The Powell Memo: A Call-to-Arms for Corporations
Greenpeace has the full text of the Lewis Powell Memo available for review, as well as analyses of how Lewis Powell's suggestions have impacted the realms of politics, judicial law, communications and education.
On August 23, 1971, Justice Lewis F. Powell,
Jr., a corporate lawye from Richmond Virginia, and member of
the boards of 11 corporations drafted a confidential
memorandum to his friend
Eugene Sydnor, Jr., the Director of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce that
describes a strategy for the corporate takeover of the dominant public institutions
of American society. The memorandum was dated August
23, 1971, two months prior to Powell’s nomination by President Nixon
to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Powell Memo did not become available to the public until long after his
confirmation to the Court. It was leaked to Jack Anderson, a liberal syndicated
columnist, who stirred interest in the document when he cited it as reason
to doubt Powell’s legal objectivity. Anderson cautioned that Powell “might
use his position on the Supreme Court to put his ideas into practice…in
behalf of business interests.”
Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate
activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions
designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and
decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation,
the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy,
Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus
began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off
Most notable about these institutions was their focus on education, shifting
values, and movement-building — a focus we share, though often with sharply
contrasting goals.* (See our endnote for more on this.)
Powell and his friend Eugene Sydnor, then-chairman of the Chamber’s education committee, believed the Chamber had to transform itself from a passive business group into a powerful political force capable of taking on what Powell described as a major ongoing “attack on the American free enterprise system.”
An astute observer of the business community and broader social trends, Powell
was a former president of the American Bar Association and a board member
of tobacco giant Philip Morris and other companies. In his memo, he detailed
a series of possible “avenues of action” that the Chamber and the broader business community should take in response to fierce criticism in the media, campus-based protests, and new consumer and environmental laws.
Environmental awareness and pressure on corporate polluters had reached a
new peak in the months before the Powell memo was written. In January 1970,
President Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, which formally
recognized the environment’s importance by establishing the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Massive Earth Day events took place all over the country just a few months later and by early July, Nixon signed an executive order that created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Tough new amendments to the Clean Air Act followed in December 1970 and by
April 1971, EPA announced the first air pollution standards. Lead paint was
soon regulated for the first time, and the awareness of the impacts of pesticides
and other pollutants-- made famous by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent
Spring – was recognized when DDT was finally banned for agricultural use in 1972.
The overall tone of Powell’s memo reflected a widespread sense of crisis among elites in the business and political communities. “No thoughtful person can question that the American economic system is under broad attack,” he suggested, adding that the attacks were not coming just from a few “extremists of the left,” but also – and most alarmingly -- from “perfectly respectable elements of society,” including leading intellectuals, the media, and politicians.
To meet the challenge, business leaders would have to first recognize the
severity of the crisis, and begin marshalling their resources to influence
prominent institutions of public opinion and political power -- especially
the universities, the media and the courts. The memo emphasized the importance
of education, values, and movement-building. Corporations had to reshape
the political debate, organize speakers’ bureaus and keep television programs under “constant surveillance.” Most importantly, business needed to recognize that political power must be “assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination – without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business.”
Powell emphasized the importance of strengthening institutions like the U.S.
Chamber -- which represented the interests of the broader business community,
and therefore key to creating a united front. While individual corporations
could represent their interests more aggressively, the responsibility of
conducting an enduring campaign would necessarily fall upon the Chamber and
allied foundations. Since business executives had “little stomach for hard-nosed contest with their critics” and “little skill in effective intellectual and philosophical debate,” it was important to create new think tanks, legal foundations, front groups and other organizations. The ability to align such groups into a united front would only come about through “careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and united organizations.”
Before he was appointed by Richard Nixon to the U.S. Supreme Court Powell
circulated his call for a business crusade not only to the Chamber, but also
to executives at corporations including General Motors. The memo did not
become available to the public until after Powell’s confirmation to the Court, when it was leaked to Jack Anderson, a syndicated columnist and investigative reporter, who cited it as reason to doubt Powell's legal objectivity.
Anderson’s report spread
business leaders’ interest in the memo even further. Soon thereafter, the Chamber’s board of directors formed a task force of 40 business executives (from
U.S. Steel, GE, ABC, GM, CBS, 3M, Phillips Petroleum, Amway and numerous
other companies) to review Powell’s memo and draft a list of specific proposals to “improve understanding of business and the private enterprise system,” which the board adopted on November 8, 1973.
Historian Kim Phillips-Fein describes how “many who read the memo cited it afterward as inspiration for their political choices.” In fact, Powell’s Memo is widely credited for having helped catalyze a new business activist movement,
with numerous conservative family and corporate foundations (e.g.
Coors, Olin, Bradley, Scaife, Koch and others) thereafter creating and sustaining
powerful new voices to help push the corporate agenda, including the Business
Roundtable (1972), the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC
- 1973), Heritage Foundation (1973), the Cato Institute (1977), the Manhattan
Institute (1978), Citizens for a Sound Economy (1984 - now Americans for
Prosperity), Accuracy in Academe (1985), and others.
Because it signaled the beginning of a major shift in American business culture,
political power and law, the Powell memo essentially marks the beginning
of the business community’s multi-decade collective takeover of the most important institutions of public opinion and democratic decision-making. At the very least, it is the first place where this broad agenda was compiled in one document.
That shift continues today, with corporate influence over
policy and politics reaching unprecedented new dimensions. The decades-long
drive to rethink legal doctrines and ultimately strike down the edifice of
campaign finance laws – breaking radical new ground with the Roberts Court’s decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission – continues apace.
Although many new voices have emerged in the 40 years since it circulated
Powell’s memo, the U.S. Chamber has expanded its leadership position within the corporate power movement, leading dozens of judicial, legislative and regulatory fights each year. Measured in terms of money spent, the Chamber is by far the most powerful lobby in Washington, DC, spending $770.6 million since
1998, over three times the amount spent by General Electric, the second-largest
spender. At the same time, the Chamber has reinforced its lobbying power
by becoming one of the largest conduits of election-related “independent expenditures,” spending
over $32.8 million on Federal elections in 2010. The Chamber sponsors the
Institute for Legal Reform, which has spearheaded the campaign for tort “reform,” making it more difficult for average people who have been injured, assaulted, or harmed to sue the responsible corporations. Along with well over a dozen legal foundations, the Chamber has also helped shape the powerful “business civil liberties” movement that has been a driving force behind the Citizens United decision and other judicial actions that have handcuffed regulators and prevented Congress from putting common-sense checks on corporate power.
Jack Anderson, Washington Report, Volume 12, No. 24, November 26, 1973. Available at: http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=5972.
Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan. New York: W.W. Norton, 2009
Jeff Krehely, Meaghan House and Emily Kernan, “Axis of Ideology: Conservative Foundations and Policy,” National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, 2004
Michael Waldman, Executive Director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law cites the Powell memo as the inspiration for the ideological war waged on behalf of the “free market” approach to the First Amendment that has elevated the rights of corporate speakers. See Waldman’s introduction to “Money, Politics and the Constitution: Beyond Citizens United," by Monica Youn (ed.), New York: Century Foundation Press, 2011
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Papers, Powell Archives, Washington and Lee University School of Law. More information available at: http://law.wlu.edu/powellarchives/
Nan Aron, “Justice for Sale: Shortchanging The Public Interest for Private Gain.” Washington, DC: Alliance for Justice, 1993
Oliver A. Houck, “With Charity for All.” New Haven, CT: Yale Law Journal, Volume 93, No. 8, July 1984.
Jean Stefancic and Richard Delgado, "No Mercy: How Conservative Think Tanks and Foundations Changed America's Social Agenda," Temple University Press, 1996.
of our great frustrations is that foundations and funders who prefer a
democratic republic to corporate domination have failed to learn from the success
of these corporate institutions. They decline to invest in long-term education
and culture-shifting that we and a small number of allied organizations work
to achieve. Instead, they overwhelmingly focus on damage control and short-term
goals. This approach stands no chance of yielding the systemic change needed
to reverse the trend of growing corporate dominance.
nurturing of movement-building work remains the exception to the rule among
foundations that purport to strengthen democracy and citizen engagement.
The growing movement to revoke corporate personhood is supported almost entirely from contributions by individual (real) people like you. Please consider supporting the work of groups like Move to Amend, Free Speech for People and Reclaim Democracy! that devote themselves to this essential movement-building work, rather than short-term projects and results demanded by most foundations.
Washington and Lee University has created this archive (pdf) of significant follow-up communications to the Powell Memo.
On the occasion of the memo’s 40th anniversary, Bill Moyers’ website posted useful background and commentary.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Martin County Democratic Executive Committee has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Martin County Democratic Executive Committee endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
BACK TO TOP