Can Infotraks Quarterly Report Be Uploaded Directly to the Fcc?
The Corporate Community, Nonprofit Organizations, and Federal Advisory Committees: A Study in Linkages
Federal advisory committees are a little-known, footling-studied, merely often important link between the corporate community and the federal government.
Not much was known well-nigh these committees until the early 1970s, when Senator Lee Metcalf of Montana turned his attention to them. With the help of a savvy aide, Vic Reinemer, and taking advantage of the general ferment nearly regime secrecy, Metcalf was able to pass a new Federal Advisory Committee Human activity in 1972. Information technology required that records of all informational committees be made available to the public, except for those pertaining to the CIA, the Federal Reserve System, and areas restricted by reason of "national security."
Since 1973 the government has provided an almanac report on federal informational committees. Materials on the committees can exist plant in libraries under the keyword "federal informational committees." Almost current materials are now available electronically. They tin be found through InfoTrack or other general magazine/periodical databases. A search for "federal advisory committee," without an "s" on committee, locates thousands of announcements of meetings and other information related to 1 of these committees. Unremarkably information technology is FedNet Regime News that is providing the data. For instance:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Bureau of Land Direction, Sierra Front-
Northwestern Great Basin Resource Advisory Council; Find of Meeting Locations and Times. FedNet Regime News March 1, 2005 (256 words).
When the "due south" is added, "federal advisory committees" locates several dozen articles relating to these committees. Often they concern medical, scientific, and technical issues relating to the government.
There have been only a relative scattering of social-scientific discipline studies making use of the information on advisory committees. They can be located through various social-science abstracts. The first report by a power structure researcher (Useem, 1980) showed that the corporate members of informational committees in 1976 were more often on several corporate boards and in policy-planning organizations than other business organization executives. Business leaders were most often on advisory committees for the land, defense, commerce, and interior departments at that time.
A written report of high-level executives from the largest 50 financial corporations and largest 150 non-financials revealed that 72% of the companies had an executive on at least one advisory commission in 1973, with the figure falling to 47.5% in 1977 (Priest, Sylves, & Scudder, 1984). The researchers suggest that the reject was due to the legislation leading to greater publicity for committee members. When they looked at business representation past executive department, they agreed with Useem (1980) on country, defence, commerce, and interior, but added the Department of Treasury and the newly founded Department of Energy to the listing. In fact, business organisation interest was greatest in 1977 with the various agencies that were put into the Section of Energy.
More recently, Balla and Wright (2001) conclude that "interest groups" are able to place their members on relevant federal advisory committees, which for these political scientists means that the government receives expert data on the "true preferences" of private interests. Well, that's ane way of putting it, I guess.
Another recent written report used a comparing of committees with open or closed meetings to test diverse theories concerning their office (Karty, 2002). Information technology first of all found that 58% of all federal advisory committee members in the years from 1997 through 2000 were from universities and independent research institutes, reflecting the large part of professors and researchers in reviewing scientific grant proposals and in providing advice on medical and technical issues. Another 18% of committee members were from corporations or business concern trade associations. They served on very dissimilar committees than the professors and researchers. Another xiii% of members came from the government. The remainder came from a wide range of areas, including nonprofit organizations, foundations, public interest groups, and trade unions.
The comparing of committees with open up and closed meetings, using sophisticated quantitative analyses, provided support for the idea that some advisory committees are "captured" by one or another industry. This was especially the case for committees of the Department of Commerce and the Department of Agriculture in this study. However, the writer notes that the years 1997 through 2000 were in some ways unusual when he compared them with data for earlier years, so he urged caution in interpreting and generalizing his results. Still, this written report shows the kind of detailed work on large databases that is now possible.
If there is any dubiety that the corporate customs has a big impact, to the bespeak of capture, on the advisory committees in the Department of Commerce, it should be dispelled by research showing that they played a central office in formulating the Due north American Gratuitous Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for presentation to Congress (Dreiling, 2001). It also describes how the advisory committees were linked to the corporations that had formed a lobbying alliance chosen NAFTA*Us, which in plough had been created by one of the nigh fundamental policy-discussion groups in the corporate customs, the Business organisation Roundtable. More than mostly, Dreiling'south written report is ane of the nearly sophisticated and detailed quantitative analyses ever produced of the overall tight relationships among corporations, policy groups, Political Activity Committees (PACs), federal advisory committees, and Congress. It shows how the policy groups work through the informational committees to develop the policy initiatives they want presented to Congress, then form temporary lobbying groups to make certain their plans become through Congress. The donations from the PACs come into the picture by reminding the legislators of the source of most of their campaign funding, the corporate community.
The most recent and exhaustive sociological study using membership records for the advisory committees is a network analysis of the connections among corporations, nonprofit groups, and federal advisory committees. It uses director and membership information from 1998 to observe that the overlaps betwixt some corporations and advisory boards are and so big that 4 advisory committees are among the most central organizations in a combined corporate/nonprofit/advisory committee network (Moore et al., 2003; Moore, Sobieraj, Whitt, Mayorova, & Beaulieu, 2002). The details of this interesting study are provided below.
How important are these advisory committees? The peak business leaders evidently recall they are important, as shown by their participation on them. However, at that place is only one in-depth written report of how they function, from back in the 1970s. It is based on hush-hush minutes of an advisory committee to the Section of Defense that existed from 1962 through 1972, during the tensions of the Vietnam State of war. Many of those tensions are revealed in the minutes. These documents were given to a member of an anti-military group of that era, National Action/Research on the Armed services-Industrial Complex, known as NARMIC. The article based on the minutes was written by a research consultant to the NARMIC group (Roose, 1975). The article can be establish at the end of this document. It shows that it is oft the seemingly pocket-sized things that matter to corporations when it comes to government regulations. The devil is in the details.
Background
Before going to the recent findings past Moore, et al. (2002) on interlocks between the corporate community, nonprofit organizations, and the federal advisory committees, a give-and-take or two on the committees they studied for 1998 might exist useful.
There are over 37,000 seats on about ane,000 federal advisory commission and commissions, which give their communication to the relevant agencies of authorities. Not all 37,000 people were studied in the Moore, et al. research written report I am drawing on hither. Of necessity, the study focused on the names in its database of directors for 100 corporations and 109 nonprofit groups (specifically, 12 policy-planning groups, 50 foundations, and 47 charities). The written report and then checked to see which names in the database too appeared equally members of federal informational committees. And then it is not a report of all members of all federal informational committees.
According to this study, over sixty% of the 37,000 advisory committee appointees are professionals in medicine and social welfare who are helping out the Department of Health and Human Services. Another 10% are on committees related to the Department of Transportation. Others give communication to science agencies of the authorities. There are few or no people from the corporate customs or the policy-planning network who serve on these particular committees.
The main findings
There are iv main findings from the Moore et al. study that relate to the power of the corporate customs and the closely related policy-planning network. Showtime, the corporate and nonprofit directors about often sat on advisory committees for the Department of Defense force, the Department of Energy, and the FCC.
2d, a handful of corporate executives served on two or more of these committees, and they were very of import corporate executives indeed. In fact, they frequently sat together on the aforementioned few committees. The most visible of them was future President George West. Bush-league's good friend, Kenneth Lay, who presided over the disgraceful cheating at Enron Corporation. He served on the National Petroleum Council and the President's Council for Sustainable Development in 1998, both in the Department of Free energy.
Third, it is noteworthy that fifty-fifty though the report used commission members from the Clinton Administration, the list included people like Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defence force in the George H. W. Bush-league administration, and soon to be Vice President in the George W. Bush Assistants. He served on the Department of Energy'south National Petroleum Council, where he joined with his friend Kenneth Lay of Enron. At the time, Cheney was chairman of Halliburton, a conglomerate of construction and oil drilling companies. Paul O'Neill, and then the chairman of Alcoa, merely soon to be Bush's start Secretary of Treasury, too served on an informational committee. What these examples tell us is that pro-Republican business concern executives have plenty of access to Democratic administrations.
Tabular array 1: The top xv advisory committees in terms of linkages to the corporate/
| Name | Centrality score |
|---|---|
| Network Reliability and Interoperability Council | 2.410 |
| President'southward National Security Telecommunications Informational Committee | 2.375 |
| President'due south Consign Council | 2.322 |
| National Petroleum Council | 1.658 |
| International Competition and Policy Advisory Committee | i.484 |
| Overseas Presence Advisory Panel | 0.776 |
| President'south Council on Sustainable Evolution | 0.766 |
| Advisory Committee on Labor Diplomacy | 0.758 |
| Bureau of State Management Scientific discipline Informational Board | 0.736 |
| National Committee on Mathematics and Scientific discipline Teaching for the 21st Century | 0.723 |
| Historically Black Colleges and Universities Advisory Board | 0.707 |
| Advisory Commission to the Director of National Found of Wellness | 0.700 |
| National Advisory Committee for the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation | 0.699 |
| American National Coal Council | 0.695 |
| Defense Policy Advisory Committee on Trade | 0.132 |
Fourth, several of the federal advisory committees have a central position in the overall network created by the links amongst the directors in the database. To brand this point,
Table two: The 15 about central organizations in the corporate/
| Organization | Sector/Subsector | Centrality score |
|---|---|---|
| Commission for Economic Development | Think Tank | 140.81 |
| Academy of Chicago | University | 3.66 |
| Briefing Board | Think Tank | 3.60 |
| Verizon | Business | 3.29 |
| Proctor & Hazard | Business | three.21 |
| National Bureau of Economic Inquiry | Think Tank | three.01 |
| Network Reliability and Interoperability Council | Regime Informational Board | 2.41 |
| President's National Security Telecommunications | Government Advisory Board | 2.38 |
| Centrolineal Signal | Business | 2.36 |
| Exxon Mobil | Business | 2.36 |
| President's Export Council | Regime Advisory Lath | two.32 |
| Columbia University | Academy | one.66 |
| Ford Foundation | Foundation | one.66 |
| Sara Lee Corporation | Business | 1.66 |
| National Petroleum Council | Government Advisory Board | 1.66 |
Conclusion
Based on the prominence of the executives serving on these particular federal informational committees, and the centrality of some of the committees within the corporate/nonprofit network, there is expert reason to believe that they have an important role in the overall power arrangement. However, there is a need for more example studies of informational committees on which business executives serve, offset with the prominent advisory committees in
For further reading, see "Summit Dogs and Top Brass: An inside wait at a government advisory committee," by Diana Roose (1975).
References
Balla, S. J., & Wright, J. R. (2001). Involvement groups, informational committees, and congressional control of the bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science,, 45.
Dreiling, M. (2001). Solidarity and Contention: The Politics of Grade and Sustainability in the NAFTA Conflict. New York: Garland Press.
Karty, Yard. D. (2002). Closure and capture in federal advisory committees. Business and Politics, 4, 213-238.
Moore, G., Raffalovich, L., Whitt, J. A., Sobieraj, S., Beaulieu, D., & Dolan, S. (2003). Ties that bind: Exploring the neglected office of nonprofits in corporate and government networks. Paper presented at the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.
Moore, K., Sobieraj, S., Whitt, J., Mayorova, O., & Beaulieu, D. (2002). Aristocracy interlocks in 3 U.S. sectors: Nonprofit, corporate, and authorities. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 726-744.
Priest, T. B., Sylves, R. T., & Scudder, D. F. (1984). Corporate advice: Large corporations and federal advisory committees. Social Science Quarterly, 65, 100-111.
Roose, D. (1975). Pinnacle Dogs and Top Contumely: An inside look at a government advisory committee. The Insurgent Sociologist, 5, 53-63.
Useem, M. (1980). Which Business Leaders Assist Govern? In G. W. Domhoff (Ed.), Power Construction Research (pp. 199-225). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Appendix
This appendix lists the members of 15 federal advisory committees who are also with corporations or policy-planning groups in the non-governmental function of the database created by Moore et al. Their main managing director affiliations are included adjacent to their names. If a person serves on two or more than of the 15 advisory committees, the number past his or her name indicates the number of committees.
Note that "CED" stands for the Committee for Economic Development, a policy-planning group.
The names are grouped by commission then that readers tin come across the kinds of corporations and policy-planning groups that tend to be involved with dissimilar types of committees.
| Agency / Committee | Fellow member | Directorships |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Communications Committee Network Reliability and Interoperability Quango | Ackerman, F. Duane (2) | BellSouth |
| Armstrong, C. Michael (3) | AT&T; Travelers Group | |
| Condit, Philip Grand. (three) | Hewlett Packard | |
| Esrey, William T. (2) | Duke Energy; Exxon Mobil; Sprint | |
| Galvin, Christopher B. | Motorola; Rand; American Enterprise Institute | |
| Lee, Charles R. (ii) | GTE; USX; Procter & Gamble | |
| Mcginn, Richard A. | Lucent Technologies | |
| Morgridge, John P. | Nature Conservancy | |
| Notebaert, Richard C. | Sears & Roebuck; Ameritech | |
| Roth, John A. | CED | |
| Smith, Raymond W. | First Union Bank; Brookings Institution | |
| Taylor, Gerald H. | MCI | |
| Trujillo, Solomon D. (2) | Dayton Hudson; Banking concern of America | |
| Dept. of Defense Natl. Security Telecommunications Informational Committee | Armstrong, C. Michael (3) | AT&T; Travelers Grouping |
| Dark-brown, Richard H. | Electronic Data Systems | |
| Coffman, Vance D. (2) | Bristol Myers Squibb; Lockheed Martin | |
| Esrey, William T. (2) | Duke Energy; Exxon Mobil; Dart | |
| Gorman, Joseph T. (2) | Procter & Gamble | |
| Lee, Charles R. (2) | GTE; Procter & Gamble; USX | |
| Picard, Dennis J. (iii) | Raytheon | |
| Roberts, Bert C. Jr. | MCI | |
| Tooker, Gary L. | Atlantic Richfield; Motorola | |
| Trujillo, Solomon D. (2) | Bank of America; Dayton Hudson | |
| Dept. of Commerce President'southward Consign Council | Ackerman, F. Duane (two) | BellSouth |
| Armstrong, C. Michael (three) | AT&T; Travelers Group | |
| Condit, Philip K. (3) | Boeing; Hewlett Packard | |
| Gordon, Ellen R. | CED | |
| Gorman, Joseph T. (ii) | Procter & Gamble | |
| Hashemite kingdom of jordan, Michael H. | Aetna | |
| Kelly, James P. | UPS | |
| Picard, Dennis J. (three) | Raytheon | |
| Savage, Frank | Lockheed Martin | |
| Tisch, Jonathan M. | Loews Hotels | |
| Turner, Kathryn C. (2) | Phillips Petroleum | |
| Dept. of Energy National Petroleum Council | Beghini, Victor G. | USX |
| Bijur, Peter I. | Texaco; International Newspaper | |
| Blanton, Jack Southward. | SBC | |
| Bowlin, Mike R. | Atlantic Richfield | |
| Campbell, Robert H. | Cigna | |
| Carroll, Philip J. | Flour | |
| Catell, Robert B. | CED | |
| Cheney, Richard B. | Halliburton; Procter & Chance; Electronic Data Systems; American Enterprise Constitute | |
| Derr, Kenneth T. | AT&T; Chevron; Citigroup | |
| Dunham, Archie Westward. | DuPont | |
| Fuller, H. Lawrence | Amoco; Motorola | |
| Hendrix, Dennis R. | Duke Free energy | |
| Hunt, Ray Fifty. | Electronic Data Systems | |
| Lay, Kenneth L. (2) | Enron; Compaq Computer | |
| McCracken, Edward R. | 3M | |
| Mulva, James J. | Phillips Petroleum | |
| Priory, Richard B. | Knuckles Energy; NationsBank | |
| Raymond, Lee R. | Exxon Mobil; Morgan Chase | |
| Sawhill, John C. (iii) | Pacific Gas & Electric; Procter & Gamble; Nature Conservancy; CED | |
| Dept. of Justice Intl. Competition Policy Advisory Committee | Baird, Zoe | Brookings Institution |
| Gilmartin, Raymond V. | Merck; CED; Conference Board | |
| Hashemite kingdom of jordan, Vernon E. Jr. | American Express; Sara Lee; Xerox; JC Penney; Ford Foundation | |
| Rattner, Steven L. | Wall Street Investment Banker; Brookings Establishment | |
| Stern, Paula | Wal-Mart; CED | |
| Dept. of State Overseas Presence Advisory Panel | Friedman, Stephen | Goldman Sachs; Wal-Mart; Brookings Institution; National Bureau of Economic Inquiry |
| Mchenry, Donald F. | International Newspaper; AT&T; Coca Cola | |
| O'Neill, Paul H. | Banking company of America; Eastman Kodak; Clear-cut Technologies; American Enterprise Constitute | |
| Welch, John F. Jr. | General Electrical | |
| Dept. of Energy Council on Sustainable Development | Buzzelli, David T. | Dow Chemical |
| Johnson, Samuel C. | Exxon Mobil; Nature Conservancy | |
| Lay, Kenneth L. (two) | Enron; Compaq Computer | |
| Pearce, Harry J. | General Motors | |
| Sawhill, John C. (3) | Pacific Gas & Electric; Procter & Take a chance; Nature Salvation; CED | |
| Dept. of State Advisory Commission on Labor Diplomacy | Donahue, Thomas R. | Council on Foreign Relations |
| Doyle, Frank P. (ii) | CED | |
| Marshall, Ray | USX | |
| Dept. of the Interior Bureau of Land Direction Science Advisory Board | Andrus, Cecil Dale | Albertson'due south |
| Sawhill, John C. (3) | Pacific Gas & Electrical; Procter & Gamble; Nature Salvation; CED | |
| Dept. of Education NN\ational Committee on Mathematics and Science Didactics for the 21st Century | Barrett, Craig R. | Intel |
| Massey, Walter E. | Bank of America; Amoco; Motorola | |
| Rust, Edward B. Jr. | State Farm Insurance; American Enterprise Plant | |
| Tien, Chang Fifty. | Chevron; CED | |
| Dept. of Education Historically Blackness Colleges and Universities Advisory Board | Gray, William H. Iii | Electronic Information Systems; Prudential |
| Dept. of Health & Human Services Informational Commission to the Manager of NIH | Simmons, Ruth J. | CED |
| Dept. of Labor Informational Committee for North American Agreement | Doyle, Frank P. (2) | CED |
| Dept. of Energy American National Coal Council | Draper, E. L Jr. | American National Coal Council; CED |
| Dept. of Defense Defense force Policy Informational Commission on Merchandise | Augustine, Norman R. | Phillips Petroleum; Procter & Gamble |
| Brown, Harold | Phillip Morris; RAND Corporation; Trilateral Commission | |
| Burt, Richard R. | Archer Daniels Midland | |
| Coffman, Vance D. (ii) | Bristol Myers Squibb; Lockheed Martin | |
| Condit, Philip 1000. (3) | Boeing; Hewlett Packard | |
| David, George A. | United Technologies | |
| Greenberg, Maurice R. | AIG Insurance; Council on Foreign Relations | |
| Kresa, Kent | Chrysler; Atlantic Richfield | |
| Nye, Joseph Due south. Jr. | Trilateral Commission | |
| Picard, Dennis J. (3) | Raytheon | |
| Turner, Kathryn C. | Phillips Petroleum |
First posted April 2005
This certificate'due south URL: http://whorulesamerica.internet/power/federal_advisory_committees.html
All content ©2022 Grand. William Domhoff, unless otherwise noted. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Please directly technical questions regarding this Web site to Adam Schneider.
Source: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/federal_advisory_committees.html
0 Response to "Can Infotraks Quarterly Report Be Uploaded Directly to the Fcc?"
Post a Comment