Political commentators and experts had for many years argued that the White House is under the immense but circumspect influence of the corporate sector thus making it a Corporatocracy (Winner, 2014). The rise of Donald Trump, one of the leading corporate champions in America and among the wealthiest entrepreneurs in the world changed this through the elimination of the circumspect tag. The corporate sector took over the White House, and they no longer had to influence governance from the shadows. Instead, the corporate sector brought in their prized lobbyists and made them part of the government (Weissman, 2017). Rather than lobbying policymakers, the lobbyists and corporate champions became the policymakers themselves. One of the excellent examples of lobbyists becoming policymakers is the very recent appointment of Andrew R. Wheeler, an energy and environmental issue expert as the deputy administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ( Friedman , 2017). After making a career seeking to influence the EPA not to be too harsh to his clients, these same clients will not be making their requests directly to Wheeler. This example is one of the several transitions that have faced the US government since the dropping of the circumspect approach to Corporatocracy and governance.
The Concept of Corporatocracy
As per the US constitution, America is a constitutional democracy that engenders the one-man-one-vote approach to governance. Almost all policies and governance decisions are made either by elected officials or technocrats appointed by elected officials. The basic idea behind this is that all decisions that need to be made must be in the interest of the people, or at the very least a majority of the people (Winner, 2014: Bertrand et al., 2014). To ensure the interest of the majority is protected, America has both the rule of law and separation of powers. The power to make, implement, and control policy is thus divided among the executive, legislature, and Judiciary. The executive is dominated by the presidency and forms the main focus of this research paper since Donald Trump, an outspoken corporate mogul is now president. The other centers of power are the legislature, made up of Congress whose members are elected by the populace through universal suffrage. Finally, there is the judiciary whose apex is the US Supreme Court whose judges are appointed by the president in conjunction with Congress (Drutman, 2015).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
It is not easy for America, a vast nation with hundreds of millions of people spread across a land as large as some continents to be led from one center of power. This is what led to the advent of interest groups. Interest groups are a political tool meant to ensure that the interests of different parties under the government are considered during the development of policies (Andres & Hernnson, 2015). These interests would be factored when making presidential policy and decrees, when passing laws in Congress, and when appointing judicial officers. The development of interest groups was meant to serve the interests of the majority and be part of the democratic process. It eventually opened up an avenue for professional lobbying through which the weight of interest would be determined by the purse of the interested. Gradually, the influence of lobbying became as powerful as, if not more as the power of the vote thus leading to the creation of a Corporatocracy (Drutman, 2015). In the years leading down to the Trump elections, billions of dollars would be paid to lobby firms, mainly made up of lawyers who specialized in influencing government officials. It got to a point where political analysts considered any decision to be capable of being as long as the interested party can afford the right lobbying price (Bertrand et al., 2014: Andres & Hernnson, 2015).
Energy and Environmental Policy Lobbying
At the advent of the 20th century, going to Texas was a synonym for running away from the law. Texas, mainly considered as generally a former Mexico was the land of the poor with beef being its main economic focus. Soon after, mineral oil was discovered in the State, and in just a few decades, Texas moved from being the butt of all jokes and into one of the richest economies in the globe, coming only second to the massive Californian economy in the USA. As indicated above, lobbying is all about money. Mineral fuel has an unlimited amount of money. The mineral fuel industry created an extremely wealthy and powerful interest group comprised of very few but wealthy Americans. The power of the mineral fuel interest group can be gauged by the fact that America not only declined to accede to the Kyoto Protocol but also the only nation to pull away from the Paris Accord. Among the key players in this mineral fuel interest group is the Faegre Baker Daniels' energy and natural resources practice and the lobbyist firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting. Among the top players in both organizations and also one of its managing partners is Andrew R. Wheeler ( Friedman , 2017). Most of the energy and monies used by the mineral fuel energy groups is used against or to influence the EPA.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The American version of the industrial revolution introduced the need for energy fuel in almost every area of the economy. The epitome of industrialization in the USA came in the 20 th century and with it came greater needs for mineral fuel. Initially, coal was the main source of mineral fuel and was used in massive quantities across the world. Most countries have since abandoned coal as major source of energy but in the US, it is still used and in massive amounts. Other forms of mineral fuels that came into use in the 2 0th century is mineral oil and natural gas. The combustion of coal, mineral oil products such as petroleum, and natural gas increasingly led to massive environmental degradation. They also had enormous adverse effects on human health. Further, the means of extraction, processing, and transportation of mineral fuels also posed grave environmental and health dangers. It is to curb and control these risks and hazards that President Nixon, by an Executive order, executed in 1970 created the EPA. So important was the EPA considered to be by its creators that its administrator was designated as a Cabinet member. The fundamental obligation of the EPA is to protect the environment and health of Americans from health hazards mainly related to industrial use.
It is, therefore, easy to see why the EPA would immediately become a major threat to the mineral fuel industries. Indeed, the formation of the mineral fuel lobby groups was mainly geared towards curbing the excesses of the EPA. This would ensure that the activities of the EPA have minimal adverse impact on the activities of the mineral fuel companies. This has been done with great success with mineral oil groups mainly controlling the environmental narrative. In many cases, the EPA has been accused of making decisions based on scientific research commissioned and funded by the mineral fuel interest groups. Leading figures in the mineral fuel lobby, such as Wheeler whose specialty included lobbying for coal miners can take great credit for the success of the mineral oil lobbies against the EPA ( Friedman , 2017) . It must also be understood that when the mineral fuel interest groups, which as indicated are made of a few very wealthy Americans prevail over the EPA, it means that the environment and the common US citizens are denied the protection that the EPA was designed to provide for them. This can, therefore, be considered as one of the many ways that lobbying has subverted the will of the majority. The mineral fuel interest groups through lobbying, spearheaded inter alia by Wheeler have continued to compromise the core mission of the EPA to the detriment of the people. Over and above this, one of the greatest issues facing the EPA today is the subject of climate change. This subject has in the recent days gained significant prominence due to the extreme weather conditions experienced in the USA in the last several months. The main culprit that scientists have pointed at as causing climate change is the emission of too much greenhouse gases. This points a finger directly at the mineral fuel business. Wheeler is, however, on record as having indicated that he does not believe in the regulation of greenhouse gases as they are not directly connected to climate change ( Friedman , 2017) . This argument comes to focus given that Wheeler is now one of the EPA top executives. Impact of Hiring Wheeler to Lead the EPA
If the EPA was to be considered as an environmental court where poor Americans went for justice against the mineral fuel giants, then Wheeler must be considered as the defense attorney that has championed the interests of the mineral fuel interest groups at all costs. At all costs does not mean through legal, ethical and lawful means but rather through both hook and crook. The Wheelers of Washington had always been ready and willing to do whatever it takes to protect the interests of their clients. This has at many times included making massive “donations” to policymakers and lawmakers at the federal and state level. The appointment of Wheeler as deputy director of the EPA thus brings two euphemism to mind. The first one relates to the energy giants who have decided that they should no longer pay the lawyer but rather own the judge. The second is from the perspective of the hapless environmental and health interest groups who have now been reduced to the proverbial sheep that sought justice in a courtroom presided over by hyenas.
This analogy may sound extremely harsh, but that does not make it any less accurate. The director of the EPA is more or less a quasi-political position just as the one for the director of the CIA or FBI. Appointees are selected based both on their expertise and also alignment to the policymakers of the day. The real work in these government agencies usually goes to the deputy directors who are usually technocrats who have great expertise in their areas of specialization. For example, the CIA will have a deputy director who is a specialist in fieldwork who will be made in charge of field agents. There will also be a deputy director who is a veteran of intelligence and will be put in charge of intelligence analysis. The FBI may also have a deputy director who is an expert in prosecutions and will be made the liaison with the Department of Justice. In the very same manner, in the EPA, the bulk of the technical work will fall on the deputy director who ought to be an expert in environmental affairs. Selecting a deputy director whose expertise is ensuring that mineral oil interest group get exactly what they want from the EPA can only mean one thing.
The appointing authority, who is the president intends for the interests of the mineral oil lobby groups to be considered as primary with the interests of human health and the environment becoming secondary. Instead of the mineral oil lobby groups addressing their interests to the Faegre Baker Daniels' energy and natural resources practice and the lobbyist firm Faegre Baker Daniels Consulting, these interest groups will now take their interests directly to the EPA and ask to speak to the deputy director. Most importantly, Wheeler will also champion the interest of the mineral fuel interest groups based on his philosophy. This is because he belongs to the rapidly declining school of thought, which believes that there is no connection between climate change and greenhouse gases. Therefore, Wheeler does not agree that greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated. When the environmental lobby groups go to the EPA, they will, therefore, be facing an opponent and not the champion. Conclusion
The principal purpose of interest groups as political instruments is to influence the opinion of policymakers. This becomes unnecessary when the policymaker and the interest group hold the same opinion. Furthermore, an interest group that can find its way into policymaking through having its representative or champion as the policymaker has gained great success. In the instant case, the corporate sector had been spending billions of US dollars to influence the executive and legislature through the process of lobbying. These groups then changed tactics and sponsored one of their own, who had never been a politician before to run for and win the US presidency. This gave the corporate sector interest group direct access to governance thus advancing the concept of Corporatocracy to another level. In pursuit of the same approach, President Trump has been appointing lobbyist point men and champions into the positions they had been lobbying for before. A textbook example is the appointment of Wheeler, a champion lobbying for the mineral fuel lobby groups to be the deputy director of the EPA. This makes EPA almost a servant of the mineral fuel interest groups, yet the EPA is supposed to be the people’s champion against the mineral fuel lobby groups.
References
Andres, G., & Hernnson, P. (2015). Lobbying Reconsidered: Politics Under the Influence . New York: Routledge
Bertrand, M., Bombardini, M., & Trebbi, F. (2014). Is it whom you know or what you know? An empirical assessment of the lobbying process. The American Economic Review , 104 (12), 3885-3920
Drutman, L. (2015). The business of America is lobbying: How corporations became politicized and politics became more corporate . Oxford: Oxford University Press
Friedman, L. (2017). Trump nominates a coal lobbyist to be No. 2 at E.P.A. The New York Times , https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/climate/trump-epa-andrew-wheeler.html
Weissman, R. (2017, January 10). Trump's corporate cabinet. Retrieved November 15, 2017, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-weissman/trumps-corporate-cabinet_b_14087282.html
Winner, L. (2014). Facing the Plague: Economic and Political Inequality. Teknokultura , 11 (3), 507-527
