FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Nike Blackmails Oregon

by BEN SCHREINER

At the behest of Nike, Oregon hastily convened a special one-day legislative session on Friday in order to ensure the global behemoth retains its preferential tax status in the state.

The spectacle of an emergency legislative session to pass a tax break for a single company was prompted by Nike threats to take a planned expansion out of state. As Nike warned, other states are “heavily courting” the company.

Not wanting to “lose” Nike, which houses its 200-acre corporate headquarters in Beaverton, Ore., Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber eagerly called a special session and deemed cowing to Nike threats a “no-brainer.” And with the support of Democrats, and calls from lawmakers to “just do it,” the Nike tax break easily passed both legislative chambers—the demands of Nike lobbyists codified by Oregon legislators into law.

Under the terms of the Nike tax-break deal, Oregon’s governor is now free to reach an agreement with the company in which the state will guarantee no changes to Nike’s current tax status will occur over the next 30 years in return for a company promise of 500 new jobs and a $150 million expansion.

Of course if one listens to the governor and Nike, the planned expansion will ultimately lead to 12,000 direct and indirect jobs and boost the state’s economy by $2 billion annually. Naturally, such rosy projections come from an “independent” economic study commission by none other than Nike. The data of the study, meanwhile, remains hidden from the public.

The sudden urgency Nike proclaimed in seeking to lock-in its current tax status stemmed certainly in part from a need to mask such shoddy claims from public scrutiny. It also, though, derived from a desire to protect another sweetheart tax deal it had previously wrested from the state.

Back in 2001, once again under pressure from Nike lobbyists, Oregon began to phase in a “single-sales factor” tax formula. This formula leaves only a company’s in-state sales taxable by the state—a boon for multinationals like Nike. In fact, according to the Oregon Center on Public Policy, this changed formula saved Nike $143.2 million in Oregon taxes from 2005-2009. That equates to a 90 percent reduction in the company’s state tax burden.

Still, prior to Nike’s Friday victory, the future of its privileged tax status was appearing slightly more tenuous. For amid drastic cuts to public education, social services, and mounting furlough days for state employees, Oregonians have demonstrated a repeated eagerness to increase taxes on corporations.

In November, for example, Oregon voters passed Measure 85, reforming the state’s rather inane “corporate kicker.” Under the provisions of the old kicker, all tax collections exceeding state revenue projections by 2 percent or more over a two year span were rebated to corporate taxpayers. Now, that rebate is slated to go for public education.

The reform of the state’s corporate kicker follows on the success in 2010 of state Measures 66 and 67, which saw voters pass modest tax increases on corporations and the state’s wealthy. In an op-ed appearing in the Oregonian newspaper at the time, Nike co-founder Phil Knight deemed the measures to be “anti-business, anti-success, anti-inspirational, anti-humanitarian,” among other things.

Nike’s most recent shakedown, however, now preempts any future citizen initiative which could have potentially targeted the company’s privileged tax status. It appears all inspirational humanitarians can now rest at ease.

Of course, corporate extortion of the kind Nike employed against Oregon is nothing new. Doling out corporate tax breaks in return for dubious corporate promises of jobs is a growing national trend. A recent New York Times series on corporate subsidies, for instance, found that state and local governments in the U.S. relinquish an estimated $80 billion every year in corporate tax incentives. At the same time, as the paper reported, state and local governments were forced to cut public services and raise taxes by a combined $156 billion last year.

In Oregon, the special Nike tax break comes at a time when the austerity fetish has led the governor is seek a cap on cost of living increases for current retirees enrolled in the state’s Public Employees Retirement System. But such is the real nature of the bipartisan dictum of “shared sacrifice.”

As Sheldon Wolin writes in his book Democracy Inc., we are living in “a system that represents the political coming-of-age of corporate power.”

“Exit the citizen,” Wolin writes, “enter the corporate actor.”

And in the age of corporate power, the brazen blackmail of a state government by a private corporation is not held to be a disgrace, nor even the least bit troubling. Instead, it’s merely business as usual.

The corporate actor now reigns supreme; all hail the corporate actor. As Oregon State Senator Ginny Burdick gushed on Friday of Nike, what a “wonderful, wonderful company.”

Ben Schreiner is a freelance writer based in Wisconsin.  He may be reached at bnschreiner@gmail.com or via his website.

Ben Schreiner is the author of A People’s Dictionary to the ‘Exceptional Nation’.  He may be reached at bnschreiner@gmail.com or via his blog.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

February 20, 2017
Jordan Flaherty
Best Films of 2016: Black Excellence Versus White Mediocrity
Weekend Edition
February 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
David Price
Rogue Elephant Rising: The CIA as Kingslayer
Matthew Stevenson
Is Trump the Worst President Ever?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Flynn?
John Wight
Brexit and Trump: Why Right is Not the New Left
Diana Johnstone
France: Another Ghastly Presidential Election Campaign; the Deep State Rises to the Surface
Neve Gordon
Trump’s One-State Option
Roger Harris
Emperor Trump Has No Clothes: Time to Organize!
Joan Roelofs
What Else is Wrong with Globalization
Andrew Levine
Why Trump’s Muslim Travel Ban?
Mike Whitney
Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper
Vijay Prashad
Trump, Turmoil and Resistance
Ron Jacobs
U.S. Imperial War Personified
David Swanson
Can the Climate Survive Adherence to War and Partisanship?
Andre Vltchek
Governor of Jakarta: Get Re-elected or Die!
Patrick Cockburn
The Coming Destruction of Mosul
Norman Pollack
Self-Devouring Reaction: Governmental Impasse
Steve Horn
What Do a Louisiana Pipeline Explosion and Dakota Access Pipeline Have in Common? Phillips 66
Brian Saady
Why Corporations are Too Big to Jail in the Drug War
Graham Peebles
Ethiopia: Peaceful Protest to Armed Uprising
Luke Meyer
The Case of Tony: Inside a Lifer Hearing
Binoy Kampmark
Adolf, The Donald and History
Robert Koehler
The Great American Awakening
Murray Dobbin
Canadians at Odds With Their Government on Israel
Fariborz Saremi
A Whole New World?
Joyce Nelson
Japan’s Abe, Trump & Illegal Leaks
Christopher Brauchli
Trump 1, Tillerson 0
Yves Engler
Is This Hate Speech?
Dan Bacher
Trump Administration Exempts Three CA Oil Fields From Water Protection Rule at Jerry Brown’s Request
Richard Klin
Solid Gold
Melissa Garriga
Anti-Abortion and Anti-Fascist Movements: More in Common Than Meets the Eye
Thomas Knapp
The Absurd Consequences of a “Right to Privacy”
W. T. Whitney
The Fate of Prisoner Simón Trinidad, as Seen by His U. S. Lawyer
Brian Platt
Don’t Just Oppose ICE Raids, Tear Down the Whole Racist Immigration Enforcement Regime
Paul Cantor
Refugee: the Compassionate Mind of Egon Schwartz
Norman Richmond
The Black Radical Tradition in Canada
Barton Kunstler
Rallying Against the Totalitarian Specter
Judith Deutsch
Militarism:  Revolutionary Mothering and Rosie the Riveter
Nyla Ali Khan
Kashmir Evoked a Lot More International Attention in the 1950s Than It Does Now
Adam Phillips
There Isn’t Any There There
Louis Proyect
Steinbeck’s Red Devils
Randy Shields
Left Coast Date: the Dating Site for the ORWACA Tribe
Charles R. Larson
Review: Bill Hayes’ “Insomniac City”
David Yearsley
White Supremacy and Music Theory
February 16, 2017
Peter Gaffney
The Rage of Caliban: Identity Politics, the Travel Ban, and the Shifting Ideological Framework of the Resistance
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail