@Chumly,
If you favor left-wing opinion, then The Young Turks is just the show to watch. The clip provided wasn't the hard hitting investigative journalism related to private prisons that you could expect from a show like Frontline. Three Young Lefties all sharing the same opinion isn't my idea of objective reporting.
As for the lobbying efforts of Correction Corporation of America, The Nation published the following article that is long on leaping assumptions and innuendo, but short on actual facts.
The Nation
Not surprisingly the authors of this article believe that opposition to "comprehensive immigration reform" which includes a provision for amnesty and support for the once-and-for-all securing of our Southern border, are positions which just had to be paid for since they are so obviously wrong and immoral that even evil Republicans wouldn't be for them unless a company like CCA paid them to be.
But here's the real proof that they save for the end
Quote:(Texas Senator John) Cornyn’s amendment called for $3 billion to be spent on a mix of drones, border security guards, funding for 3,300 beds for immigrant detention over two years as well as 500 additional detention officers. In 2005, Cornyn’s immigration reform legislation called for 10,000 new ICE detention beds.
Forget that this is precisely what is needed if a serious effort to secure the border is necessary, Cornyn never would have thought of this if it weren't for CCA money.
I would expect CCA to lobby legislators in regards to any legislation that might be proposed at the State or Federal level to either prohibit private prisons or that involves regulation of the ones in place. Any industry would do this, and there is nothing sinister about it. Industry lobbying efforts on regulations rarely, if ever, kills all of the regulations. This may come as a surprise to those who are not particularly fond of corporations, but consider government regulators pure of heart and unsullied by political bias, but often proposed regulations contain excessive provisions that are based not on need but on ideology or the urge to flex government muscle. Lobbying in this regard focuses on educating legislators who are sympathetic to their interests on the facts about the regulations and what their impact will be on the industry being regulated. The purpose is to negotiate with the regulators, through these legislators, to have what they consider the most excessive or unworkable provisions eliminated.
I have been involved with industry lobbying efforts (not private prisons) and through the efforts of our lobbyists I was able to sit down across a table with legislators, both pro and con, and try and explain why a given regulation would be unnecessarily burdensome and/or why it wouldn't achieve the intended results. Sometimes these "negotiations" were successful and sometimes they were not but there was never a time when my company or my industry even thought that all it had to do was give money to our lobbyists so they could buy the results we wanted.
Money is transferred through lobbyists to the campaign funds of certain politicians and this is, within certain statutory limitations, perfectly legal. We did not ever say to our lobbyist that this money is to purchase the following legislature. Part of the money paid by a company or industry to a lobbyist is to obtain their assessment of which politicians are most likely to be in step with their interests. This could be on the simple basis that the politician was perceived to pro-business and anti-regulation, or that the given company or industry was a big employer of voters in the politicians state, city or town. A lobbyist tells you where you are likely to get the biggest bang for your buck, and some may be surprised that for businesses this is often Democrats. My company had certain financial interests that lined up with agriculture and we contributed to the campaign coffers of a number of Democrat Senators and congressmen from the Heartland. Were they corrupt?
Progressive causes spend lots of money lobbying, and Democrat and progressive politicians receive a lot of campaign contributions from individual corporations through lobbyists. The notion that the way the game is played by one side of the political spectrum is noble and squeaky clean, but sinister and corrupt as played by the other, is simply ridiculous.
Obviously there are shady lobbying and campaign funding but neither party is free of it.
If CCA stands to make more money if border security is strengthened than it makes perfect sense for them to spend money to help elect or keep in office politicians who champion a secure border, and who have enough of a base of voters who also want to see the border made secure. This isn't, as the shoddy Nation article suggests, purchasing a speech at the Republican National Convention or an amendment to increase funding of border security.
One of the more ridiculous offerings of "proof" that CCA is buying tougher prison sentences came from Chris Kirkham in the Huffington Post:
Quote:Corrections Corporation's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission clearly point out that business success is tied to a status quo in criminal justice policy.
"The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by the relaxation of enforcement efforts, leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices or through the decriminalization of certain activities that are currently proscribed by our criminal laws," the company's most recent annual filing noted. "For instance, any changes with respect to drugs and controlled substances or illegal immigration could affect the number of persons arrested, convicted, and sentenced, thereby potentially reducing demand for correctional facilities to house them."
Not only is this statement blatantly obvious, accurate and not sinister, it is required by the SEC to inform investors of what are, potentially, the most significant risks for the CCA's profit generation. They are called SEC filings because they are required by the SEC, and they are not admission of nefarious intent cleverly squeezed out of company by the SEC.
In any case, what's most wrong with our penal system is not that it has, to any degree been privatized, and even if you despise the notion of private prisons, that's not a reason to oppose the prison labor program that resulted in this thread.
