Story: The National Park Service freezes proposed government regulatory ban on the sale of disposable waters battles in the Grand Canyon National Park after Coca Cola complained.
Coca Cola had contributed $13 Million to the national parks.
Image credit: Richard Perry/New Tork Times
MSNBC.msn.com referenced a New York Times report (quote)
Weary of plastic litter, Grand Canyon National Park officials were in the final stages of imposing a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in the Grand Canyon late last year when the nation’s parks chief abruptly blocked the plan after conversations with Coca-Cola, a major donor to the National Park Foundation.
Stephen P. Martin, the architect of the plan and the top parks official at the Grand Canyon, said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled.
xx xx xx
He added that “reducing and eliminating disposable plastic bottles is one element of our green plan. This is a process, and we are at the beginning of it.”
Source of Quote: Felicity Barringer, “Parks Chief Blocked Plan for Grand Canyon Bottle Ban,” NEW YORK TIMES
Undue influence: Of course not! The NYT story notes (quote):
Neil J. Mulholland, president of the foundation, said that a representative of Coca-Cola had reached out to him late in the process to inquire about the reasons for the water bottle ban and how it would work.
“There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban,” Mr. Mulholland said, adding, “There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we’re losing their support.”
A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Susan Stribling, said the company would rather help address the plastic litter problem by increasing the availability of recycling programs.
Limiting personal choice: Don’t want to do that! The NYT story continues (quote):
She also characterized the bottle ban as limiting personal choice. “You’re not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume,” she said.
A big waste problem: Sure seems to be! The NYT story continues (quote):
Discarded plastic bottles account for about 30 percent of the park’s total waste stream according to the park service. Mr. Martin said the bottles are “the single biggest source of trash” found inside the canyon.
Concern for public safety: What? The rest of the NYT story (quote):
[Parks ChiefJon]Jarvis said that he had not heard of the ban until Nov. 17, and felt that an action by Grand Canyon park would have more impact than Zion’s. He added: “My decision to hold off the ban was not influenced by Coke, but rather the service-wide implications to our concessions contracts,and frankly the concern for public safety in a desert park.”
MJB’s Take
> Government environmental policy and waste regulation at it’s best!
> “Things Go Better [For] Coke!”
Other Web Coverage
> Coca-Cola Successfully Pressured Grand Canyon Into Abandoning Bottle Ban (businessinsider.com)
> National Parks Chief Blocks Plastic Bottle Ban At Grand Canyon (naturalhistorywanderings.com)
> NYT: Did Coke get Grand Canyon bottle ban axed? (msnbc.msn.com)
> Report: Bottle Ban Ended After Talks With Coke (abcnews.go.com)
> Report: Bottle ban ended after talks with Coke (sfgate.com)
marcjan
CONGRESS: constitutional amendment introduced to overturn Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on politics
Lead In
The Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations are persons, for the purpose of the First Amendment, which have a free speech constitutional right to tap corporate treasuries and spend unlimited corporate funds on politics. A constitutional amendment has been introduced in the House to overturn the decision.
Image via Wikipedia
The Amendment raises several important policy questions: (a) whether corporations will voluntarily limit their political spending in the 2012 Elections until the fate of the Amendment is resolved by Congress; and, (b) whether the candidates for President will voluntarily impose contribution limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns?
The political question is whether introduction of the Amendment is, as stated in the article, “one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact” on national policy.
Media Quote
* * *Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.
Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.
Source: Read THINK PROGRESS
Background
The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is unprecedented in American jurisprudence and national politics.It could unleash unlimited corporate expenditures of treasury funds into the political process without any comments by shareholders. That could result in billions of dollars of heretofore untapped and unavailable corporate cash pouring into elections.
One view is that the full impact of the decision, authorizing an unprecedented and historic expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy decisions, and to the election or defeat of candidates for political office, could be devastating.
Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Read Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010).
MJB’s Take
The decision in Citizens United could usher into the mix new era campaign technologies, communications strategies and fierce rapid responses by savvy politicians to hits from corporate sponsored political ads on a range of policy issues some of which may not directly concern the business operations of corporations.
Corporations will raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their positions on policy issues. Politicians in turn will intuitively respond and hit back.
Increased corporate spending for political advertising will generate significant mainstream political media coverage of the controversies. The coverage in one sense may heighten the public’s interest; but, in another sense, the coverage will diminish the quality of the information disseminated to the public by the media which generally should empower them to take part more effectively in the political process by acting on what, but for the portal to portal coverage of controversies, otherwise would be unbiased and quality information.
Of course, the clear rebuttal to that argument is that heightened public interest is a good thing because it expands the base of stakeholders in the game on the political playing field. Hence, the political take from the Occupy Wall Street movement which is apparently grafted into the title of the proposed Amendement.
In addition, it can be argued that the more intense the controversies, the policy debates, the attacks on politicians and the media coverage, the better for the political process in general. Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new-found field of political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper.
The clearest example to illustrate the point is the low-budget but effective campaign by Herman Cain. Cain was able to use low-budget campaign tools, campaign strategies and the Internet to fight back against a barrage of mainstream media coverage, which for the most part was negative; take part in the debates on policy issues; and, position himself as a contender to be taken seriously for the GOP nomination.
Certainly, there will be legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections. But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked just as Herman Cain has been able to do by employing new media tools and strategies.
Related Coverage & Web Articles
.
End Notes
Thank you for visiting the site, and reading the content.
Please feel free to ask questions, make comments, or reply to any of the questions or comments posted.
Generally, we will respond to all questions and comments.
Share this:
Like this:
Posted by marcjan on November 20, 2011 in Commentary, Media, Politics, Supreme Court
Tags: Campaign, Campaign Finance, Campaign Finance Institute, Campaigns, Citizens United, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Constitutional amendment, Elections, FEC, Federal Election Commission, First Amendment, free speech, Los Angeles Times, News, Policy, Politics, politics news, Public Affairs, Supreme Court, Ted Deutch