, public policies.
Maybe we need a national convention on self-governance...and not bankrolled by major transnational business corporations.
In the meantime, when DNC goers return home (and RNC goers next week), ask them what their respective party platforms say about corporate constitutional rights. Ask them if corporate constitutional rights is a problem in their eyes. Finally, ask them, if they’re candidates running for congress this year, to fill out and return this survey.
Thank you!
The DNC “Host Committee Partners” on their website http://www.denverconvention2008.com/index.cfm?page=sponsorlist reads like a list of the major US-based corporations.
Campaign Finance Institute issued an in-depth study http://www.cfinst.org/president/conventions/pdf/CFI_Conventions08_Report2_Donors.pdf of 2008 convention investments/donations. It showed that the more than 100 organizational (largely corporate) donors to the host committees of both party conventions have been deeply involved in political influence peddling -- $100 million in political action committee (PAC) contributions/investments and $700 million in lobbying since 2005. These same entities are providing $55 in financing to the DNC and $57 to the upcoming Republican Convention — just to show that they don’t play favorites.
Leading up to the DNC was an aggressive campaign courting corporations to invest in a “Once in a lifetime opportunity” to reach 35,000 visitors at the convention, including “232 Members of Congress, 51 Senators, 28 Governors [and] more than 6,000 delegates and Super delegates” with sponsorship levels ranging from 25 grand to $1 million.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Blotter/click%20here%201%20-%20one%20in%20a%20lifetime%20dnc.pdf
Among the 1200 parties thrown at the DNC will be a very touching one by the AT&T corporation for Democrats who voted to grant the company immunity for illegal wiretapping of Americans http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/25/at_t_throws_party_to_support
But aren’t there limits to corporate campaign cash? Ah, not really. A loophole in recent campaign finance “reforms” allows literally unlimited contributions/investments http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5185766&page=1
All this adds up to a “golden rule” political system -- (s)he who has the gold rules. If you don’t have money to invest in politics, you’re/we’re left trying to organize massive social movements. Social movements have in the past been effective in winning basic rights for whole classes of people — including, women, slaves, children, and gays/lesbians. Grassroots social movements, however, on whatever issue you care most about would be considerably easier to mobilize if business corporations no longer possessed Constitutional “rights” to be involved in politics. Such “rights” give these entities access, influence and direct power. Conversely, they limit our access to influence, if not create, public policies.
Maybe we need a national convention on self-governance...and not bankrolled by major transnational business corporations.
In the meantime, when DNC goers return home (and RNC goers next week), ask them what their respective party platforms say about corporate constitutional rights. Ask them if corporate constitutional rights is a problem in their eyes. Finally, ask them, if they’re candidates running for congress this year, to fill out and return this survey.
Thank you!
Monday, August 11, 2008
Municipalizing Democracy
Selling or leasing public assets to business corporations (privatization or corporatization) is on the rise at state and municipal levels. The reasons driving this trend:
worsening budget deficits by state and local governments,
imminent need to upgrade long-deteriorated infrastructure; and
increasing pressure by investors who’ve seen huge losses from housing and other risky investments seeking safe and stable returns
Privatizing/corporatizing roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other public assets by national or transnational corporations has many negative consequences:
loss of public jobs,
rising rates,
declining service, and
exporting of income from local communities to shareholders and CEOs of foreign corporations.
Another negative consequence is the loss of control, of self-governance, of democracy. Keeping public utilities public gives citizens power:
the power to inspect the books of public utilities or departments,
the power to hold accountable the director of a public utility or service department,
the power to pressure city officials to control rates, retain jobs, improve service,
the power to directly create laws via citizen initiatives to control rates, retain jobs, improve service.
Attempts to privatize/corporatize public assets is happening in Ohio. The latest example is a proposal by the Mayor of Akron to lease the city sewer system (see reference in article below). Akron’s financial advisor is the investment firm of Morgan Stanley corporation (also referenced in article below) -- which stands to gain millions from the scheme. Morgan Stanley corporation is one of one of several investment firms (including Goldman Sachs) who see privatization/corporatization as a financial safe haven in these economic turbulent times. It’s where money can be made — that is, off the backs of ratepayers and users.
The record of privatization/corporatization of public utilities from a local perspective has been poor. According to Food and Water Watch:
- Atlanta canceled its contract with United Water corporation after 4 years of terrible service,
- Ft. Wayne, IN decided to take over its water and sewer system from a corporation after it hiked its rates 75%,
- Stockton, CA has just won back its water/sewer system after a judge determined privatization would have serious environmental impacts,
- New Orleans dropped its privatization plan after studying the idea for 5 years and spending $5.7 million (by contrast, Akron spent less than 3 months studying the issue with no public hearings),
- In Newark, NJ, the city council voted down privatization,
- Felton, CA has taken back its water system after a corporation took it over and wanted a 74% rate hike,
- Foreign corporations ship profits out of communities to investors and wealthy CEOs.
The above indicates not only the problems of privatization/corporation but how democratic citizen resistance can stop or reverse the trend. Akron citizens have launched an initiative to “let the people decide” and “keep public utilities public” in response to the Mayor’s plan. Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (Citizens SOS), which AFSC helped organize, has gathered sufficient signatures from registered voters to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative which would change the city charter or constitution calls for any sale, lease or transfer of any public utility to be without force until and unless the proposal is approved by Akron voters (the current system allows a transfer with only city council approval). Citizens SOS is also gearing up to oppose a separate ballot measure by the Mayor that specifically calls for privatizing the city sewer system. More information about the initiative and Mayor’s plan is at www.AkronOhio.net.
The citizens of Akron are responding both reactively and proactively to privatization/corporatization:
by organizing against the specific immediate threat to handing over a public asset to a foreign corporation, and
by organizing to change the city charter to prevent any transfer of a public utility without direct public approval.
This is what “municipalizing” democracy is all about!
------------
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9736
Wall Street to privatize US infrastructure
Global Research, August 3, 2008
Reuters
Roads, airports on the block as budgets tighten
Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:37pm EDT
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cash-strapped U.S. state and city governments are
likely to sell or lease more highways, bridges, airports and other assets
to investors desperate for stable returns after being frazzled by the
credit crisis.
The trend is set to pick up speed given worsening budget deficits in state
capitals and city halls nationwide.
It will also be welcomed by Wall Street bankers hoping to help create and
market so-called "infrastructure" transactions at a time many debt markets
remain paralyzed, and after major U.S. stock indexes fell into bear market
territory.
"When you are nervous about everything else, you put your money in a toll
road," said John Schmidt, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP in
Chicago. "That's the logic of infrastructure. Returns are stable and
predictable. You won't get fabulously rich, but you'll get stable cash flow."
The latest enthusiasm for at least partially privatizing infrastructure
assets came on July 30 from New York Gov. David Paterson, who is trying to
plug a budget deficit caused in part by lower tax revenue as Wall Street
retrenches.
"We're just looking at ways to be more efficient and that's why I used the
term public-private partnerships -- trying to find some creative
solutions," Paterson said. "The reason I'm avoiding taxes is because I
think taxes are addictive."
Bankers and others in the industry say there is pent-up demand from
dedicated infrastructure funds and public pension funds to invest in hard
assets -- perhaps $75 billion to $150 billion of equity capital -- but not
enough supply.
"Economic conditions are tough, and are going to be very harsh on the
performance of state budgets in 2008 and 2009," said Greg Carey, co-head of
infrastructure banking at Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz). "States are looking
for long-term solutions in running businesses. A public-private partnership
is a tool in their toolboxes."
A high-water mark came in May, when a group led by Spain's Abertis
Infraestructuras SA (ABE.MC:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and Citigroup Inc
(C.N:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) agreed to pay $12.8
billion to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years. The total could
reach $18.3 billion, including promised improvements. Legislators must
approve the lease.
Other transactions have included the $1.8 billion lease of the Chicago
Skyway toll road bridge in 2005, and a $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana
Toll Road the next year. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is preparing to lease
Midway Airport this year.
For Wall Street, infrastructure can be a bright spot at a time of deep job
cuts and expected declines in bonuses.
"We've seen an unprecedented number of headhunters recruiting for positions
on the buy and sell sides," said Rob Collins, head of Americas
infrastructure banking at Morgan Stanley (MS.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz). "Infrastructure
investing can be counter-cyclical to economic trends."
John Ma, the other Goldman infrastructure chief, added: "We're very
committed to this space. Our business activity has increased dramatically,
even this year."
ALTERNATIVE TO TAX HIKES
According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 U.S.
states plus the District of Columbia may face a combined $48 billion of
budget deficits in fiscal 2009.
But politicians might be loathe to cut spending or raise taxes at a time
mortgage debt, $4-a-gallon gas and rising food prices leave consumers -- of
whom many vote -- dispirited. Tapping public debt markets might also be too
costly.
Meanwhile the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates $1.6 trillion
is needed over five years to raise the often aged U.S. infrastructure to
"good" condition.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in July called for the United States to
establish a capital budget to pay for such repairs. It was a year ago
August 1 that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis plunged into the
Mississippi River, killing 13.
Critics say some infrastructure transactions are short-term budget fixes
that deprive governments of steady cash streams from taxpayer-funded
assets. There is also the risk that private operators won't do their jobs well.
Advocates of privatization say entities might do better managing assets
than a government answering to voters.
Politicians could also get a boost if they can take credit for reinvesting
sale or lease proceeds in needed projects.
"The argument for a public-private partnership is the private sector is a
lot smarter about paying attention to costs, and because it has skin in the
game will be more attentive to maintaining an asset over its life," said
Joseph Giglio, a privatization expert and professor at Northeastern
University's College of Business Administration in Boston.
"Elected officials often shortchange funding of maintenance because they
don't want to increase user fees or taxes to pay for it," Giglio added.
"Their election cycle is four years. They can pass it on to someone else's
watch."
Collins, who also advised Pennsylvania on the turnpike, said infrastructure
can also go beyond roads and airports. He said Morgan Stanley is advising
Akron, Ohio, on exploring the leasing of its wastewater system, and Indiana
on the possibility of private management for its state lottery.
"Lotteries have infrastructure characteristics in that they have stable
cash flows and high barriers to entry," he said. "They could even attract
private equity investment because they are self-financeable and require
minimal capital expenses."
BIG NAMES
At Goldman, Carey and Ma replaced Mark Florian, who is moving to First
Reserve Corp, a private equity firm specializing in energy, a person close
to the matter said.
Goldman itself raised a $6.5 billion infrastructure fund in 2006, and is
reportedly trying to raise a $7.5 billion fund.
Morgan Stanley raised a $4 billion fund in May. Global Infrastructure
Partners, a joint venture between Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.VX:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and General
Electric Co (GE.N:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz), raised a $5.6
billion fund the same month. Private equity firm Carlyle Group CYL.UL last
year raised a $1.15 billion fund.
And Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co KKR.UL, which is preparing to go public,
in May lured George Bilicic from Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N:
Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz), where he led
power, energy and infrastructure efforts worldwide, to run its own
infrastructure investments.
Two of the largest specialists in the area are Australian: Macquarie Group
Ltd (MQG.AX:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz) and Babcock & Brown
Ltd (BNB.AX:Quote,
Profile,
Research,
Stock Buzz).
Schmidt, the Mayer Brown partner, said if the Midway transaction succeeds,
other airports could also go private, perhaps leading to "lower and more
predictable landing fees and terminal rentals for airlines, which certainly
aren't flush."
That, he said, could bring the value of roads, bridges and airports that
could be privatized to half a trillion dollars.
(Additional reporting by Joan Gralla in New York and Elizabeth Flood Morrow
in Albany, New York, editing by Dave Zimmerman)
worsening budget deficits by state and local governments,
imminent need to upgrade long-deteriorated infrastructure; and
increasing pressure by investors who’ve seen huge losses from housing and other risky investments seeking safe and stable returns
Privatizing/corporatizing roads, airports, water and sewer systems, and other public assets by national or transnational corporations has many negative consequences:
loss of public jobs,
rising rates,
declining service, and
exporting of income from local communities to shareholders and CEOs of foreign corporations.
Another negative consequence is the loss of control, of self-governance, of democracy. Keeping public utilities public gives citizens power:
the power to inspect the books of public utilities or departments,
the power to hold accountable the director of a public utility or service department,
the power to pressure city officials to control rates, retain jobs, improve service,
the power to directly create laws via citizen initiatives to control rates, retain jobs, improve service.
Attempts to privatize/corporatize public assets is happening in Ohio. The latest example is a proposal by the Mayor of Akron to lease the city sewer system (see reference in article below). Akron’s financial advisor is the investment firm of Morgan Stanley corporation (also referenced in article below) -- which stands to gain millions from the scheme. Morgan Stanley corporation is one of one of several investment firms (including Goldman Sachs) who see privatization/corporatization as a financial safe haven in these economic turbulent times. It’s where money can be made — that is, off the backs of ratepayers and users.
The record of privatization/corporatization of public utilities from a local perspective has been poor. According to Food and Water Watch:
- Atlanta canceled its contract with United Water corporation after 4 years of terrible service,
- Ft. Wayne, IN decided to take over its water and sewer system from a corporation after it hiked its rates 75%,
- Stockton, CA has just won back its water/sewer system after a judge determined privatization would have serious environmental impacts,
- New Orleans dropped its privatization plan after studying the idea for 5 years and spending $5.7 million (by contrast, Akron spent less than 3 months studying the issue with no public hearings),
- In Newark, NJ, the city council voted down privatization,
- Felton, CA has taken back its water system after a corporation took it over and wanted a 74% rate hike,
- Foreign corporations ship profits out of communities to investors and wealthy CEOs.
The above indicates not only the problems of privatization/corporation but how democratic citizen resistance can stop or reverse the trend. Akron citizens have launched an initiative to “let the people decide” and “keep public utilities public” in response to the Mayor’s plan. Citizens to Save Our Sewers and Water (Citizens SOS), which AFSC helped organize, has gathered sufficient signatures from registered voters to qualify for the November ballot. The initiative which would change the city charter or constitution calls for any sale, lease or transfer of any public utility to be without force until and unless the proposal is approved by Akron voters (the current system allows a transfer with only city council approval). Citizens SOS is also gearing up to oppose a separate ballot measure by the Mayor that specifically calls for privatizing the city sewer system. More information about the initiative and Mayor’s plan is at www.AkronOhio.net.
The citizens of Akron are responding both reactively and proactively to privatization/corporatization:
by organizing against the specific immediate threat to handing over a public asset to a foreign corporation, and
by organizing to change the city charter to prevent any transfer of a public utility without direct public approval.
This is what “municipalizing” democracy is all about!
------------
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9736
Wall Street to privatize US infrastructure
Reuters
Roads, airports on the block as budgets tighten
Fri Aug 1, 2008 12:37pm EDT
By Jonathan Stempel
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Cash-strapped U.S. state and city governments are
likely to sell or lease more highways, bridges, airports and other assets
to investors desperate for stable returns after being frazzled by the
credit crisis.
The trend is set to pick up speed given worsening budget deficits in state
capitals and city halls nationwide.
It will also be welcomed by Wall Street bankers hoping to help create and
market so-called "infrastructure" transactions at a time many debt markets
remain paralyzed, and after major U.S. stock indexes fell into bear market
territory.
"When you are nervous about everything else, you put your money in a toll
road," said John Schmidt, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown LLP in
Chicago. "That's the logic of infrastructure. Returns are stable and
predictable. You won't get fabulously rich, but you'll get stable cash flow."
The latest enthusiasm for at least partially privatizing infrastructure
assets came on July 30 from New York Gov. David Paterson, who is trying to
plug a budget deficit caused in part by lower tax revenue as Wall Street
retrenches.
"We're just looking at ways to be more efficient and that's why I used the
term public-private partnerships -- trying to find some creative
solutions," Paterson said. "The reason I'm avoiding taxes is because I
think taxes are addictive."
Bankers and others in the industry say there is pent-up demand from
dedicated infrastructure funds and public pension funds to invest in hard
assets -- perhaps $75 billion to $150 billion of equity capital -- but not
enough supply.
"Economic conditions are tough, and are going to be very harsh on the
performance of state budgets in 2008 and 2009," said Greg Carey, co-head of
infrastructure banking at Goldman Sachs Group Inc (GS.N:
for long-term solutions in running businesses. A public-private partnership
is a tool in their toolboxes."
A high-water mark came in May, when a group led by Spain's Abertis
Infraestructuras SA (ABE.MC:
(C.N:
billion to lease the Pennsylvania Turnpike for 75 years. The total could
reach $18.3 billion, including promised improvements. Legislators must
approve the lease.
Other transactions have included the $1.8 billion lease of the Chicago
Skyway toll road bridge in 2005, and a $3.8 billion lease of the Indiana
Toll Road the next year. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is preparing to lease
Midway Airport this year.
For Wall Street, infrastructure can be a bright spot at a time of deep job
cuts and expected declines in bonuses.
"We've seen an unprecedented number of headhunters recruiting for positions
on the buy and sell sides," said Rob Collins, head of Americas
infrastructure banking at Morgan Stanley (MS.N:
investing can be counter-cyclical to economic trends."
John Ma, the other Goldman infrastructure chief, added: "We're very
committed to this space. Our business activity has increased dramatically,
even this year."
ALTERNATIVE TO TAX HIKES
According to the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 29 U.S.
states plus the District of Columbia may face a combined $48 billion of
budget deficits in fiscal 2009.
But politicians might be loathe to cut spending or raise taxes at a time
mortgage debt, $4-a-gallon gas and rising food prices leave consumers -- of
whom many vote -- dispirited. Tapping public debt markets might also be too
costly.
Meanwhile the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates $1.6 trillion
is needed over five years to raise the often aged U.S. infrastructure to
"good" condition.
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell in July called for the United States to
establish a capital budget to pay for such repairs. It was a year ago
August 1 that the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis plunged into the
Mississippi River, killing 13.
Critics say some infrastructure transactions are short-term budget fixes
that deprive governments of steady cash streams from taxpayer-funded
assets. There is also the risk that private operators won't do their jobs well.
Advocates of privatization say entities might do better managing assets
than a government answering to voters.
Politicians could also get a boost if they can take credit for reinvesting
sale or lease proceeds in needed projects.
"The argument for a public-private partnership is the private sector is a
lot smarter about paying attention to costs, and because it has skin in the
game will be more attentive to maintaining an asset over its life," said
Joseph Giglio, a privatization expert and professor at Northeastern
University's College of Business Administration in Boston.
"Elected officials often shortchange funding of maintenance because they
don't want to increase user fees or taxes to pay for it," Giglio added.
"Their election cycle is four years. They can pass it on to someone else's
watch."
Collins, who also advised Pennsylvania on the turnpike, said infrastructure
can also go beyond roads and airports. He said Morgan Stanley is advising
Akron, Ohio, on exploring the leasing of its wastewater system, and Indiana
on the possibility of private management for its state lottery.
"Lotteries have infrastructure characteristics in that they have stable
cash flows and high barriers to entry," he said. "They could even attract
private equity investment because they are self-financeable and require
minimal capital expenses."
BIG NAMES
At Goldman, Carey and Ma replaced Mark Florian, who is moving to First
Reserve Corp, a private equity firm specializing in energy, a person close
to the matter said.
Goldman itself raised a $6.5 billion infrastructure fund in 2006, and is
reportedly trying to raise a $7.5 billion fund.
Morgan Stanley raised a $4 billion fund in May. Global Infrastructure
Partners, a joint venture between Credit Suisse Group AG (CSGN.VX:
Electric Co (GE.N:
billion fund the same month. Private equity firm Carlyle Group CYL.UL last
year raised a $1.15 billion fund.
And Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co KKR.UL, which is preparing to go public,
in May lured George Bilicic from Lazard Ltd (LAZ.N:
power, energy and infrastructure efforts worldwide, to run its own
infrastructure investments.
Two of the largest specialists in the area are Australian: Macquarie Group
Ltd (MQG.AX:
Ltd (BNB.AX:
Schmidt, the Mayer Brown partner, said if the Midway transaction succeeds,
other airports could also go private, perhaps leading to "lower and more
predictable landing fees and terminal rentals for airlines, which certainly
aren't flush."
That, he said, could bring the value of roads, bridges and airports that
could be privatized to half a trillion dollars.
(Additional reporting by Joan Gralla in New York and Elizabeth Flood Morrow
in Albany, New York, editing by Dave Zimmerman)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
