Nick Weingartner

Exam One – Essay Two

Professor Ronald V. Bettig

The Power Elite: An Examination of the Processes of the Ruling Class

Domhoff argues that inside of the ruling capitalist class, there is a small center of

individuals called the power elite, who actively acts as leadership for the group as a whole. In

America, the ruling class consists of a very small number of individuals and families who have a

disproportionate amount of income, with generally better well-being who control the major

economic institutions and governmental processes. “The power elite is made up of active,

working members of the upper class and high-level employees in institutions controlled by

members of the upper class” (Domhoff, p. 4).

The power elite does the bidding for the capitalist class as whole through four main

processes – the special-interest, policy-planning, candidate-selection and ideology processes

(Domhoff, pgs. 6-7).

The special-interest process is geared to satisfy the short-term needs of the ruling class

(Domhoff, p. 6). The process “comprises the several means by which specific individuals,

corporations, or business sectors get the tax breaks, favors, subsidies and procedural rulings

which are beneficial to their short-run interests. This is the world of lobbyists, Washington super-

lawyers, trade associations, and advisory committees to governmental departments and agencies”

(Domhoff, p. 7).

Lobbying is one of the most influential forces in the political system. Using the revolving

door – a term meaning the constant flow of positions between the government and corporations –

the ruling class exerts their influence. The US Chamber of Commerce – a group composed of

mainly members of the ruling class – spent $651,035,680 between 1998 and July 2010 for their

interests (corporate deregulation), the American Medical Association spent $236,012,500

(against universal healthcare) and AT&T spent $155,187,314 (for the ability to take over more

companies) (OpenSecrets.org).

This trend can also be seen in Big Media companies. OpenSecrets.org reports that

TV/Movies/Music industries spent $53,607,870 in the first half of 2010, with 112 clients, 605

lobbyists and 435 revolvers. Comcast spent $6,897,000 lobbying against net neutrality and caps

on subscribers, and for approval with their buyout of NBC (OpenSecrets.org).

Lobbying is also bipartisan. For their fight against putting ‘slave free’ labels on their

chocolate, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association hired former Senators Bob Dole and George

Mitchell, the first of which is a powerful Republican and the latter a powerful Democrat

(Chatterjee, HO). Both had access to their former colleagues on both sides of the aisle,

successfully killing the label and pushing reform back to an agonizingly slow plan, which aims

for “a 70 percent reduction of internationally unacceptable child labor by 2020” (Centre Daily

Times, HO).

Microsoft also aligned itself with both Democrats and Republicans, giving them access to

Representatives, Senators, and Presidents. Their tie to Kathleen Clark Kies of Collier, Shannon,

Rill & Scott and wife of Kenneth Kies, ghosted much of the 1997 tax bill that gave Microsoft a

$1.7 billion tax break (Microsoft Web).

Companies like General Electric have “two dozen permanent lobbyists with a large

support staff in Washington; as the need arises, it regularly hires outside lawyers and lobbyists”

(Greider, p. 2).

The policy-planning process “has to do with the development and implementation of

general policies that are important to the interests of the ruling class as a whole” (Domhoff, p. 6).

The ruling class formulates its long-term goals in “policy-planning and consensus-

seeking organizations of the power elite” (Domhoff, p. 8). Here, in meetings of organizations

like the Committee for Economic Development and the Business Council, the ruling class

provides a setting where the power elite can learn of the details of the issues, where the issues

can be discussed and a consensus can be reached, where they can hear the ideas and findings of

their hired experts, provide a training ground for new leadership within the power elite, provide a

framework for commissioned studies and discuss avenues and tactics for changing the “climate

of opinion” in Washington (Domhoff, p. 9).

The Business Council, for example, holds within its membership dozens of powerful

members, including the CEOs of AT&T, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, DuPont, Ernst & Young,

General Electric, IBM, McGraw-Hill, Microsoft, Verizon and PepsiCo – as well as Big Media

outlets like News Corporation, and Comcast, who will soon take over NBC from General

Electric (Businessroundtable.org). This allows Big Media not only the ability to contribute to the

overall consensus, but also act as a conduit for that consensus, effectively helping to mold public

opinion.

Many of these foundations also form think tanks, providing the media with information to

refer to. Almost all of these think tanks – such as the Council on Foreign Relations (cited 1,191

times in 2007), American Enterprise Institute (1,171 times) and Heritage Foundation (1,168

times) are of a conservative bent, leading policy to follow (fair.org).

Another tactic used is “astroturfing,” a term referring to “artificially-created grassroots

coalitions, which lobby elected officials on behalf of corporate-friendly legislation” (Donohue, p.

39). An example of this can be seen in the proliferation of the Tea Party, which was heavily

funded by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which was started by David Koch and

funded by the Koch brothers (Mayer, HO).

In addition to lobby and policy-planning, the ruling class also participates in the

candidate-selection process, with the goal of placing political candidates in the positions they

want to effect most, ensuring they have access to the political system (Domhoff, p. 6).

Between 1989 and 2009, AT&T gave $45,461,879 to political candidates in both parties,

attempting to ensure political access. Goldman Sachs gave $32,660,452, leaning towards the

Democrats. Citigroup gave $27,554,052, split almost evenly between both parties as well

(OpenSecrets.org). Unions and associations also gave heavily, with the American Federation of

State, County & Municipal Employees giving $42,883,511 almost solely to Democrats, and the

Teamsters Union giving $28,627,184 mostly to Democrats (OpenSecrets.org).

As with the trend displayed with the special-interest and policy-planning processes, Big

Media is once again no exception. Time Warner gave $20,137,784 mostly to Democrats, Walt

Disney gave $11,597,812 favoring Democrats, Vivendi gave $4,668,471 favoring the Democrats

and General Electric gave $19,033,912 split between both parties (OpenSecrets.org). Comcast

gave $2,512,352 in the 2010 elections, leaning slightly democratic (OpenSecrets.org).

All of these campaign contributions were made prior to Citizens United v. Federal

Election Commission, where the Supreme Court ruled that corporations no longer have to

disclose campaign contributions (ACLU.org). This decision will fundamentally effect future

campaigns, giving the capitalist class an even greater incentive to contribute in the candidate

selection process.

The final process is the ideological process. This has to do “with the formation,

dissemination, and enforcement of attitudes and assumptions which permit the continued

existence of policies and politicians favorable to the wealth, income, status, and privileges of

members of the ruling class” (Domhoff, p. 7).

Big Media’s role in the process is simple – if not already members, they are absorbed into

the ruling class, allowing them to be ideologically shaped. An example of this is seen simply by

looking at the guest list for the Presidential dinner for President Jiang Zemin of China – in

attendance was not only former politicians like Henry Kissinger and James A. Baker, but also

Tom Brokaw, Frank J. Biondi of Viacom, Michael Eisner of Disney, Katherine H. Graham of the

Washington Post, Robert L. Johnson of BET, W. Thomas Johnson of CNN, Gerald M. Levin of

Time Warner, Diane Sawyer, Steven Spielberg, Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, and Mortimer B.

Zuckerman – all members of the media, many of whom should be reporting on the event, rather

than in attendance.

This process is perhaps the most important – in order for the ruling class to dominate,

they must either use force or gain their consent, a process that can be understood through Jhally’s

consciousness industry approach (Jhally, p. 67).

There are many effects to be seen from these processes. The first, and perhaps most

immediate, is the proliferation of tax cuts for the ruling class.

In 2007, the gross income for the 400 highest earners rose by 31 percent, while their

income taxes dropped to 16.6 percent. This allowed them to earn almost $345 million, while

paying only $57.26 million in income taxes. This is in stark contrast to the bottom 90 percent of

the population, which saw only a 13 percent increase (Deknatel).

The advancement of globalization is also another benefit of these processes, furthering the idea

of ‘free trade’ that brings “greater inequality; restriction of social programs; new threats to our

physical environment; ever-greater concentration of power in the hands of a few very large

corporations” (MacEwan, p. 8). Of course, these corporations also include Big Media, including

companies like Time Warner and Disney, who are moving aggressively in the global market and

“project non-US sales to yield a majority of their revenues within a decade” (McChesney, p. 12).

So, while the consciousness industry approach stands not only to commodify our culture

– either through pushing forward the concept of “thinking visual” in regard to music (Sullivan,

HO) or by changing volleyball rules to coincide better with television (Cohen, HO) – it also

produces an ideological hegemony that furthers one small group over the masses, who controls

the majority of wealth and power in America, and who will do anything to produce that

hegemony – the ruling, capitalist class, who only get wealthier and more powerful as we

continue to give them our consent.