The aim of Knowmore.org is to raise awareness of corporate abuse, and to serve as a catalyst for direct action against corporate power.

Ethical Consumerism is an important movement toward corporate reform, through which individuals recognize their own role in systems of oppression, and take personal steps toward resistance and  positive change.

However, the problem of unchecked corporate power is systemic and goes far beyond the scope of any single boycot or campaign.

Once you've seen enough of Knowmore's data and familiarized yourself with our Issues section, check out our Direct Action page to get involved!

From Knowmore.org

Project on Government Oversight July 11th, 2003

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge announced the appointment of 18 members to the recently established Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) on June 25, five days before their first meeting. Based on the make-up and the secrecy of this council, and the absence of experts who have raised concerns about inadequate homeland security, the council does not currently bring the balance necessary to ensure that security interests prevail over corporate interests.

Over 80 percent of the critical infrastructure in the United States is owned by private industry. Members from these industries, whose facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attack, have been placed on this council and therefore have power over decisions that will directly affect their bottom lines, despite their lack of homeland security expertise. According to the Conference Board, a business research group, voluntary corporate spending to protect against terrorist attacks has only gone up 4 percent since 9/11. At the same time, members from groups that do have such expertise and who have raised concerns about the inadequacy of our nations security have been denied similar involvement. Furthermore, with those industries at the table, it is particularly disturbing that HSAC is exempt from the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Without proper oversight, the financial interests of the private sector will vie with the security interests of the American public. Given that increased security will undoubtedly cost money, the question will be who pays -- private industry or the taxpayer?

The conflict between increased homeland security and the private sectors financial interests was described last September in an investigative report by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), titled "Nuclear Power Plant Security: Voices from Inside the Fences." Concluding that security guards at nuclear power plants were overworked, undertrained, outgunned and underpaid, POGO began working both with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to improve security at nuclear power plants. During that time, POGO was constantly at odds with the representatives of the nuclear industry, who were determined to limit the scope of any security upgrades that would require additional spending on their part -- regardless of how urgent the need. It was clear that the nuclear industrys agenda was driven by its financial interests, and not by improving homeland security. HSAC should not institutionalize this kind of conflict of interest by relying on representatives of industries that have such a clear financial stake in homeland security decisions.

As Secretary Ridge has noted, "we know that there have been reports validated about security deficiencies at dozens and dozens of chemical facilities?." Despite this knowledge, the Chemical Security Act, which passed unanimously out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in July 2002, was successfully killed by the chemical, oil and fertilizer industries who lobbied against any mandatory security requirements. Senator Jon Corzine reintroduced the bill on January 14, 2003, citing Ridge's statement on the inadequacy of our chemical security and arguing that the bill should be part of the Homeland Security Act, but the same industries that lobbied against it in 2002 will undoubtedly try again. So it is a matter of concern that Dow Chemical Companys Business Group President Kathleen M. Bader is on the council, considering that the industry she represents actively lobbied against this bill, and any other legislation designed to protect the millions of residents living near the 110 chemical plants across the country.

Another daunting task for this country is protecting our nations railroads. Union Pacific alone has over 39,000 miles of mainline track and transports about 1 million carloads of hazardous materials each year nationwide, much of which is transported within a short distance (if not through) large metropolitan areas. The presence of Union Pacific Corporations CEO Richard K. Davidson as an ex-officio member raises the question of conflict of interest yet again. Because the job of protecting the railroad system falls not to federal or state law enforcement, but to the rail companies and their security employees, his presence on the council is a prime opportunity to push the burden of increased security upon the taxpayers instead of the companies. In these cases, the financial interests of the major industrial sectors can and will be at odds with the duties of the council in terms of security decisions and the cost-sharing of security upgrades.

Other members also have a strong financial interest in the recommendations proposed by the council. For instance, with both the current and former CEOs of Lockheed Martin as ex-officio advisors, representatives of a company that stands to benefit from the councils decisions will be advising on the type of security this country needs. With a seat at the table with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Lockheed Martin gains a significant competitive advantage, as well as the opportunity to promote what may well be unnecessary or overpriced technical "solutions" at the expense of the taxpayer.

Eli Lilly is another questionable player to advise on homeland security. This drug company nearly succeeded in using its extensive political connections to add a last minute provision to the Homeland Security Act indemnifying Eli Lilly from over 45 existing class-action lawsuits, despite the fact that the lawsuits in no way affected homeland security. To the disappointment of Eli Lilly, the Senate later repealed the provision, but this nonetheless illustrates how "homeland security" can be used as a vehicle to advance financial gain. Eli Lillys inappropriate manipulation of the Homeland Security Act, in order to protect themselves from unrelated litigation, may indicate where their interests lie on HSAC.

Yet another matter of concern is the absence of members who have studied and are critical of current homeland security postures. As Ridge mentioned, a diverse council is necessary to "provide recommendations that will help DHS more effectively integrate our efforts to make the homeland more secure." However, there is currently no representation from groups that raise concerns about the inadequacy of homeland security despite the wealth of resources available. Warren Rudman, Gary Hart and Richard A. Clarke at The Council on Foreign Relations have produced reports on Homeland Security vulnerabilities and inadequately prepared emergency responders, and their expertise could prove to be a valuable asset to HSAC.

HSAC needs to include members who can be critical of the status quo and can ensure that the council engages in responsible decision-making. The council must ensure a government accountable to the citizenry, in which our nation's security interests prevail over corporate interests with a clear financial stake in homeland security decisions.