Article first published as American Corporations are all About Profits – Not People on Technorati.

Have you heard the news that corporate profits hit an all-time high this past quarter? That’s right, with unemployment stuck near double digits and the wages of American workers continuing to fall, American businesses racked up profits at an annualized rate of $1.66 trillion.

So, even though they themselves may be hurting, shouldn’t patriotic Americans cheer these profits? After all, we have a huge federal budget deficit, and at least the tax revenues from these huge profits will improve the shortfall, right?

Wrong. The sad truth is that American corporations aren’t all that American, and they’re certainly not patriotic. General Electric, fourth on the Fortune 500, had an excellent year in 2009, making profits of $10.3 billion. Their U.S. tax bill? Uncle Sam owed them $1.1 billion. How does that happen?

Well, somewhere in their 24,000 page tax return are the details of how they consistently manage to make serious profits overseas but lose money in the U.S..

A similar story applies to Exxon Mobile, our nation’s most profitable company. Their profits for tax year 2008 climbed to a record high of $42.5 billion — the most ever for an American company. They did wind up having to pay $15 billion in income taxes, but unfortunately for Americans, none of that money was paid to the IRS. Exxon’s U.S. tax bill was a whopping zero dollars.

Sadly, these companies are anything but alone in their ability to exploit tax loopholes and dodge paying U.S. taxes. In fact, a 2008 study prepared by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that two out of three American corporations paid ZERO, zip, nada in federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005.

Unlike average Americans, corporations enjoy considerable flexibility in both operations and the resulting tax treatment. Exxon, for example, has several wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that allow them to legally shelter cash flow. Other corporations, like Google, who was recently able to reduce its effective tax rate to just 2.4%, accomplish their magic by shuffling income through foreign countries using well-known tax strategies like the “Double Irish” or “Dutch Sandwich.”

Google’s use of the “Double Irish” maneuver depends on shifting non-U.S. sales to its Dublin office — 88% of its $12.5 billion in 2009. This technique is also used by others, like Microsoft, and requires that they have two Irish companies (hence the “double”) where one pays royalties to the other which collects the proceeds in a tax haven, like Bermuda.

Make no mistake about it, the use of tax havens is commonplace in corporate America. Another GAO study reported that 83 of the 100 largest American companies have subsidiaries in tax havens. It’s estimated that through the use of such havens, corporations and wealthy individuals are able to evade more than $100 billion in U.S. taxes every year. ATT, GE, IBM, Chevron, they all participate in the dodge.

Even those companies with government contracts, like Boeing, and those who took government bailout money, like AIG, GM, Goldman Sachs and Citicorp play the game. The truth is that the evasion occurs on such a grand scale that 18,000 companies share a single address in the Cayman Islands, a popular haven because of its lack of any corporate or capital gains tax.

What should be done about all of this? Some people advocate the closing of loopholes to prevent such activities. Others suggest that completely eliminating corporate taxes and treating corporate profits as the individual income of its shareholders would be a superior remedy. But whatever the solution, the core truth of the situation remains evident — 21st  Century corporations have no nationality.

Like it or not, we now live in a global economy. Billions of dollars in U.S. tax revenue is being hidden in foreign banks, and millions of American jobs have been offshored to foreign workers. American corporate profits are at an all-time high even while huge numbers of Americans are suffering. The sad truth is that American corporations have but one loyalty, and it’s not to our nation, nor is it to the American people; they are singularly focused on profits, and their only loyalty is to their shareholders.

There’s nothing really wrong with this specific truth. Corporations are legal fictions created for the purpose of making money. They are rightfully focused solely on profits. But there is something seriously wrong with assigning to these artificial entities the rights associated with being a person.

This is exactly what the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) did in its decision on Citizens United versus the Federal Election Commission. In conferring personhood upon corporations and assigning full First Amendment protections for free speech, the SCOTUS not only made it perfectly legal for companies to lie but also opened a Pandora’s Box of election campaign abuse.

At a time when deep-pocketed corporations already control both political parties, and the cost of Campaign 2010 would hit nearly $4 billion — with Americans fighting to take their country back from the special interests, the Citizens United decision unleashed another $180 million in campaign ads, with $120 million coming from undisclosed sources.

Because of the SCOTUS decision, corporations, even those with significant foreign ownership, now have the power to directly influence American elections. How this can be a positive for our nation is a mystery. The Founding Fathers were certainly not advocates of such corporate power. They fully understood the truth expressed by Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion: “the corporation must engage the electoral process with the aim to enhance the profitability of the company, no matter how persuasive the argument for a broader or conflicting set of priorities.”

Corporations are not people, and what’s good for one is not necessarily good for the other. The Citizens United decision is an abomination upon the American system of government that runs counter to the ideal of one-person-one-vote. It virtually ensures that American corporations will continue to evade paying U.S. income tax while stoking profits with cheap foreign labor. It corrupts the very core of our founding and ensures that a “government of the people, by the people, for the people” will indeed perish from the Earth.

If you are a patriot, if you love your country and care about democracy, you’ll agree that, left or right, our government belongs to The People. Please raise your voice and say NO to the sale of our democracy — join your fellow Americans in ending corporate rule and Move to Amend.

---

President Obama spoke to the people of America on Saturday. With the campaign season for the fall election heating up, his message was focused on the insidious effects of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Citizens United case. The President cited the recent “flood of attack ads, run by shadowy groups with harmless sounding names.” He contended that the people deserve to know who’s behind these campaign ads, and argued that the Disclose Act, which is being blocked by Senate Republicans, is an effective device to accomplish that end.

Legislation that’s directed at greater disclosure by donors, the Disclose Act would require, “special interest group officials to physically appear at the end of campaign ads they sponsor, acknowledging their campaign contributions.” It would also prevent foreign run entities from interfering in our election process, undoing another detrimental side effect of Citizens United. The bill was already passed by the House, with 2 Republicans voting in favor, along with all but 30 Democrats. But the legislation has been stalled since it reached the Senate.

Falling into the prevalent pattern of Senate dysfunction, the Disclose Act is just another bill to find itself the victim of Republican obstruction. Needing one more vote to gain cloture and avoid filibuster, Americans will not gain knowledge of the people behind the campaign ads unless Democrats can get at least one Republican to break ranks and put The People above the Party.

Asked for comment on the legislation, Mitch “Tax cuts pay for themselves” McConnell offered more nonsensical blather. According to McConnell, “The president says this bill is about transparency. It’s transparent all right. It’s a transparent effort to rig the fall elections.” So, in the Senate Minority Leader’s own words, informing voters of who’s paying for campaign attack ads somehow amounts to rigging the election.

I’m sure that Senator McConnell had no intent of supporting the President’s position, but based on his own comments, it’s hard to refute what President Obama had to say regarding Republican opposition to the bill, “This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark.” The President added that, “They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.”

The November election will be laced with illegitimate attack ads of all sorts, and those ads will come from both sides. This has long been the case, and now the problem has been magnified by the Citizens United decision. The Disclose Act is essential legislation that can’t prevent the ads, but can at least inform the voters who’s behind them. It’s like truth in advertising 101, and the Republicans want no part of it. That fact alone should call their position into question.

Concerned voters need to speak out and make sure their representatives understand that We the People want to know. Voters want transparency. Big-Money has already hijacked the American government, and the Supreme Court, through Citizens United, has given them yet another avenue to exert their will. Corporations are not people, and in the long term, our nation needs reform to undo the damage of this decision. Such reform is already underway in the form of a constitutional amendment carrying 74 cosponsors in the House. People can also voice their support at Free Speech for People.

Like campaign finance reform, the Disclose Act should have nothing to do with partisan differences. The fact that it is being debated along party lines should be sufficient cause to make people stand up and take notice. Citizens United was anti-democracy at its very worst. To fight against its reform is un-American.

---

The BART shooting and death of Oscar Grant, and the subsequent jury verdict are not the type of story I typically write about. But this event has struck a chord, a deeply sad chord for me. I had followed the story with moderate interest since it first happened, and I was alarmed when I heard that there were no blacks on the jury. But somewhere in my Pollyanna psyche, I guess I just assumed that justice would still be served.

I was on the road heading home when I first heard the verdict. My first reaction was shock, followed by sadness. I felt contempt for the system, and that led to a sense of despair. As I pushed through the successive waves of emotion, I came to the realization that I had stumbled upon a tiny window into what the black community feels every day.

When I got home, I immediately set about the business of reading everything I could find about the event and the trial. I watched every video I could find — in fast motion, slow motion, freeze frame — over and over. I talked about the case with everyone I know. I was there in spirit with Oscar Grant’s family as they shared their feelings about the verdict. I felt solidarity with them when they criticized the verdict but asked for peaceful protest. I was not without tears as I watched Wanda Johnson relive the loss of her son, as she repeated, “He was murdered.”

So, was Oscar Grant murdered? Was involuntary manslaughter a just verdict? Everyone has an opinion. Here’s mine:

Once Judge Perry ruled out first degree murder, the range of verdicts was limited to second degree murder, manslaughter, either voluntary or involuntary, or acquittal. In the case of either murder or voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution needed to prove malice aforethought. This would require that they show that Mehserle either intended to inflict grievous bodily harm or was recklessly indifferent to the high risk of doing so.

Enter the Taser defense. According to Mehserle, he had intended to taze Grant, not to shoot him. The use of a Taser, while potentially causing significant pain to the target, could certainly not be construed as criminal intent or reckless indifference. In fact, Judge Perry’s instructions to the jury stated that, if they believed Mehserle meant to use his Taser, the verdict could not be more serious than involuntary manslaughter. So, putting aside jury bias, the outcome of the trial, in effect, actually hung on this single issue.

Defense attorney Michael Rains maintains that Mehserle did tell fellow officer, Tony Pirone “I’m going to taze him” at one point. So there is some reason to believe that tazing was at least a part of the equation. Grant has even taken a picture before the tragic climax that showed Mehserle pointing his Taser at Grant. But then, in order to prevent just this type of mistake, BART officers all holster there Tasers on the opposite side from their firearm. Mehserle’s Taser was holstered on his left side but reversed for a cross-body draw. Could somebody actually draw from the wrong side, not notice the 3x heft or different color of the handgun and fire a shot believing they held a Taser? Personally, I find this highly unlikely.

Also a part of the testimony is that shortly after the shooting, Mehserle told Pirone that, “I thought he was going for a gun.” Would tazing be a rational response to such a deadly threat? At the very least, it does call into question the consistency of Mehserle’s story. And then there’s also the fact that the Taser story didn’t surface until days after the killing. All things considered, there’s certainly an element of doubt regarding the veracity of Mehserle’s story, but then in court, it’s not the job of the defense to present an iron tight case. No, the burden of reasonable doubt belongs to the prosecution.

So much of this case actually depends on the lens through which you look. I hear people state with conviction that Oscar Grant was resisting the police. But I’m here to tell you that I’ve been under those piles of police aggression before, actually trying to help them get me cuffed, and still they roughed me around as if I were resisting.

I also know something about losing a son. My Joshua wasn’t lost to police violence, but  the fact of the matter is that had it not been for the aggression of law enforcement and the corruption of the legal system, he would likely still be here with me. He was 21, and nearly two and a half years later, I still grieve his passing every day. When I watch Wanda Johnson, I feel her pain. That is my lens.

But in spite of my personal perspective, and my reluctance to believe what I feel is a contrived story designed to leverage the letter of the law, I don’t believe that Johannes Mehserle intended to shoot and kill Oscar Grant. In all honesty, I’m forced to ask myself how insane a person would have to be to pull a gun in front of a large crowd of onlookers, who were obviously not fans, and deliberately shoot a man in the back while he was lying prone and restrained. You would have to be a stark raving lunatic.

So, was involuntary manslaughter the right verdict? I’m afraid that in a purely legal sense, based on the evidence provided, it probably was. But was justice served? Absolutely NOT!

Beyond the tragedy, the real problem in this case is that it forces us to take a look at the discrepancy between legal justice and moral justice. In the end, even if you buy his story, the simple truth is that Mehserle wasn’t justified in tazing a man who was restrained by two other officers. Given the circumstance, a reasonable person would have to conclude that, even that act would constitute excessive force. The fact is that Mehserle was being an asshole and somebody died because of it. What should the penalty for that be?

For me personally, this tragic event did have one positive effect — it helped me to understand. As I listened to the family of Oscar Grant and others, I thought back to the terrible injustice of the Rodney King trial. Then I recalled my bewilderment at the near unanimous black response to the O.J. Simpson verdict. I never understood before how, in the face of the vast evidence against O.J., blacks could still assert his innocence. I think I now have, at least, a clue. It wasn’t about O.J. — it was about the countless black men who could never receive justice in the white courts. Regardless of what they may have secretly thought about the details of the case, only one thing mattered — a black man had prevailed. It was a sort of “Fuck You” to the system that so stacked the odds against them. Whether or not the verdict in the Simpson case was just –  justice in a much bigger sense had finally been served.

---