Correcting the underlying causes of democratic capitalism’s “decline” can only succeed if business leaders support efforts to curb pervasive cronyism, strengthen universal suffrage and citizen voice, and restore cultural values supportive of democracy and democratic capitalism.
American Promise has been amazing in this respect, and I have made a point of saying so inorior columns ansd publications. Thanks for adding to this stream of comments.
Business leaders can’t defend democratic capitalism because our governance architecture actively punishes them for trying. When campaign finance forces pay-to-play, when regulatory capture rewards extraction, when markets punish long-term thinking, defending institutions becomes economically irrational.
This is a design problem requiring institutional redesign. We need professional governance architecture - a Federal Governance Agency that designs and maintains democratic infrastructure the way the Federal Reserve manages monetary policy. Not heroes. Not courage. Just competent systems engineering applied to governance.
The business leaders you’re calling to action need more than ethical commitment - they need institutional architecture that aligns their interests with democratic health. That’s achievable. We’re choosing not to build it.
I would only add to your interesting comment is that the most available and promising tool for repairing "the design flaw in our governance architecture is a nullification of Citizen's United." American Promise has been working on a constitutional amendment for some time with some notable progress, and now several Congressional based efforts have joined in. A nullification would go a long way towards curbing oligarchic capture that you rightly highlight. Thanks for your comment.
Thank you for engaging—and I wholeheartedly support the work American Promise is doing. Citizens United was genuinely harmful and overturning it would help.
But I'd push back on "most available and promising." Pre-Citizens United, we still had massive corporate influence through PACs, soft money, bundling, and the revolving door between industry and regulation. Citizens United made things worse, but it didn't create the underlying vulnerability—and overturning it won't eliminate that vulnerability either. Money will route through whatever channels remain open.
The deeper structural flaw: Congress writes its own ethics rules. The people who benefit from pay-to-play are the same people who would have to fix it. That's not fixable by any single court decision.
I wrote about this recently in "Players Making the Rules"—which includes what I'd actually build to solve this category of problem, not just diagnose it. The short version: we need professional governance architecture that's external to the institutions it regulates. The FEC was supposed to do this for campaign finance and was deliberately designed to deadlock.
Citizens United reform is worth pursuing. But it's one patch on a system that needs architectural redesign.
Can you point me to your "Players Making the Rules? All I'm getting from Google search is basketball!! By the way, ditto on PACs. I've been active with Larry Lessig on that, too.
There's a third factor that may prompt "our business leaders to take a public stance" against the current regime of crony capitalism that is being carried out by presidential fiat (i.e., Executive Orders): if these leaders cannot depend on equitable and durable federal and state laws regulating commerce and trade (i.e., to include tariffs), they themselves will fall victim to resulting market forces that neither they nor their own corporate attorneys and experts can foresee or prepare for. This as Professor Salter well knows was tried in the thirties with predictable results.
American Promise has been amazing in this respect, and I have made a point of saying so inorior columns ansd publications. Thanks for adding to this stream of comments.
Business leaders can’t defend democratic capitalism because our governance architecture actively punishes them for trying. When campaign finance forces pay-to-play, when regulatory capture rewards extraction, when markets punish long-term thinking, defending institutions becomes economically irrational.
This is a design problem requiring institutional redesign. We need professional governance architecture - a Federal Governance Agency that designs and maintains democratic infrastructure the way the Federal Reserve manages monetary policy. Not heroes. Not courage. Just competent systems engineering applied to governance.
The business leaders you’re calling to action need more than ethical commitment - they need institutional architecture that aligns their interests with democratic health. That’s achievable. We’re choosing not to build it.
Time to choose differently.
I would only add to your interesting comment is that the most available and promising tool for repairing "the design flaw in our governance architecture is a nullification of Citizen's United." American Promise has been working on a constitutional amendment for some time with some notable progress, and now several Congressional based efforts have joined in. A nullification would go a long way towards curbing oligarchic capture that you rightly highlight. Thanks for your comment.
Thank you for engaging—and I wholeheartedly support the work American Promise is doing. Citizens United was genuinely harmful and overturning it would help.
But I'd push back on "most available and promising." Pre-Citizens United, we still had massive corporate influence through PACs, soft money, bundling, and the revolving door between industry and regulation. Citizens United made things worse, but it didn't create the underlying vulnerability—and overturning it won't eliminate that vulnerability either. Money will route through whatever channels remain open.
The deeper structural flaw: Congress writes its own ethics rules. The people who benefit from pay-to-play are the same people who would have to fix it. That's not fixable by any single court decision.
I wrote about this recently in "Players Making the Rules"—which includes what I'd actually build to solve this category of problem, not just diagnose it. The short version: we need professional governance architecture that's external to the institutions it regulates. The FEC was supposed to do this for campaign finance and was deliberately designed to deadlock.
Citizens United reform is worth pursuing. But it's one patch on a system that needs architectural redesign.
https://statecraftblueprint.org/p/players-making-the-rules
Can you point me to your "Players Making the Rules? All I'm getting from Google search is basketball!! By the way, ditto on PACs. I've been active with Larry Lessig on that, too.
Weird. The link is at the bottom of my comment. Here it is again: https://statecraftblueprint.org/p/players-making-the-rules?r=6shn59&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
You can also just click on my name and go to my Substack. This is my home base.
There's a third factor that may prompt "our business leaders to take a public stance" against the current regime of crony capitalism that is being carried out by presidential fiat (i.e., Executive Orders): if these leaders cannot depend on equitable and durable federal and state laws regulating commerce and trade (i.e., to include tariffs), they themselves will fall victim to resulting market forces that neither they nor their own corporate attorneys and experts can foresee or prepare for. This as Professor Salter well knows was tried in the thirties with predictable results.