Corporate power seriously affects the government and people's ability to solve social problems in the United States. While corporations control the government through campaign contributions and threats of taking their business elsewhere, they control the people through media and job socialization. The widespread corporate use of contingent labor, including temps, part-time workers and contract labor, leaves workers without rights or benefits. The very existence of extensive corporate power leaves citizens feeling helpless and powerless, which causes them to abandon any attempts to challenge forces they feel are oppressive. Corporate power is, in essence, using our society as a tool for its own success. Since the success of the corporation is only based on profits and stock values, social problems such as poverty, racism, sexism and loss of community are not major priorities for the people in power. Corporate power has become so great in the United States that the 2000 elections, the core of democracy in this country, have been deeply influenced in many ways, directly and indirectly, by its presence.

Corporate influence in the government maintains the gap between the rich and the poor. Companies manipulate the federal government by threatening to move production overseas. This mobility is caused by the new technology of the twentieth century (Derber, p.45). Since leaders in the government are afraid to lose corporate tax revenues, they acquiesce to the demands of corporate power for less regulation in areas such as worker compensation, environmental laws, and international trade. The government also appeases corporate demands with the use of corporate welfare, "involving 300 billion dollars yearly in subsidies and tax breaks" (Derber, p. 66). Since the government is so devoted to helping corporations, major social issues such as poverty take a less important position. The money given to corporations in the form of "corporate welfare" could instead be retained and spent on programs to help the poor through welfare, job training, and child-care. Policies involving worker compensation allow corporations to make huge profits at the expense of workers. Low minimum wage requirements allow the existence of the working poor. In the early 1990's, just under twenty percent of the people classified as poor worked at least fifty weeks of the year (Macionis, p. 188). Corporate benefits not only help cause the lack of social programs in the United States; corporations profit from the large numbers of poor and unemployed people who are desperate and willing to work for low wages with little or no benefits such as health care, vacations, or opportunity for promotion. While the privileged few that have a stake in corporate power gain huge amounts of wealth from corporate success, the vast majority of Americans do not benefit. Thus, the gap between the rich and the poor is maintained, if not widened.

Corporations divert the public's attention from the wealth gap in the United States through the mass media. By 1999, only six companies owned over half of all media outlets in the United States, including television and radio stations, newspapers, and magazines (lecture, 10/12/00). With that in mind, it is not hard to believe that much of what we see, hear and read everyday reflects the interests of the corporations that publish it. The media teaches us to blame those below, instead of above us for the current social problems we face, along with "hid[ing] gross inequalities from view" (Massey, p. 169). With "98 percent of households hav[ing] at least on [television] set" (Macionis, p. 71), and four out of every five Americans getting their daily news reports only from T.V. (lecture, 10/12/00), the American people are increasingly at the mercy of the corporate world view. Many people are subsequently not aware of the magnitude of the wealth gap and the poverty in their own country. Even those that see poverty as a major problem are prevented, by the media, from finding the real causes and fighting against them.

Corporate power also hinders society's ability to challenge social problems such as race and gender inequality. Since corporations benefit from the existence of second class citizens, and the subsequent "secondary labor market" (Derber, p.212), they have very little interest in changing the status quo of the white, male, dominated society. Throughout the century, corporations have created gender and race-specific occupations and roles, "enshrining sexism and racism into the bowels of the corporate order" (Derber, p.212). Women have been viewed as, besides belonging in the home instead of out earning money, "unproductive workers" and "a cheap reserve labor force", while immigrants and African-Americans were treated as having "no real work ethic" (Derber. p.213). This discrimination has caused the placement of women and minorities into lower-paying, often tedious, jobs with little or no job security or opportunity for promotion.

The media, along with weakening the means for achieving economic equality, help perpetuate the sexism and racism that allow the existence of the second-tier workforce. In mainstream television women very commonly "play less-capable characters, often important primarily for their sexual attractiveness" (Macionis, p.227) while minorities are often "portray[ed] in stereotypical fashion or exclud[ed]… altogether" (Macionis, p.73). Television, along with the other mass media, has a substantial role in the socialization of Americans (lecture, 10/12/00). People grow up learning the respective stereotypes of women and minorities, and internalize them. This benefits the corporations because few people question their practice of keeping these groups in low-status and low-paying jobs, and paying them less than white men earn for performing the same work in cases where the law does not prohibit them from doing so. The second-class nature of women and minority's employment also makes them more likely than white males to be members of the contingent workforce (Derber, p.212).

The corporate use of contingent labor provides huge profits with very little responsibility to workers. It also leads to well-warranted anxiety and insecurity in the workforce. Corporations use temps, part-time workers, and contract labor in order to "cut costs and en[d] long term corporate obligations to employees" (Derber, p.103). Temp workers face uncertainty as to when, where and how long they will be working. Part-time work, although convenient for those working while raising small children or going to school, leaves workers with lower pay and without the benefits that full time workers doing the same jobs receive. Contract labor releases the corporation from any responsibility concerning working conditions or compensation because the workers are employees of the contractor, not the corporation. Corporations have greater freedom to fire contingent workers without losing face because neither the company nor the workers are bound by the loyalty that is formed through traditional long-term employment. Most contingent workers have no way to form unions since they move often, or are prevented from doing so (if they only work part-time). Even those who hold traditional jobs fear being replaced by contingent workers (Derber, p.109). This mass anxiety and insecurity is one of the major causes of the feeling of powerlessness to change the social order that affects many Americans. Workers have less and less time and energy for their lives away from work, and this contributes to the decline in community (Derber, p.182). With little power over their work and conditions of employment, and no community to form groups and create a voice for its members, many people are left with little or no hope to bring about change. The view that "people drop out of politics when so much wealth and power ends up in the hands of so few", held by power-elite theorists (Macionis, p.302) illustrates that many of the American people really don't have very much political control. The powerlessness of the people, real or imagined, substantially weakens their power to cause change because people who feel powerless are not likely to attempt to take action and cause social improvement. In this way, corporate power greatly impairs the people's ability to join together and contribute to finding solutions to the social problems that affect them and others. The people's feelings of powerlessness and the decline in their willingness to work for change is reflected in the fact the voter turnout in the United States has been lower each year since the 1950's (lecture, 9/26/00).

Low voter turnout affects the 2000 elections because many people who have a stake in the outcome choose not to vote. Those who do not vote because they feel powerless give up a chance to possibly elect someone that would fight on their behalf. The people that feel that they have no control over the political fate of the nation are also less likely to take part in the elections in other ways such as joining political campaigns, attending campaign speeches, or reading about the candidates and ballot measures to become informed of their choices. In their silence, they give those who do take part in the election process a louder voice. Those with stakes in corporate profits are more aware of the consequences of the election and not only choose to vote, but also choose to support the candidates that represent their interests by contributing to the campaigns of their choice.

Corporations' interest in maintaining the wealth gap affects the elections through their financial influence and ownership of the media. Corporations, owning much of the wealth in the nation, have given huge sums of money to both the Democratic and Republican candidates. This way, no matter which one wins, it can be predicted that the government will continue to protect corporate profits in the United States, as well as support the existence and creation of world trade groups that put global corporate power above all other forms of authority. Since these companies give such large amounts of money to the campaigns of the two major parties, other candidates are left at an immense disadvantage.

The media have a huge role in the election process, and are mostly owned by corporations. The debates and news concerning the election are portrayed as the corporate-owned media chose to show them. This is possibly one of the reasons that the strongly anti-corporate candidate, Ralph Nader, was not allowed access to participate in the major televised debates. Corporate control over what subjects are debated is also an issue. Corporate campaign contributions ensure that the topics of importance to business will be thoroughly discussed. Corporations' ownership of the printed media leads to some issues being highlighted while others are all but hidden from public view.

The major effect of corporate power's perpetuation of sexism and racism in the election is that many of the candidates fail to sufficiently target their campaigns towards women and minorities. Some candidates have superficially addressed racially diverse audiences in attempt to gain the votes of minority groups, but have failed to actually support legislation that helps those groups. While George W. Bush was careful to rhetorically include minorities in his campaign, he took stances on issues such as affirmative action and women's reproductive rights that don't correlate with the interests of those groups. Although patriarchy and racial inequality are not, and cannot be viewed as, direct products of corporate power, the idea that corporations have contributed to the lack of advancement of women and minorities must be taken into account. Most corporations would be hesitant to support a candidate that would challenge the social structures of racial and gender inequality because, as was stated before, business explicitly profits from those inequalities.

Corporations have taken hold of our society and strongly influence our government. They work to maintain the status quo, which in many cases is not in the best interest of the people. They support the divisions created by class, race and gender in the American population, and capitalize on the desperate situations of those at the bottom of society. At a time when corporate power threatens the sovereignty of the people of the United States, it is important to support the forces that provide opposition to big business. We must remember that the basis of the nation is that everyone should have the opportunity to make an enjoyable existence for themselves in a reasonable environment. The blind pursuit of profit with disregard for the environment or human rights is not an acceptable way of life; if it becomes the prevailing set of guidelines in our society, we may never solve the social problems that corporations create and maintain.