It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leaked e-mail shows how GE puts the government to work for GE

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
August 26, 2009

"The intersection between GE's interests and government action is clearer than ever," General Electric Vice Chairman John G. Rice wrote in an Aug. 19 e-mail to colleagues.

Rice was calling on his co-workers to join the General Electric Political Action Committee. "GEPAC is an important tool that enables GE employees to collectively help support candidates who share the values and goals of GE."

The full letter suggests that "share the values and goals of GE" really means "support policies that profit the company."

Steve Milloy, a pro-free market investor at the Free Enterprise Action Fund, obtained this e-mail and says it reveals General Electric for what it really is. "GE is lobbying to become the biggest rent seeker this country has ever seen," Milloy told this column. Rent seeking is using government legislation or regulation to generate private profits the free market wouldn't provide.

"On climate change," Rice wrote, "we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses."

Most of all, Waxman-Markey would profit a GE joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which deals in greenhouse gas credits, products that have value only if a cap-and-trade bill like Waxman-Markey passes.

The leaked e-mail shows how tightly GE connects PAC contributions and lobbying efforts. "Our Company is heavily impacted by a number of issues pending in Washington this fall," Rice wrote.

GE spent more on lobbying in the second quarter of this year than did any other company, according to federal lobbying files. Since 1998, GE has been the king of lobbying expenditures, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, outpacing its runner-up by 40 percent.

Last election, GEPAC spent $2.4 million, with a slim majority going to Democrats. So far this year, two-thirds of GEPAC money has gone to Democrats.

Rice's description of how PAC contributions help the company ("we must also make sure that candidates who share GE's values and goals get elected to office") belies the true dynamic in political giving, as the rest of the e-mail suggests.

By calling for PAC contributions in the context of GE's lobbying efforts in coming weeks, Rice is clearly not talking about electing pro-GE candidates in November 2010. He is talking about making current congressman more pro-GE.

If GEPAC was just trying to "make sure that candidates who share GE's values and goals get elected to office," why would the PAC give $15,000 each to the Republican and Democratic senatorial campaign committees? Those contributions cancel each other out if they are considered ammunition for allies in electoral battles. But they complement one another if they are considered the ticket price to access with lawmakers.

The recipient list of GEPAC cash also suggests the PAC is more about access to power brokers than support for friendly politicians.

Rep. Charlie Rangel of Harlem received $2,000 from GEPAC. He is not in electoral danger, but he is chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Henry Waxman of Hollywood also doesn't need GE's help getting elected, but the $1,000 from GEPAC might make Waxman, who's chairman of the Commerce Committee, more amenable to a GE-friendly climate bill or health care reform bill.

Of the six House members who have received more than $4,000 from GEPAC this cycle -- all Democrats -- only Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., faces a tough re-election next year, thanks to accusations that he has used his chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to benefit donors and patrons. GE is a top defense contractor.

The other top recipients are all safe incumbents in powerful positions: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, Ways and Means member Richard Neal, who chairs the subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, and key appropriator Norm Dicks.

The "intersection between GE's interests and the government's actions" is plenty crowded. GE is betting on climate change legislation, high-speed rail funding, electric car subsidies, embryonic stem cell grants, expanded federal health care spending, subsidies for renewable energy, defense contracts and continued financial bailouts.

GEPAC pays the tolls to make sure all this traffic gets through.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...




posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Well imagine that.

I imagine CNBC will be all over the allegations of rent seeking and regulatory capture in future exposes. Oh wait GE owns CNBC.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:51 PM
link   
You know, I understand corporations supporting laws that help them out, I really do, but this sort of thing also borders on narcisism. They go in with tons of money and all the time in the world and pressure these politicians. It's disgusting.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
So, those without bailouts are bribing politicians to pass laws that boost their pockets.

When the hell are we going to reach the end of these greedy practices?

Only when Rome falls. Again.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by orderedchaos
 


GE was most likely the recipient of TARP or other alphabet soup bailout money through it's finance arm GE capital. They were in the MBS business like every other financial institution.



posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jefwane
 


they get billions when cap and trade passes



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by genius/idoit
 


Of course, this will be ignored by the AGW fanatics:


"On climate change," Rice wrote, "we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses."

Most of all, Waxman-Markey would profit a GE joint venture called Greenhouse Gas Services, which deals in greenhouse gas credits, products that have value only if a cap-and-trade bill like Waxman-Markey passes.


Just another little bit of the truth about the REAL initiative behind "cap and trade."

I do not doubt the sincerity of many individual "climate change" advocates.

However, their refusal to recognize that business and political interests are using them and capitalizing on their legitimate environmental concern diminishes their overall credibility and undermines our shared goal of wise stewardship of our environment.

Money should be spent on legitimate remedies rather than for-profit scams foisted on us under the guise of "global warming."

s and f

jw


[edit on 28-8-2009 by jdub297]



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jefwane
 


I do not endorse anything related to the AGW fear-mongering.

But, I've got kids and a retirement to think about. So, I bought a TON of GE early on on the Obama administration when Immelt emerged as a high-value insider.

Now, I don't have to worry about finances anymore. (Don't bother with the 'invest green' crap. GE will NEVER go out of business. Artificially depressed stock prices, high dividends, power production, nuclear reactors, consumer finance, consumer durables AND the President's ear ... . Only the foolish ignore REALITY.)

I still fear for the environment and our economy.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join