The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to the point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group or any controlling private power. -- Franklin Roosevelt
An op-ed in the the New York Times today by law professor Nina Mendelson outlines three instances where the federal government is attempting to trump state and local laws that protect health and environment. Mendelson wonders why the "federal government is suddenly trying to block state efforts to protect public health - through bureaucratic actions largely outside public view" while "big businesses' revenues are being shielded [and] protections for consumers and the environment are being stripped away. She notes the following events:
1) In March, the House of Representative passed, and the Senate is now considering, the "National Uniformity for Food Act," that would prevent states from addressing food hazards and leave food protection solely to the FDA. The proposed law would, for example, prevent California from applying its Proposition 65, a law that protects against carcinogens, and prevent Michigan and Connecticut from requiring labels on dried fruit containing sulfites. [The op-ed piece cites a report from Rep Henry Waxman showing that since 2001 Congress has enacted 27 laws that preempt state authority in areas including health, safety, the environment and consumer protection.]
2) The Bush Administration is trying to trump the State's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1967, California has been allowed to set its own automotive pollution limits, subject to limited review by the EPA, and California has set limits (which ten other states intend to adopt) on greenhouse gas emissions from cars. This spring, the US Dept. of Transportion (in its new fuel economy standards for light trucks) stated that the exclusive federal authority to set fuel-economy standards bars California's emission limits, because car manufacturers might comply with emission limits by increasing fuel efficiency. [Go here for more info.]
3) The FDA recently released standards that say that state agencies and courts cannot require any safety information on drug labels beyond what the F.D.A requires.
Mendelson notes that federal environmental and health regulations have historically provided a floor of minimum protection, whereas the States have frequently provided higher groundbreaking health and consumer laws. She does not answer her question that asks why the federal government is suppressing State regulations, but here's a possibility:
Corporations will do what they can, and where they can, to challenge laws that challenge their profits. In today's political climate, it's easier for corporations to influence policy in Washington where at least two branches of government are captured by corporate interests. It's much harder to control fifty messy statehouses (especially the unruly ones, like California) which, while far from perfect, are smaller, closer and currently more responsive to the People -- the once and future source of power in our democracy.
Comments