How cash secretly rules surveillance policy
Today's congressional hearing was a joke. The reason: Firms like Booz Allen bankroll and own Congress. Here's how
By David SirotaTopics: Media Criticism, NSA, Edward Snowden, Congress, U.S. House of Representatives, Money, Money in politics, Editor's Picks, Media News, Politics News
Have you noticed anything missing in the political discourse about the National Security Administration’s unprecedented mass surveillance? There’s certainly been a robust — and welcome — discussion about the balance between security and liberty, and there’s at least been some conversation about the intelligence community’s potential criminality and constitutional violations.
Thanks to what I’ve previously called the No Money Rule, however, there have only been indirect references to how cash undoubtedly tilts the debate against those who challenge the national security state.
Those indirect references have come in the form of stories about the business model of Booz Allen Hamilton, the security contractor that employed Edward Snowden.
CNN/Money notes that 99 percent of the firm’s multibillion-dollar annual revenues now come from the federal government. Those revenues are part of a larger and growing economic sector within the military-industrial complex — a sector that, according to author Tim Shorrock, is “a $56 billion-a-year industry.”
For the most part, this is where the political discourse about money stops. We are told that there are high-minded debates about security and liberty, with politicians of differing parties contributing to those debates from positions of principle and ideology. We are also told in passing that there’s this massively profitable private industry that makes billions a year from the policy decisions that ultimately emerge from such a debate.
Thanks to the No Money Rule among the Washington press corps, though, there is mostly silence about the connection between the private industry and the public policy. Indeed, few in D.C. are willing to say that the policy debate may be, in part, driven by the private industry and almost nobody dares mention that politicians’ attacks on surveillance critics may actually have nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with going to bat for their campaign donors.
For a taste of what that kind of institutionalized corruption looks like, take a look at the amount of money Booz Allen Hamilton and its parent company The Carlyle Group spend on campaign contributions and lobbying. As you’ll see, from Barack Obama to John McCain, many of the politicians now publicly defending the surveillance state and slamming whistleblowers like Snowden have taken huge sums of money from these two firms. Same thing for the political parties themselves – they are bankrolled by these firms.
This is just an example from two companies among scores, but it exemplifies a larger dynamic. Simply put, there are huge corporate forces with a vested financial interest in making sure the debate over security is tilted toward the surveillance state and against critics of that surveillance state. In practice, that means when those corporations spend big money on campaign contributions, they aren’t just buying votes for specific private contracts. They are also implicitly pressuring politicians to rhetorically push the discourse in a pro-surveillance, anti-civil liberties direction — that is, in a direction that preserves the larger political assumptions on which the profits of the entire surveillance-industrial complex are based.
The success of that pressure is exemplified by the title of today’s congressional hearing with the head of the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander. The hearing doesn’t ask why Alexander lied to Congress or whether the NSA has engaged in illegal acts. No, a Congress bankrolled by firms like Booz Allen predictably calls the hearing “How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans and Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries,” the two preconceived assumptions being that 1) the NSA’s surveillance programs, which generate huge profits for companies like Booz, are beneficial to Americans’ security and 2) critics of those programs hurt the country.
None of this, by the way, is exclusive to debates over domestic national security policy. As Booz Allen’s business model suggests, there are also foreign policy implications to the pay-to-play culture.
As the New York Times notes, the firm is expanding its profit potential by “marketing” its surveillance and security services to Middle East dictatorships that want to strengthen their grip on power. According to the Washington Business Journal, that includes Kuwait, Qatar, Omar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and “other countries” working to crush democratic dissent “associated with the Arab Spring.” That means American politicians who are financed by Booz and other firms with a similar multinational business model not only have a vested campaign-contribution interest in shilling for the domestic surveillance state that their donors profit from. They also have a similar interest in denigrating the democratic protest movements that challenge Mideast surveillance states that make those donors big money, too.
Obviously, this kind of moneyed influence should be a critical focus of the political reporting on politicians’ declarations about Snowden, the NSA, foreign policy and surveillance in general. When, for instance, a journalist reports on a politician slamming critics of the surveillance state, the public should be told whether that politician has taken money from firms that make their money off the continued expansion of that surveillance state. But that isn’t happening thanks to the aforementioned No Money Rule in the Washington press — and that rule isn’t just about etiquette. On national security issues, it is often about the elite agenda-setting Washington media outlets that also financially rely on an ever-expanding national security state.
For a microcosmic (but not the only) example of that little-mentioned reliance — and how it may skew the way the elite media frame the national security debate — look at these side-by-side pages from the ultimate agenda-setting D.C. newspaper, Politico:

As you can see, the ad on the left side is for a defense contractor. Like surveillance/security firms, it is part of a larger industry that relies on the ever-expanding national security state for its profits, and that therefore is hostile to national security state critics like Snowden. That industry invests heavily not only in politicians, but in advertising in Washington publications like Politico. Is it any coincidence that (as you can see on the right page) such publications loyally frame the debate over Snowden not as a question that ponders possible positive qualities (heroism, courage, etc.) but as a question exclusively of negatives: specifically, did he commit treason or is he a traitor?
Noting all of this isn’t to allege conspiratorial micromanagement of politicians and media by the military-intelligence community. It isn’t, for instance, to claim that everything that comes out of surveillance defenders’ mouths comes from talking points provided by Booz Allen’s lobbyists, nor is it to claim that Politico writers are directly ordered by their advertisers to depict national security critics on exclusively negative terms. It is actually to suggest something much more pernicious and ubiquitous than that.
As anyone who has worked in Washington politics and media well knows, the capital is not a place of competing high-minded ideologies; in terms of the mechanics of legislation and policy, it is a place where monied interests duke it, where those with the most money typically win, and where a power-worshiping media is usually biased toward the winners. In the context of money and national security, there is a clear imbalance — there are far fewer moneyed interests whose business is transparency and protecting civil liberties than there are moneyed interests whose business is secrecy and curtailing civil liberties. That imbalance has consequently resulted in a larger environment in Washington that is so dominated by national-security-state money that the capital’s assumptions reflexively, unconsciously and automatically skew toward the national security state without overt corporate orders ever having to be given to politicians or media outlets.
If the simplest, most straightforward explanation is often the most accurate, then this skewing is almost certainly part of why the pro-surveillance terms of the political debate in Washington are so at odds with public opinion polling on the matter. Big Money has helped create that disconnect, even though Big Money is somehow written out of the story.
David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com. More David Sirota.
You Might Also Like
More Related Stories
-
Will Fox News change with America?
-
Fox News adopts George Zimmerman
-
Erick Erickson, Internet comedian, jokes about reproductive rights
-
Debunking "unfair advantage" myths about trans athletes
-
Sunday shows: What you missed
-
DOMA isn't dead yet
-
Machiavelli doesn't belong to the 1 percent
-
Who's leaking more: Snowden or the government condemning him?
-
Obama's war on journalism
-
France wants to block Amazon underselling
-
When Twitter does what journalism can't
-
Frank Rich skewers David Gregory: Move him to "Today" show
-
My surprise sit-down with Tony Soprano
-
Rush is unhappy with the Supreme Court
-
Meet the Wendy Davis fan club
-
Michael Bay casts white guy in Japanese role
-
Ken Hoinsky's Reddit AMA reveals dark incidents from his "seduction" history
-
Georgia mother says the state asked her to "prove" she's a woman
-
No, Cory Booker isn't "too Jewish" for the Senate
-
Social media is not the "universal scoring system" for journalism
-
Pickup artist Ken Hoinsky apologizes for promoting predatory behavior
Featured Slide Shows
7 motorist-friendly camping sites
close X- Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook
- Thumbnails
- Fullscreen
- 1 of 9
- Previous
- Next
Sponsored Post
-
White River National Forest via Lower Crystal Lake, Colorado For those OK with the mainstream, White River Forest welcomes more than 10 million visitors a year, making it the most-visited recreation forest in the nation. But don’t hate it for being beautiful; it’s got substance, too. The forest boasts 8 wilderness areas, 2,500 miles of trail, 1,900 miles of winding service system roads, and 12 ski resorts (should your snow shredders fit the trunk space). If ice isn’t your thing: take the tire-friendly Flat Tops Trail Scenic Byway — 82 miles connecting the towns of Meeker and Yampa, half of which is unpaved for you road rebels. fs.usda.gov/whiteriveryou
Image credit: Getty
-
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest via Noontootla Creek, GeorgiaBoasting 10 wildernesses, 430 miles of trail and 1,367 miles of trout-filled stream, this Georgia forest is hailed as a camper’s paradise. Try driving the Ridge and Valley Scenic Byway, which saw Civil War battles fought. If the tall peaks make your engine tremble, opt for the relatively flat Oconee National Forest, which offers smaller hills and an easy trail to the ghost town of Scull Shoals. Scaredy-cats can opt for John’s Mountain Overlook, which leads to twin waterfalls for the sensitive sightseer in you. fs.usda.gov/conf
Image credit: flickr/chattoconeenf
-
Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area via Green Road, Michigan The only national forest in Lower Michigan, the Huron-Mainstee spans nearly 1 million acres of public land. Outside the requisite lush habitat for fish and wildlife on display, the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area is among the biggest hooks for visitors: offering beach camping with shores pounded by big, cerulean surf. Splash in some rum and you just might think you were in the Caribbean. fs.usda.gov/hmnf
Image credit: umich.edu
-
Canaan Mountain via Backcountry Canaan Loop Road, West Virginia A favorite hailed by outdoorsman and author Johnny Molloy as some of the best high-country car camping sites anywhere in the country, you don’t have to go far to get away. Travel 20 miles west of Dolly Sods (among the busiest in the East) to find the Canaan Backcountry (for more quiet and peace). Those willing to leave the car for a bit and foot it would be remiss to neglect day-hiking the White Rim Rocks, Table Rock Overlook, or the rim at Blackwater River Gorge. fs.usda.gov/mnf
Image credit: Getty
-
Mt. Rogers NRA via Hurricane Creek Road, North CarolinaMost know it as the highest country they’ll see from North Carolina to New Hampshire. What they may not know? Car campers can get the same grand experience for less hassle. Drop the 50-pound backpacks and take the highway to the high country by stopping anywhere on the twisting (hence the name) Hurricane Road for access to a 15-mile loop that boasts the best of the grassy balds. It’s the road less travelled, and the high one, at that. fs.usda.gov/gwj
Image credit: wikipedia.org
-
Long Key State Park via the Overseas Highway, Florida Hiking can get old; sometimes you’d rather paddle. For a weekend getaway of the coastal variety and quieter version of the Florida Keys that’s no less luxe, stick your head in the sand (and ocean, if snorkeling’s your thing) at any of Long Key’s 60 sites. Canoes and kayaks are aplenty, as are the hot showers and electric power source amenities. Think of it as the getaway from the typical getaway. floridastateparks.org/longkey/default.cfm
Image credit: floridastateparks.org
-
Grand Canyon National Park via Crazy Jug Point, Arizona You didn’t think we’d neglect one of the world’s most famous national parks, did you? Nor would we dare lead you astray with one of the busiest parts of the park. With the Colorado River still within view of this cliff-edge site, Crazy Jug is a carside camper’s refuge from the troops of tourists. Find easy access to the Bill Hall Trail less than a mile from camp, and descend to get a peek at the volcanic Mt. Trumbull. (Fear not: It’s about as active as your typical lazy Sunday in front of the tube, if not more peaceful.) fs.usda.gov/kaibab
Image credit: flickr/Irish Typepad
-
As the go-to (weekend) getaway car for fiscally conscious field trips with friends, the 2013 MINI Convertible is your campground racer of choice, allowing you and up to three of your co-pilots to take in all the beauty of nature high and low. And with a fuel efficiency that won’t leave you in the latter, you won’t have to worry about being left stranded (or awkwardly asking to go halfsies on gas expenses).
Image credit: miniusa.com
-
Recent Slide Shows
-
7 motorist-friendly camping sites
-
Gripping photos: The people of the Turkey protests (slideshow)
-
The week in 10 pics
-
Photos: Turmoil and tear gas in Instanbul's Gezi Park - Slideshow
-
- Share on Twitter
- Share on Facebook
- Thumbnails
- Fullscreen
- 1 of 9
- Previous
- Next
-
The week in 10 pics
-
10 summer food festivals worth the pit stop
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
9 amazing drive-in movie theaters still standing
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
Netflix's April Fools' Day categories
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
-
The week in 10 pics
Related Videos
Most Read
-
NSA reportedly has secret data collection agreement with several European countries Prachi Gupta
-
The best of Tumblr porn Tracy Clark-Flory
-
The smearing of Rachel Jeantel Mary Elizabeth Williams
-
SCOTUS: No right to remain silent unless you speak up Christopher Zara, International Business Times
-
You are how you sneeze Ryan O'Hanlon, Pacific Standard
-
NYT columnist Michael Powell slams NYT columnist Thomas Friedman Jillian Rayfield
-
Thanks for nothing, college! Tim Donovan
-
The Atlantic's latest silly idea is wrong: No, fast food won't cure obesity Deena Shanker
-
"Do it again or I’m gonna call your wife”: Inside the world of financial domination Ej Dickson
-
New Bank of America whistle-blower emerges: More customer abuse secrets David Dayen









Comments
32 Comments