FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Obama’s Inauguration Brought to You by Bank of America

by ROBERT WEISSMAN

The 2013 Presidential Inauguration, brought to you by Bank of America.

No, we’re not going to see that banner next month, when President Obama takes the oath of the office.

But the president’s advisors are recommending that he accept corporate contributions to pay for the upcoming inauguration festivities.

It’s a sign of the times that such an idea is being seriously considered; we’ll know soon if it’s going to be adopted.

Corporate funding of inaugural activities is a patently horrible idea.

It should go without saying that corporate funding and/or sponsorship of the inauguration and surrounding festivities is inherently corrupting. But apparently it does need to be said.

Such funding arrangements pose the very real risk of political corruption; that is, that the corporate donors to the inauguration will expect — and receive — something in return. The concern is less that they get a tax break in exchange for their million-dollar donation than that they get better access — their calls returned faster, their proposals reviewed in a more favorable light. Human nature being what it is, this problem is nearly unavoidable, even assuming top officials act in good faith and with no conscious intent to favor donors.

Even more unavoidable is the appearance of corruption; there is no way for the American people to see major corporate names associated with the inauguration and not assume those corporations are paying for a lot more than the inauguration festivities.

Delayed by a day from the traditional January 20, this year’s inauguration will be held on the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s supremely misguided decision, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Now, it’s a very good thing that President Obama has stated not only that the decision was wrong, but that it is such a threat to the functioning of our democracy as to require a constitutional amendment to overturn it — and, with the election complete, it’s time to ask the president for stepped-up efforts to build support for, and enact, a constitutional amendment.

It would be more than a bitter irony to have corporations sponsor or fund the inauguration on the anniversary of Citizens United; it would undermine the case for corporate-free elections.

Corporate donations would corrupt in another vital dimension, as well, transforming a public event into a commercialized one. The Wall Street Journal reports that advisors recommending accepting corporate contributions argue that “the inauguration [is] more of a civic event than a partisan political affair.” But that is no argument for accepting corporate contributions. The inauguration is as grand an official, public celebration as America has. Accepting corporate contributions would degrade and diminish the fundamentally public nature of the event itself.

It shouldn’t be a controversial proposition that public events should be supported by public funds. A basic nonpartisan framework should be settled upon for what constitutes an appropriate public outlay for the inauguration — well in advance of the next presidential election — and public inauguration festivities should be calibrated to that funding commitment. There is no need for a lavish event. On the other hand, even in budget-constrained times, the country is well able to afford a reasonable expenditure to celebrate our democracy and welcome the new term of a president.

Recent tradition has involved accepting outside, private funding for inaugural events, and it may be that available public funds are presently insufficient to cover costs associated with the festivities. In this case, accepting low-dollar donations from the American people would seem an appropriate remedy.

In this context, President Obama established the right precedent in 2009 in refusing corporate contributions for the inauguration. By reaffirming this approach, Obama can hopefully for the long-term place a proper boundary on corporate entanglement with the inauguration.

Is this a symbolic issue? You might say so. But what is being symbolized is whether our democracy should be for sale.

It’s not asking too much that some element of our democracy be corporate-free.

You can add your name to those calling for President Obama to do the right thing, here.

Robert Weissman is president of Public Citizen.

ROBERT WEISSMAN is president of Public Citizen.

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail