From the Jan 17 – Jan 23, 2002 issue

Pullout

The Myth of Corporate Giving

Trickle-Down Economics Worldwide

by Bradley Steinbacher

The idea of a Corporate World--that one day a handful of corporations will have grown so large they will, in effect, make governments obsolete--has long been a friendly plot device for sci-fi writers and loony doomsday/New World Order scribes. And while such a scenario may seem, at first glance, laughably farfetched, it should be noted that the economic ideology of the U.S. has long been fashioned around the idea of corporate health. Think Reagan's "trickle-down economics," wherein the theory holds that the stronger the upper crust of America (i.e., corporations), the more crumbs sprinkle down for the rest of society to pick up.

This trickle-down theory, a decidedly Republican invention--and one that has never been proven completely un-dunderheaded--has, for the most part, been implemented (under different monikers) as U.S. economic policy over the years. After Reagan, there was Bush #1, then Clinton--each advancing, under their own regime, their own version of TDE. Already Bush #2 has kept the theory moving forward (via tax cuts, with the wealthiest in America receiving the most benefit). And Clinton aside, most everyone can agree at this point--even Republicans--that what's good for the Republican Party is good for corporations (and vice-versa). This is obviously not to say that corporate glad-handing is limited to the GOP. But as Dubya sits in the White House, AOL Time Warner merges, News Corporation purchases, and Microsoft consumes, the faint glow of a Corporate World appears as a blip on the radar screen.

So if we are, indeed, headed toward a Corporate World--or at least some semblance of one (beyond what had already been achieved)--just what will corporations do for the common man? The answer is: Probably not much. At least if the current state of corporate giving is any indication.

The oft-mentioned phrase "Corporate Welfare" necessarily conjures thoughts of big-business tax breaks, loopholes, and outright palm greasing, but the flip of CW is Corporate Giving--the billions corporations routinely give to various charities, groups, and organizations every year. According to the AAFRC Trust for Philanthropy, a nonprofit that promotes standards in corporate giving, corporations gave close to $11 billion to charities and organizations in 1999 alone, and though that total undoubtedly slid some in 2000 and 2001 (as the economy soured), the fact that corporations give away so much to so many--be they charities or foundations or artists--raises an interesting question: As government becomes less responsive to peoples' needs (as Republicans desperately desire), will corporations step up to fill the gap?

For the jaded on the Left, and even those less jaded (i.e., me), the answer is no. After all, when have the majority of corporations (or the Republican Party, for that matter) shown, with any consistency, a willingness to put the good of the people over the good of the dollar? And when one takes into consideration the sheer staggering girth of the corporate pre-tax profits for that very same $11-billion-giving-1999-calendar year, a total that hovers around $836 billion, the percentage corporations as a whole gave back was a dismal .01%--not a very impressive number, especially when images of sweatshops and toxic spills find their way before your peepers.

Globalization has brought Reaganite TDE to the world, creating huge profits for CEOs and stockholders while blatantly exploiting the people of less powerful countries. As a result of these profits, corporations claim, via (corporately owned) major-media puff pieces, to be giving away more and more. They fund artists, they say, and are helping to cure Parkinson's (hang in there, Michael J. Fox!). But does $11 billion (or more) really justify what they take from the world? Not really. Actually, not in the least, especially once those gifts are properly written off by a slew of accountants.

In short, corporate giving, as it is currently defined, is a sham--a game of three-card monte, with CEOs moving the cards around. But then again, perhaps no sum given can ever be enough. Perhaps, since the U.S. economy has taken over the world, corporate giving is like a macro-scale version of giving homeless people a quarter: just something to make us all feel better.

After all, manifest destiny doesn't come about without at least a little guilt.