MSC 65th Student Conference on National Affairs Texas A&M University Delegate Research Information Round Table Modern Monopolies: The Influence of Mega-Corporations Facilitator: Casey Fleming ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This delegate research information is not intended to be a comprehensive assessment of your assigned round table topic, but rather a starting point to help launch your own personal investigations into the various associated issues. It is encouraged, if not expected, that your policy proposals will be inclusive of aspects pertaining to your round table topic that are not covered in this research compilation. You, your facilitator, your round table host, and your fellow roundtable delegates are all responsible for crafting a policy proposal that takes this into consideration. Terms & Actors Terms Bureaucracy - agencies made by the federal government to help enforce laws made. Most direct source of corruption from corporations. Citizens United vs. Federal Election Committee- landmark Case settled in 2010 by the Supreme Court that overturned certain long-standing restrictions on political fundraising and spending. Federal Campaign Act - passed in 1971, this law is the primary source of regulation concerning political fundraising and spending. Later amendments would go on to establish the Federal Election Committee (FEC). Lobbying- communicating with a public official for the purpose of influencing the passage, defeat, amendment, or postponement of legislative or executive action. Megacorporation- a large collection of companies owned by a single parent company. Shadowban - when an individual(s)’ content isn’t shown to the public despite not being officially “banned” by the network. Actors “Big Oil” - the supermajors are considered to be BP, Chevron Corporation, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Total and Eni (and sometimes ConocoPhillips). “Big Tech” - refers to the biggest tech companies in the world: Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google (and occasionally Microsoft, although some argue Microsoft doesn’t transcend the plane of influence quite like the other companies). “Big Pharma” - the biggest pharmaceutical companies that many claim hold influence over the United States. Carlos Maza - a controversial social media figure from the platform Vox who called for action against people who made “homophobic remarks” at him. Citizens United - a conservative nonprofit organization that helped overturn restrictions on political fundraising. Federal Election Committee (FEC) - the bureaucracy in charge of enforcing the regulations set on political fundraising/spending. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) - the bureaucracy in charge of approving food and drugs for consumer use. George Soros - a billionaire philanthropist who typically helps support left-leaning ideals and campaigns. Koch Brothers - brothers who built entire networks of right-leaning donors and think-tanks. National Institute of Health (NIH) - a primary branch of the US Government responsible for health and ultimately the funding of the FDA. National Rifle Association (NRA) - a lobbyist group created to contribute to “pro-gun” candidates and legislation. Political Action Committees (PACs) - independent groups created to raise money to support a particular candidate. Steven Crowder - a controversial social media figure who claims to be “shadowbanned” by Youtube after numerous “borderline comments” made on the platform. Super PACs - PACs that can receive unlimited contributions but can’t contribute directly to a candidate’s campaign(s). Analysis Overview “Money talks.” It is a simple enough phrase, but the implications of it speaks volumes throughout the United States particularly. It doesn’t just apply to the corporate world, but it also applies to the political sphere. You may have heard in the news stories about politicians being “bought out” by influential figures such as the Koch Brothers and George Soros. And you may have also heard of lobbyist groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Center for American Progress pushing for and against legislation. While some may think that this is unfair, others argue that this is a very valid form of expression. Let’s go into some historical context. With PACs and big companies already having their run of the mill in elections throughout the 20th century, Congress decided to pass the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) in 1971, consolidating on earlier efforts in 1907 with the Tillman Act. Without an enforcing body however, the act was ignored. In 1974, Congress amended FECA to finally introduce the Federal Election Committee (FEC), the bureaucracy that would go on to enforce these regulations through the present day. In 2010, Citizens United challenged the FEC specifically on how much individuals could contribute to PACs (as well as the ability for corporations, non-profit organizations, and unions to donate to PACs) and in the Supreme Court’s 5-4 vote, the former won the case. This controversial decision led to the establishment of Super PACs. While they hypothetically can’t contribute directly to a candidate’s campaign(s), they can raise unlimited amounts of money in order to support the efforts of the candidates they want in office. This can “influence” those who hold offices to support legislation that may or may not be beneficial to the public. In response, the public then becomes paranoid when Big Oil donates over $100 million to Republican candidates throughout the 2016 election year.1 “Surely money isn’t that big of a factor right? The better political candidate should win, right?” A more recent record notices that Michael Bloomberg’s significant spending in Virginia compared to the NRA was a significant factor in the Democrats taking the state.2 Money doesn’t just influence elections, however. Money can also influence what’s supposed to be one of the most objective means of information: research. Money doesn’t attempt to control the content of the findings, but rather it’s the narrative of the findings, and when/how they are released to the public. A study conducted in 2017 noticed how corporate interests (namely Big Pharma in this particular instance) can specifically influence the initial step of the research.3 Corporate interests can influence the narrative by changing the question asked, allowing them to highlight particular aspects beneficial to the industry and casting aside aspects not beneficial, deeming them “not relevant to our purpose.” Some argue that these types of research can be dangerous to public health, while others argue that attempting to limit these types of research not only may result in a slippery slope to the limitation of free expression, but also might result in less research done in general due to these industries funding a large portion of the research done. This isn’t the only way Big Pharma holds a tight grip over the United States. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs money to provide clinical trials used to approve/disapprove the drug in question. With the National Institute of Health (NIH) giving less 1 Goldenberg, Suzanne, and Helena Bengtsson. “Oil and Gas Industry Has Pumped Millions into Republican Campaigns.” The Guardian, 3 Mar. 2016, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/03/oil-and-gas-industry-has- pumped-millions-into-republican-campaigns. 2 Laurenshirsch. “Mike Bloomberg's Gun-Control Group Just Vastly Outspent the NRA to Help Democrats Win in Virginia.” CNBC, 6 Nov. 2019, www.cnbc.com/2019/11/06/mike-bloombergs-gun-control-outspends-nra-helps- democrats-win-virginia.html. 3 Fabbri, Alice, et al. “The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review.” American Journal of Public Health, 2018, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6187765/. and less money to the FDA each year, Big Pharma has been funding most of these clinical trials.4 There are arguments being made that this could translate to straight up bribery, allowing Big Pharma to essentially pass through the testing phase no matter how risky the drug may actually be. The one brand of mega-corporations that haven’t really touched up until this point is Big Tech. These companies can lobby and influence research through their own unique way: the internet. The term “shadowbanning” means a user has been banned without physically banning them. One of the biggest examples from this year include conservative commentator and comedian Steven Crowder, who was “shadowbanned” after an allegedly “homophobic” debacle with Vox host Carlos Maza.5 The huge tech companies (namely Google) can physically alter the algorithms, should they choose to, to influence public policy to their benefit. They can also use “shadowbanning” in a similar manner as influencing research, in which they can silence their critics and/or even possible competition, maintaining their borderline monopoly on the tech industry. With all of this being said, does the government need to step in to “stop” the influence of mega-corporations? How do we regulate influence on a national level without limiting freedom of expression? Would regulating mega-corporations lead to a complete breakdown in American culture and identity? 4 Llamas, Michelle. “Big Pharma & Clinical Trials - Funding, Influence & Corruption.” Drugwatch.com, 15 July 2019, www.drugwatch.com/featured/clinical-trials-and-hidden-data/. 5 Goggin, Benjamin. “YouTube's Week from Hell: How the Debate over Free Speech Online Exploded after a Conservative Star with Millions