Nothing epitomizes the perverse influence of those over prisons, prison privatization and industries as the current battle over the appointment and upcoming confirmation of Stacia Hylton to head the U.S. Marshal's Service.
Regardless of the calls to sever the strings between government and those who operate the Prison Industrial Complex and amidst the controversies surrounding CCA, Geo Group and others involved in the disgraceful creation and implementation of SB 1070, power and influence continues to attempt to increase control over this vast industry.
While we try desperately to stop the transfer of non-publicized government policies from finding its way into corporate board rooms (through a revolving door policy), we have our President and the Senate Judiciary Committee ignoring their own ethic rules and considerations to give that knowledge to them through Hylton.
Eight years ago we dealt with this same issue involving VP Cheney and his involvement with Haliburton. Granted the Hylton controversy does not rise to the level Cheney's connections to Haliburton did, but the principle is still the same. Anytime someone is chosen for a high level government position through a Presidential appointment or by election, there is a definite risk that the person chosen will demonstrate favoritism through their position toward a previous employer - corporate or private. Whether they want to willing participate in that, or are pressured by old ties to help out a "buddy", doesn't matter. It's wrong and everyone wants to have someone in just that kind of position. It's up to our President to pick carefully for positions and closely examine the business/corporate environment his choice comes from and what ties may remain after appointment. Even if the President makes the wrong choice and there is a risk of impropriety, our Congress is there to ensure the chosen individual is properly and thoroughly vetted before confirmation is granted.
Cheney promised his relationship with Haliburton would not affect his decisions, policies or personal wealth...and how did all that work out for us? It worked really well for Dick Cheney and Haliburton - no bid contracts and billions made off both Bush created wars alone, made both rich as hell! For those who didn't get the memo - Cheney has investments in private prison corporations and the prison industrial complex. He has huge investments in the Vanguard Group, which invests in private prison companies - and that money was invested prior to his Vice Presidency. In fact, Cheney and Gonzales were indicted in Texas in 2008 for just that reason.
Now, here we are once again faced with the same process that cost us billions and made billions for Cheney and his former Corporate employer. It seems no one in Washington is willing to put a stop to this game of musical chairs that is contributing to our economic disintegration. Either we have to stop this kind of crap...or give in and just turn our wallets over to the IRS and tell them to just spend everything we have, and be done with it.
CCA and now Geo Group are clearly battling for more tools to add to their arsenals to increase profits in a game of oneupmanship. CCA was recently exposed for their role in SB 1070 in Arizona. Their actions have brought about what promises to be an expensive and lengthy federal litigation over this discriminatory immigration law enacted earlier this year in Arizona. The litigation is expected to cost the taxpayers of Arizona and the rest of us millions in tax dollars to litigate. It isn't going to cost those who proposed and manipulated this cruel law - CCA, ALEC, Senator Pearce, Governor Brewer or her staff that lobby for CCA (Chuck Coughlin and Paul Sensemann). No, whatever it really cost all of them to force SB 1070 upon the citizens of Arizona, we can rest assured it is going to cost the rest of us three times that much in money to resolve. There is no way of determining the cost in human suffering and morality that has come out of this fiasco - considering the number of states trying to enact the same legislation.
Right now there are as many as 22 other states where CCA supporters and ALEC members have introduced similar legislations. Our politicians wavering over true immigration reform is helping to drive CCA and ALEC's efforts to capitalize off their continued hesitation of addressing reform.
Now CCA's number one competitor, Geo Group has indicated it has no intention of sitting back and watching CCA garner more power and income through government contracts to warehouse federal immigration detainees. Geo has their own contracts and immigration detention facilities. If they wish to remain competitive in their industry, they must find a way to offset what they see as a corporate coup by CCA in Arizona. The method used: put someone in a position to divert some of those warm bodies into Geo Group beds, of course.
Stacia Hylton represents one of the worst cases of federal employees using their position for personal gain after leaving the government. While working for "us" as a federal detention trustee Hylton worked with those corporations involved in detaining federal prisoners - CCA and Geo Group. Though her job as detention trustee was but one of the numerous posts she held as a federal employee, it was the most important one both for she and the private prison industry.
Contacts between federal employees and corporations are necessary in the way of performing our government's business. The number of employees that leave government and go right to work with or for the same corporations they dealt with as a government employee, has increased substantially over the past three decades.
In addition to government employees doing this, there are dozens of former lawmakers who are now working for - or on behalf of - corporate interests. Many support the causes of these corporations while working on our behalf, develop a relationship with those interests through campaign funding and once they leave public office, they are welcomed into the corporate arms of those companies. Their "service" to the public and our government is rewarded with lucrative contracts, employment and/or lobbying fees. As lobbyists these former lawmakers are in a position to advance the interests of their new employers because of their previous working with lawmakers still in the house or senate who remain in a position to help advance the causes and interests of the former lawmaker's new BFF.
This changing of "sides" by lawmakers has caused a genuine concern and questions of who these individuals really worked for as an elected Senator or Representative. Their quick acceptance into the corporate fold indicates to many that just maybe they performed so well for the corporations as politicians they earned a position and high salary as a reward after leaving office.
Here we are once again, another former federal employee using her previous government position and influence as a way to increase income through "consulting" with Geo Group - a corporation directly involved with private prison and federal detention facility operations. In her previous capacity Hylton helped determine where federal detainees were housed. Prior to leaving her government post, she opened her own "consulting" business (only a little unethical and violative) and went to work for Geo Group at a substantial fee. Now, mere months after working with Geo Group, President Obama nominates Hylton to the post of Director of the U.S. Marshal Service - that again, holds tens of millions of dollars in contracts with Geo Group.
President Obama was elected on a platform that assured us transparency and during and after the campaign he told us he would stop this kind of revolving door policy. He installed ethics rules disallowing former federal employees to immediately go to work for private sector companies involved in matters related to the employee's previous government position. In addition the President told us he would not allow lobbyists a position within "his" administration.
So far he has failed on both issues now, with the Hylton nomination and his position Hylton doesn't need a waiver of his ethics rules if approved. Obviously there are many within this administration working against those policies - and have worked from the beginning to erode any ethical provisions intended by President Obama. Those with power, influence and privilege have supporters who have been in government positions before this administration took office two years ago. They remain and quietly work on behalf of their puppet-masters to lessen any actual attempts to close this "revolving door" as Obama calls it.
This is part and parcel of the overall problems caused by corporate involvement in government operations and demonstrates the vast influence they wield. Now here's the Hylton controversy bringing attention to a problem that continues to plague us - stopping the flow of former lawmakers and high ranking and influential government employees into the private sector. Once that transformation has occurred, they begin to work opposing government policies and decisions they helped put in place and enforce as a part of our government. They bring important confidential government policy positions and philosophy with them into the private sector to the benefit of those opposing programs and policies.
I wonder how this really differs from the current uproar over the Wiki-leaks crisis? Government policy, emails and efforts of acquiring information have been released to the public. Government officials are crying foul and desperately seeking to eliminate the leak and arrest the perpetrator behind these leaks. Many call the leaks treason and call for the maximum penalty of death for those involved. But is this really any different from government lawmakers and former employees transmitting similar information on government policy and confidential positions regarding important issues to their new masters - corporate interests? I mean, isn't it the same thing - except that one involves our unstated positions regarding other countries and the other involves our hidden positions and policies on national matters?
Information and knowledge are the cornerstones of our current society. Both are needed and once obtained give those with this sensitive information influence and power over others who are without that knowledge and information. Insider trading is one example of how important information not known to others can be used to accumulate wealth and accompanying power. That's why insider trading is closely monitored and prosecuted if discovered. As with investments, stocks and trading there are ground rules put in place to protect government agencies and department's private policies from public dissemination. The result from release of that information is dangerous to our country and to us as it's citizens.
Many have gone on the record opposing Hylton's appointment to Director of the U.S. Marshal's Service. They object from real concern for what can be done through her position if confirmed. There can be no doubt that Geo Group and ALEC influence are at work here, supporting this appointment. Somewhere close to DC and elsewhere there are lawmakers and corporate interests sitting around smiling, drinking and rubbing their collective hands in glee at the very real possibility that Hylton will be confirmed and another important post will fall under their influence.
Cha-Ching's will reverberate loudly in many corporate coffers if this appointment goes through. Unfortunately we'll all feel a tug at our wallets with that now very familiar sound...Kinda' makes me want to wince - how 'bout you?
It's depressing to me that President Obama is finding it easier and easier to walk in George Bush's footsteps, when we know with certainty where that path led us for eight terrible years...
For more on the issues of corporate influence, please take a moment and read more at the diaries I previously published about Corporatocracy.
Corporatocracy
Corporatocracy-II
Corporatocracy-III
Corporatocracy-IV
Corporatocracy-V
Corporatocracy-Conclusion