Las Vegas Business Press: Pesky col

[sbillenness@xxxxxxxx]

Subject: Las Vegas Business Press: Pesky colonists at it again 

Las Vegas Business Press
Pesky colonists at it again
February 8, 1999
Hugh Jackson

Corporate citizens tell consumer citizens they better get used to this
global economy biz. Better get hep with local, not federal, government
while you¹re at it, the corporate citizenry explains.

Massachusetts listened. But instead of winning praise from the world¹s good
corporate citizens, Massachusetts found itself in court.

The Massachusetts Legislature locked horns with the global economy over
Myanmar, formerly and more commonly known as Burma. Myanmar¹s military
regime has one of the more egregious human rights records on the globe. In
addition to murdering, raping, robbing, forcing entire populations to
relocate, locking up voices of dissent in tiny pens, crushing free speech,
disavowing a democratic election and otherwise pursuing hellish tyranny,
Myanmar is the type of place where the largest stockholder in the power
company is also the army¹s procurement officer.  Folks who care, including
the advocates of democracy within Myanmar, say that in such a coercive
system, any money that goes into the country goes straight to the military
leaders and very, very little trickles down.

Massachusetts lawmakers, citing their state¹s historical support for
³natural, essential and unalienable rights,² decided they didn¹t want to be
a party to it. In 1998, the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law that in
effect said the state would not do business with any company that does
business in Myanmar.

Enter a darned interesting organization, the National Foreign Trade
Council. Representing everybody from AT&T to Sprint, Coca-Cola to PepsiCo,
GE to GM, IBM to Intel - you get the idea - the NFTC took Massachusetts to
court. The state was violating the Constitution by nosing into foreign
policy, which is reserved for the federal government, the corporations
claimed.

A judge agreed. Massachusetts has appealed, basically saying hey, it¹s not
like we¹ve established diplomatic relations with this country, we just
think we ought to be able to spend our money - or not spend our money -
however we want without a bunch of corporations pushing us around.
Arguments, including amicus briefs filed by at least seven states on
Massachusetts¹ behalf, were scheduled to be presented to the court last week.


At least a dozen state or municipal governments have adopted or are
considering similar so-called "selective purchasing" laws aimed at Myanmar.
And the NFTC says more than 30 state and local governments in the U.S. have
human rights-driven laws on the books regarding not only to Myanmar but
nations the world over, from Nigeria, to Tibet, Cuba to Switzerland.

The NFTC and supporters of the Massachusetts law do agree on one thing: The
suit against Massachusetts is a - if not the - big test case that will
decide whether local governments can decide who they want to spend their
money with.

Meanwhile, in policy reminiscent of the movement to divest from South
Africa, Massachusetts lawmakers are also taking up legislation that would
prohibit public investments, such as public employee retirement funds, in
most corporations doing business in Myanmar. This is the type of thing Alan
Greenspan is warning will happen - political meddling in the markets -
under the proposal to invest Social Security funds in the stock market.
About the same time as Greenspan was issuing his warnings, the Pope was in
the Midwest scolding companies for putting profits before principles in
developing nations.

Which is to say no matter what the outcome of the Massachusetts skirmish,
increased awareness of, bordering on zealous faith in, the "global economy"
is going to generate a lot of similar fights about how governments spend
the public¹s money and invest public funds.

And those fights could in turn spark a potentially more fundamental
question, the answer to which would be of vastly greater importance:  Do
private investors care if their money is being used to prop up murderous
governments, destroy the environment, exploit child labor or otherwise
violate the investor¹s personal principles and values?

Via 401(k)s, IRAs, the baby boom's economic migration through its
demographic destiny and general prosperity in the land, more people are
investing more money in markets than ever before. A force may be available
to them as participants in the market that many feel was taken away as
participants in the democratic process long ago: power.

If a heartening vision, it¹s also a messy one. How many companies offer
"socially responsible" investment opportunities in their 401(k) plans? How
do you determine a company or a mutual fund is as socially responsible as
it says it is in the first place? And how can a private investor determine
when a corporation¹s presence in a nation is helping the people who live
there and not just subsidizing thugs? Even advocates of socially
responsible investing note that in many instances, corporate investment not
only raises living standards but can help create bases of power outside a
nation¹s ruling regime.

Corporate citizens, such as the NFTC¹s members, will urge investors both
public and private to trust the market to make everything all right over
time. Absolving investors of responsibility, it¹s a convenient, hence
seductive argument. Rather than foster economic and political
responsibility in a truly global  manner, the proliferation of investment
in the U.S. may ultimately create more support for corporate subsidies,

corporate tax cuts and the gutting of environmental laws. In short,
everybody will vote Republican.

But it¹s not insignificant that a shot in the global economic revolution is
being fired from Massachusetts, which as home of the Boston Tea Party knows
a thing or two about rights, responsibilities and international trade. The
Revolution, like the nation¹s history since, was part ideals, part
economics. We know the importance of economics has survived. As rhetoric
about the global economy continues to rain down on an increasingly
portfoliod citizenry, here¹s hoping ideals have survived as well.

Hugh Jackson (editor@xxxxxxxxx) is managing editor of the Las Vegas
Business Press.