The Number 5 Censored news story for 2000 is an particularly pernicious form of corporate welfare through the United States Export-Import Bank, which has funded numerous nuclear energy building projects in the developing world. Ex-Im is a government program which extends artificially sweet loans — guaranteed by U.S. taxpayer money — to the governments of developing countries in order to allow big U.S. contractors to build there. In a typical boondoggle,

Westinghouse built the Bataan nuclear power facility in the Philippines in 1985 at a cost of $1.2 billion, 150 percent above their projections. However, the Bataan plant was never brought on line due to the fact it was near an active volcano. Despite the fact that the plant never generated a single kilowatt of energy, the Philippines still pays about $300,000 a day in interest on the Ex-Im loan that funded the project. Should the Philippines default, U.S. taxpayers will pick up the tab.

Similar projects have netted Westinghouse alone literally billions of dollars in plants that never even operate, scamming both the people of the developing world and U.S. taxpayers. Why is this allowed to go on? Well, it just so happens that the head of President Clinton’s Export council was the CEO of Westinghouse. And since Westinghouse also owns CBS and fellow Ex-Im beneficiary and nuclear contractor General Electric owns NBC, the debacle has not received coverage on network news. Meanwhile you and I and the taxpayers of the Philippines and many other countries continue to pay billions of dollars for nuclear power plants which never even produced electricity. People often think that conspiracy theorists are a bunch of paranoid loonies, and often they are. But it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see how the interlocking systems of economic and political power continue to allow elites to victimize you and I with the silent complicity of an elite newsmedia. Just goes to show you that what’s good for MNCs is not necessarily good for America.

Just in case you don’t have enough reasons for hating Ford Motor Company yet, three women workers have charged Ford with liability for sexual harassment over a period of nearly three years.

In some rather distressing news, a Surgeon General’s report has found that the number of women smokers has increased. There is some excellent work by Jean Kilbourne on how tobacco advertising targets women.

Salon.com is announcing a for-pay premium service, proving that free content on the web is officially dead. Jakob Nielsen ought to jump all over this as proof of the need for micropayments, and I would heartily agree. But, in the meantime, I would advise subscribing if you’re an avid Salon reader, unless you really look forward to more !@#$ing pop up flash ads…

The Money Jungle by William Saletan is an interesting analysis of some of the pitfalls for the coalition over McCain-Feingold. This was particularly perceptive:

McCain imposes disclosure requirements on interest groups that run ads against candidates close to an election. He portrays these groups as constitutionally protected but insidious. In his worldview, citizens are on one side, and special interests are on the other. McCain’s chief antagonist, Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., sees it differently. My favorite definition of special interest is a group [that’s] against what I am trying to do, McConnell quipped during Monday’s debate. McConnell offers a kinder term for organizations whose missions he favors: citizens’ groups.

It’s worth pointing out in this context that currently the biggest PAC in American politics is not the National Rifle Association or incumbents’ re-election PACs. It’s EMILY’s List, a PAC focused on electing more women to office. Not exactly my idea of a malignant special interest.

But, on the other hand, this presumes that the only thing that citizens’ groups have to offer is money for campaign contributions or interest ads. This is most of what they do today, but that’s only because money is so powerful in modern campaigning. An organized group of citizens has something besides money behind them: they have votes. And, geeze, isn’t that what democracy is supposed to be about? Part of the point of changing the campaign finance system is to make it so that citizens’ groups no longer compete for the amount of money they can organize, but rather the number of, well, citizens.