The following blog post is written by Global Exchange summer intern, Sophie Ipsen about her summer project researching corporate criminals for our Top Ten Most Wanted Corporate Criminals of 2014 list. Thank you, Sophie for all your help and hard work all summer!

MostWanted2013

I’m Sophie Ipsen, a 20-year-old college student studying international relations and global business at the University of Southern California.

Growing up, I started volunteering in my community: tutoring low-income students, serving food to recovering drug-addicts, and assisting people with disabilities. These experiences first opened my eyes to the injustices and inequalities in my own backyard. Now, as a young adult and an American consumer, I have become cognizant of the global challenges created by the corporate domination all around the world.

Large corporations control almost everything we touch: from the clothing we wear, to the computers we work on, to the medications we take, and even the food we eat. I was aware of sweatshops, human trafficking, and forced labor prior to my time at Global Exchange, but I had not fully considered all the implications of today’s corporation giants. Over the past several weeks, I have been investigating corporations that are guilty of human rights abuses and environmental disasters for Global Exchange’s Top Ten Most Wanted Corporate Criminal List of 2014.

It was through this process that I realized these large corporations are not only forcing cheap or wage-free labor, but also seizing indigenous lands, destroying communities, causing species extinction, and killing people in devastating factory disasters, just to name a few offenses. Of course I had heard stories on the news about horrific disasters like the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse, but I, as do many others, had not truly understood how this connects to my daily life and my decisions. The fact is the companies that are exploiting human rights and the environment everyday are the same companies from which we consume everyday.

But this does not have to be the case, we are the consumers and fortunately we have the ability to decide what we purchase. There is a tremendous opportunity available for us, the consumers, to take a stand, boycott corporations violating human rights, and support institutions like Fair Trade.

This summer, the other interns and I embarked on a project to continue Global Exchange’s campaign pressuring San Francisco’s Ghirardelli Chocolate Company to go Fair Trade. We worked together to plan a virtual, online rally as well as an in-person rally at the San Francisco flagship store in Ghirardelli Square on July 24th. While preparing for our big day, we visited Fair Trade USA’s offices in Oakland and got an in-depth look at Fair Trade and how the certification process works. I learned that Fair Trade certified cocoa farms ensure that no child labor is used, farmers earn a fair, living wage, and a premium goes back to the community.

10497366_10154410308505613_6965737826593074654_o

Global Exchange interns at Ghirardelli rally

After doing our research and preparing our rally materials, we took to the streets and started talking to our fellow consumers. Many people were very interested in learning about Fair Trade and joined in to tell Ghirardelli to make the important switch. This experience, speaking with Ghirardelli’s consumers started to spread the word about the importance of purchasing power, and showed me that the general public really can make a difference. Corporations really do listen to their consumers, and it takes our voices to make our desires known. As consumers we can endorse Fair Trade through our purchases of commodities like chocolate, coffee, bananas, sugar, and even some jewelry and clothing.

As my research continued, we finalized the corporations for this year’s Corporate Criminals list, and I then connected with other non-profit organizations challenging these corporations. I learned that large corporations really care about their public image, and do not like to be publicly shamed. When people start to speak up and spread the word about a corporation’s abuses, the corporation has to start taking action. The more the people know about a corporation’s abuses, it is less able to continue these abuses in the public eye.

So which corporations made the list? There are 10 companies form a wide variety of industries. And the corporations are… Alpha Natural Resources, Bayer, Carnival Corporation, FIFA, Gap Inc., Ghirardelli, Glencore Xstrata, HSBC, Koch Industries, and PepsiCo. This year we also decided to include Monsanto as a “repeat offender,” as it has been featured on our list before. Now that you know the corporations, you may have expected a few, and are probably surprised by a few as well. I strongly encourage you to read the list, and discover the unfortunate truth about these corporations!

I hope that after reading through the list, you will reconsider these corporations and take action through what you purchase. Additionally, we have added a new element to the list this year, an opportunity for you to easily take action from home. Each featured corporation includes a link to take action by either emailing an executive or signing a petition. I encourage you to do so and to also connect with other organizations working on the issues.

Take-ActionThis is an opportunity for you to start conversation about human rights and environmental abuses in your own networks. Share the information with your family, friends, and co-workers. You can start by making small changes in your everyday life that will grow and become large positive changes for our world. It’s time to fight back against corporate power and give the rights back to the people. Use the list as an educational opportunity, and then take a stand to put people over profits!

The following is the second installment of a multi-part series examining the preparations and aftermaths of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil. Read the entire “Re-think the World Cup” series.

The 2014 World Cup is about far more than sport.

When I talk to people here in the U.S. about the upcoming World Cup in Brazil, most still tend to think of soccer parties and cool World Cup commercials. The lack of awareness as to the realities of the event is startling. 

The U.S. media is partially to blame, as comprehensive coverage of the issue has been nearly absent up until very recently. And while sport and parties are certainly aspects to the upcoming World Cup, they are only a part of the story – and to many in Brazil, the least important part.

Brazil was booming economy during the first decade of the 21st century. Its GDP growth topped that of most countries in the world, it slashed its rates of poverty and inequality, it saw a significant drop in its legacy of drug-related violence, and it emerged as a growing player on the geopolitical world stage. These factors, combined with Brazil’s famous national passion for the game of futebol, made the country an understandable candidate for host of the 2014 World Cup.

However, some important underlying issues in Brazilian society were overlooked or ignored in the decision to bring the World Cup to Brazil, and which now threaten the very integrity of the event itself.

Among the issues: poverty, a stubborn gap between rich and poor, a deep need for better education, schools, and hospitals, a perverse presence of corruption within all ranks of government, damning environmental realities, and some of the world’s highest rates of violent crime.

Some of these indicators have seen improvements in the last decade, but hardly enough to shrug them off as solved. And despite the country’s firestorm rate of economic growth in the new milennium, this growth has slowed considerably in the last few years.

FIFA was blind to these underlying issues, or at least indifferent to them. And it was certainly of no interest to Brazil’s corruptos, who were quick to jump on the influx of hundreds of millions of investment dollars that would flow into the country for the event – a quick and easy penny in a system ladled with bribery and corruption.

Brazil is slated to spend 14 billion dollars on the World Cup – the most expensive World Cup to date, and far over budget. It’s a staggering figure no matter the place or context – but in the face of Brazil’s widespread social issues, it feels decidedly darker.

Logic would seem to say that a government should use the wealth of its country to address the social issues it still faces. Logic would say: the gains of the last decades were nice, but they need to be better; the gains of the last decades have improved some things, but the improvements are delicate and much more needs to be done.

But logic has not been at play here. Power, corruption, and the financial interest of a select elite few are.

White Elephants, Disparities, and Evictions

Perhaps the most potent and visible symbols of this World Cup’s injustices are its stadiums. Several of the new or renovated World Cup stadiums are being dubbed “white elephants” – expensive behemoths that will have little use once the frenzy of the World Cup has passed.

In Brasilia, the nation’s capital, the new stadium has cost $900 million and will hold 70,000 seats despite the fact that the local home team rarely brings in more than a few hundred fans per game and despite the fact that 80% of public schools in Brasilia have inadequate facilities that lack chairs, books, and water-tight roofs. For what? The stadium will host seven World Cup matches.

In the northern Amazonian city of Manaus, the stadium Arena da Amazonia has cost $240 million and is designed to hold 43,000 people despite the fact that the average attendance for local games is only 588 people and the local team that plays there is a fourth level professional team. The stadium will host four World Cup matches.

The price for these stadium projects has not just been monetary: 8 workers have died in the fevered rush to complete stadiums on time for the World Cup, attempting to make up for delays in red tape, bureaucracy, and inefficiency.

The 14 billion dollars spent on the World Cup is a huge sum of money, and the opportunity cost – where the money could have been used elsewhere – can be hard to put into context, especially from a continent away. But when I was living in Brazil for a period of time last year, the reality of this injustice was made very real.

I went to a local soccer match at the Maracanã, Rio’s legendary soccer stadium and home to the championship match of the World Cup. The facility has been completely renovated up to FIFA standards, complete with sleek jumbotrons, sparkling hallways, clean new seats, and a pristine turf pitch. It is certainly fit for the highest levels of competition and a global spotlight.

While perhaps none of this would ordinarily be such a point of contention, when a soccer match ends at Maracanã and you walk out of the stadium you will quickly see why it is indeed just that. The disparity and dichotomy is unavoidable – the injustice, literally, in your face.

As I walked out of the revamped stadium, I looked up and was blighted by a scene of complete disconnect in front of my eyes: hillsides of sprawling favelas right next door – stark reminders of the realities the country still faces, and an instigator of many questions: what could the millions that were used to renovate the stadium I was just sitting in have done for the favelas I was now looking up at?

Favelas are often jointly referred to in Western media as slums or shantytowns, but this is not really an accurate definition – a favela is a favela, a low-income but sustainable model of urban development in its own right. Favelas are home to 12 million people in Brazil; residents often live below or near the poverty line, and can lack access to essential resources such as job training and education, as well as utilities such as sewage and sanitation. Favelas also have a long legacy of violence, both between rival drug gangs and with an abusive, corrupt police force.

But despite its image problem, favelas have emerged as sustainable models of urban living – organic and natural outcroppings from a legacy of disbandment and marginalization of poor populations, sprung up from squatters on the hillsides of large urban cities in the late 19th century. They have become sources of pride for their inhabitants, and contain an emerging middle class, solid structures, and an increasingly sustainable model of close quarter urban development.

Upwards of 200,000 residents have been forcefully evicted throughout Brazil in order to make room for sports-related projects. Residents are given stark options and little notice ahead of time, forced to uproot from their communities they have lived in for generations. They are given negligent compensation, if any at all. Those who do receive alternative housing are pushed to high rise public housing on the outskirts of major cities, far away from their jobs in the inner city and even further away from the cherished sense of established community they once enjoyed despite their financial hardships. 

The state of Rio de Janeiro’s hallmark “pacification” program, designed to both drive out drug cartels from favelas and finally incorporate favelas into city grids, is now being questioned and criticized openly. The program, developed after Brazil won its World Cup bid, has been largely credited with historic lulls in violence in Rio since its inception in 2008. However, recent months have witnessed a marked increase in violence, even in “pacified” favelas close to sport and tourist areas.

Of the hundreds of favelas that exist in Rio, only 37 have been “pacified”. Unsurprisingly, these 37 find themselves conveniently close to tourist areas, wealthy neighborhoods, and sporting venues. While levels of violence have dropped overall, the pacification program has also simply pushed much of the violence farther to the city’s outskirts rather than addressing its root causes. And in the process, heavy-handed police raids that attempt to drive out drug traffickers from favelas and keep sporting areas “safe” continue unabated. The incursions, some made by forces trained by U.S. defense companies, occur with little regard to innocent collateral and the human rights violations committed by police proceed with near total impunity.

Who is the World Cup for?

It’s the question many in Brazil have been asking.

The Brazilian people will pay 14 billion dollars out of their own pockets to produce the World Cup while FIFA, a “non-profit” organization, will walk away from Brazil with a projected 4 billion dollar untaxed revenue when the tournament is over.

FIFA and its sponsors will benefit handsomely from the event, as will select developers and certain members of Brazilian government. Sadly, the benefits are not so equally felt.

Despite old claims that mega-sporting events like the World Cup bring long-term economic gains to host countries, recent studies such as those done by sports economist Dennis Coates have shown that this idea is actually false. The games benefit a small circle of people at the top, while the rest of the country experiences no such gains. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost is huge – particularly in a developing country such as Brazil.

The conflict for Brazilians is obvious: they love their futebol, but they also want a better country. They want to celebrate the passion they hold for the sport, but they also want a better future for themselves and their children. The organization of Brazilian civil society in opposition to the World Cup despite their national obsession with soccer is the most telling sign of just how far off this mega-sporting event has become. That 60% of Brazilians feel that the World Cup is bad for the country in a population as soccer-crazed as Brazil is nothing short of remarkable.

We may indeed look back and see that the 2014 World Cup stood on the crux between an old and a new. Like in the Middle East, we are witnessing the rise of a burgeoning civil society in Brazil that is young, tech savvy, and fed up with business as usual. The injustices of the World Cup have forced long-standing social issues in Brazil into the limelight like never before and have instigated a larger social movement that may not fade once the competitions are over. And it us now offering us the chance, as a global community, to re-think and adjust our approach to the ways we go about producing, thinking about, and discussing these mega-sporting events.

The irony would be amusing, if it weren’t so tragic: while corrupt actors initially saw the World Cup as an opportunity to prop themselves up, they may have in fact instigated their own downfall.

Read all entries in the Re-Think the World Cup blog series.


Explore these issues firsthand by traveling to Brazil on a Global Exchange Reality Tour. Become a Global Exchange member today and travel for 10% off all Reality Tours.

The following is the first installment of a multi-part series examining the preparations and aftermaths of the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics in Brazil.

There are visible and invisible dictators. The power structure of world football is monarchical. It’s the most secret kingdom in the world.”

So said the great Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano. Thanks to sports journalist Dave Zirin, the quote has been getting quite a bit of attention recently. But the power structure of world football is not the only malevolent shadow lurking in the dark today. There have been a great series of injustices secretly unfolding in Brazil ever since the South American giant won its bid for the World Cup back in 2007.

On June 12th, the world will shift its attention and collective body clock south, with the idea that the 2014 World Cup is solely about soccer and national rivalries as the planet’s 32 top teams vie for soccer’s most coveted prize in 12 cities throughout Brazil. While an intriguing storyline for FIFA and its corporate sponsors, the storyline is a misleading half-truth at best.

At one point in time, I wanted to be in Brazil during the upcoming World Cup. To attend the pinnacle event of the world’s most popular sport, in the spiritual home of the sport itself, the idea was alluring – all the more so being that I had fallen in love with that wonderful country and its people after living there for a period of time during 2013.

I envisioned Brazilian flags hanging from balconies, groups of fans chanting in unison, and eruptions of shouts from outdoor cafes in Rio following a goal by Neymar. The sun would be shining, live samba would be flowing from open-air bars, and maybe – just maybe – there would be a raucous celebration throughout the streets of Brazil upon the Brazilian national team winning it all.

Unfortunately, this was an ill-fated vision. One that fell hard and swiftly upon learning what this World Cup is really about.

When I think about the upcoming World Cup now, a very different set of images come to mind.

I see 14 billion Brazilian taxpayer dollars squandered while FIFA escapes with 4 billion dollars in revenue tax-free; I see the use of those billions of taxpayer dollars to build or renovate stadiums that will sit idle or offensively underused after the World Cup, rather than building badly needed schools and hospitals in a country that is still very much developing and still very much grappling with widespread poverty, inequality, and violence; I see the forced evictions of thousands of marginalized, low-income favela residents to make room for sport venues and infrastructure projects; I see a corrupt government out to gain for itself and please foreign interests rather than take concern for the welfare of its own people and wondrous natural environment; I see the hijacking of a country by a select elite few, including FIFA, corrupt politicians, and foreign corporations; I see police brutality and a thinly layered mascara attempting to cover up deep-seated and festering social dynamics within society.

And through it all I see the continued endorsement of the event by major U.S. corporations, as well as hordes of foreign tourists who will flock to the shores and cities of Brazil by the hundreds of thousands, pleasantly ignorant to the true realities of this mega sporting event, the true costs of hosting it in this still-developing nation, the true impact that it has wreaked and will continue to wreak on the lives of many ordinary Brazilians.

The upcoming World Cup in Brazil is not largely about sport, it is about money. It is not about the pinnacle of competition, it is about greed and corruption. It is not about communal enjoyment of games, it is about inequality and corporate power.

It’s time to re-think the World Cup. The façade of sport needs to come down. It can come down as swiftly and forcefully as it did for my glorious visions of the World Cup. And it can start now, with Brazil.

Expose the kingdoms from their secrecy, and the kingdoms will reform. Or fall.

Read all entries in the Re-Think the World Cup blog series.


Explore these issues firsthand by traveling to Brazil on a Global Exchange Reality Tour. Become a Global Exchange member today and travel for 10% off all Reality Tours.

Reposted from Senator Bernie Sander’s new Report, “Meet the Wall Street and Corporate Tax Dodgers:

On February 7, 2013, Senator Bernie Sanders is introducing legislation to crack down on Wall Street and corporate tax avoiders that are avoiding tens of billions in taxes every year by shifting profits to the Cayman Islands and other tax havens. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) is introducing the companion bill in the House.

Chart: Jason Easley, PoliticsUSA

Chart: Jason Easley, PoliticsUSA

The Business Roundtable represents some of the largest Wall Street and corporate tax avoiders in the country. Recently, the Business Roundtable came out with a plan to raise the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security to 70, cut Social Security and veterans’ benefits, and increase taxes on working families.

Many of the corporations and Wall Street banks represented by the Business Roundtable have:

  • avoided more than $128 billion in taxes by setting up over 500 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other offshore tax havens since 2008;
  •  received more than $6.5 billion in tax refunds from the IRS, after making billions in profits;
  •  outsourced hundreds of thousands of American jobs to China and other low wage countries, forcing their workers to receive unemployment insurance and other federal benefits; and
  • received a total taxpayer bailout of more than $2.5 trillion from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department and nearly caused the economy to collapse over four years ago.

Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans’ benefits, it is time for these corporate and Wall Street tax dodgers to pay their fair share in taxes and bring jobs back home to America.

Here are just a few examples of how the corporations and Wall Street banks these CEOs work for have significantly harmed our economy and the federal budget:

1. Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan
Number of Offshore Tax Havens in 2010? 371.

  • In 2010, Bank of America operated 371 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens. 204 of these subsidiaries are incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which has a corporate tax rate of 0%.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Bank of America would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.5 billion.
  • Bank of America has stashed $18.5 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Bank of America would owe an estimated $2.5 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.
  • Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $1.9 billion tax refund.
  • Bank of America received a $1.9 billion tax refund from the IRS in 2010, even though it made $4.4 billion in profits.
  • Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? Over $1.3 trillion.
  • During the financial crisis, Bank of America received a total of more than $1.3 trillion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve and a $45 billion bailout from the Treasury Department.

2. JP Morgan Chase CEO James Dimon
Number of Offshore Tax Havens in 2010? 83.

  • In 2010, JP Morgan Chase operated 83 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens.
  • Amount of federal income taxes JP Morgan Chase would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.9 billion
  • JP Morgan Chase has stashed $21.8 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid payng income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $4.9 billion in federal income taxes.
  • Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $416 billion. During the financial crisis, JP Morgan Chase received a total of more than $391
  • billion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve and a $25 billion bailout from the Treasury Department, while Jamie DImon served as a director of the New York Federal Reserve.

3. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2008? Zero. $278 million tax refund.

  • In 2008, Goldman Sachs received a $278 million refund from the IRS, even though it earned a profit of $2.3 billion that year.
  • Number of offshore tax havens in 2010? 39.
  • In 2010, Goldman Sachs operated 39 subsidiaries in offshore tax haven countries.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Goldman Sachs would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $3.32 billion.
  • Goldman Sachs has stashed $20.63 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid payng income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $3.32 billion in federal income taxes.
  • Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department? $824 billion.
  • During the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs received a total of $814 billion in virtually zero interest loans from the Federal Reserve and a $10 billion bailout from the Treasury Department.

4. General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
Number of offshore tax havens? At least 14.

  • GE has at least 14 tax haven subsidiaries in Bermuda, Singapore, and Luxembourg for the purpose of avoiding U.S. income taxes.
  • Amount of federal income taxes General Electric would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $35.7 billion.
  • GE has stashed $102 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $35.7 billion more in federal income taxes.
  • Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $3.3 billion tax refund. In 2010, not only did General Electric pay no federal income taxes, it received a $3.3 billion tax refund from the IRS, even though it earned over $5 billion in U.S. profits.
  • Taxpayer Bailout from the Federal Reserve? $16 billion.
  • During the financial crisis, the Federal Reserve provided GE with $16 billion in financial assistance, at a time when Jeffrey Immelt was a director of the New York Federal Reserve.
  • Jobs Shipped Overseas? At least 25,000 since 2001.
  • Since 2001, General Electric has closed more than 30 manufacturing plants in the United States, cut 34,000 American jobs, and added 25,000 jobs overseas. General Electric now has more workers abroad than it does in the United States.
  • On December 6, 2002, Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, said at an investor’s meeting: “When I am talking to GE managers, I talk China, China, China, China, China. You need to be there. You need to change the way people talk about it and how they get there. I am a nut on China. Outsourcing from China is going to grow to $5 billion. We are building a tech center in China. Every discussion today has to center on China. The cost basis is extremely attractive. You can take an 18 cubic foot refrigerator, make it in China, land it in the United States, and land it for less than we can make an 18 cubic foot refrigerator today, ourselves.” -Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman, CEO of General Electric, quoted at an investor meeting on December 6, 2002.

5. Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? Zero. $705 million tax refund.

  • In 2010, Verizon received a $705 million refund from the IRS despite earning $11.9 billion in pre-tax U.S. profits.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Verizon would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $525 million.
  • Verizon has stashed $1.5 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Verizon would owe an estimated $525 million in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.
  • American Jobs Cut in 2010? In 2010, Verizon announced 13,000 job cuts, the third highest corporate layoff total that year.

6. Honeywell International CEO David Cote
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $34 million tax refund.

  • From 2008 through 2010, not only did Honeywell pay no federal income taxes, it received a $34 million tax refund from the IRS, even though it earned over $4.9 billion in U.S. profits during those years.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Honeywell would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.835 billion.
  • Honeywell has stashed $8.1 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Honeywell would owe an estimated $2.835 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

7. Merck CEO Kenneth Frazier
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2009? Zero. $55 million tax refund.

  • In 2009, not only did Merck pay no federal income taxes, it received a $55 million tax refund from the IRS, even though it earned more than $5.7 billion in U.S. profits.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Merck would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $15.5 billion.
  • Merck has stashed $44.3 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $15.5 billion more in federal income taxes.

8. Corning CEO Wendell Weeks
Amount of federal income taxes paid from 2008-2010? Zero. $4 million tax refund.

  • From 2008 through 2010, not only did Corning pay no federal income taxes, it received a $4 million tax refund from the IRS, even though it earned nearly $2 billion in U.S. profits during those years.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Corning would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $3.78 billion.
  • Corning has stashed $10.8 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Corning would owe an estimated $3.78 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

9. Boeing CEO James McNerney, Jr.
Amount of federal income taxes paid in 2010? None. $124 million tax refund.

  • Boeing, which received a $30 billion contract from the Pentagon to build 179 airborne tankers, got a $124 million refund from the IRS in 2010.
  • Amount of federal income taxes Boeing would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $66 million.
  • Boeing would owe an estimated $66 million more in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.
  • American Jobs Shipped overseas? Over 57,000.
  • Since 1994, more than 57,000 Americans lost their jobs at Boeing as a result of overseas outsourcing or rising imports.
  • Amount of Corporate Welfare? At least $58 billion.
  • Boeing received over $58 billion in taxpayer-subsidized loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import since 1994.

10. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Amount of federal income taxes Microsoft would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19.4 billion.

  • Microsoft has stashed over $60 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid 19.4 billion more in federal income taxes.

11. Qualcomm CEO Paul Jacobs
Amount of federal income taxes Qualcomm would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $5.8 billion.

  • Qualcomm has stashed $16.4 billion in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $5.8 billion more in federal income taxes.

12. Caterpillar CEO Douglas Oberhelman
Amount of federal income taxes Caterpillar would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $4.55 billion.

  • Caterpillar has stashed $13 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Caterpillar would owe an estimated $4.55 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

13. Cisco Systems CEO John Chambers
Amount of federal income taxes Cisco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $14.455 billion.

  • Cisco has stashed $41.3 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Cisco would owe an estimated $14.455 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

14. Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris
Amount of federal income taxes Dow Chemical would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $3.5 billion.

  • Dow has stashed $10 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Dow would owe an estimated $3.5 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

15. Alcoa CEO Klaus Kleinfeld
Amount of federal income taxes Alcoa would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $2.9 billion.

  • Alcoa has stashed $8.3 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. Alcoa would owe an estimated $2.9 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

16. Stanley Black & Decker CEO John Lundgren
Amount of federal income taxes Stanley Black & Decker would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $1.26 billion.

  • Stanley Black & Decker has stashed $3.6 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. They would owe an estimated $1.26 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

17. Motorola Solutions CEO Greg Brown
Amount of federal income taxes Motorola Solutions would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $350 million.

  • Motorola Solutions has stashed $1 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. They would owe an estimated $350 million in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

18. Tenneco CEO Gregg Sherill
Amount of federal income taxes Tenneco would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $269 million.

  • Tenneco has stashed over $698 million in offshore tax haven countries to avoid payng income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $269 million in federal income taxes.

19. Express Scripts CEO George Paz
Amount of federal income taxes Express Scripts would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $19 million.

  • Express Scripts has stashed over $54 million in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid $19 million in federal income taxes.

20. Caesars Entertainment CEO Gary Loveman
Amount of federal income taxes Caesars Entertainment would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $15 million.

  • Caesars Entertainment has stashed $42 million in offshore tax haven countries to avoid paying income taxes. If this practice was outlawed, it would have paid about $15 million more in federal income taxes.

21. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink
Amount of federal income taxes BlackRock would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $525 million.

  • BlackRock has stashed $1.5 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. BlackRock would owe an estimated $525 million in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

22. United Parcel Service (UPS) CEO D. Scott Davis
Amount of federal income taxes UPS would have owed if offshore tax havens were eliminated? $1.12 billion.

  • UPS has stashed $3.2 billion in offshore tax havens to avoid paying U.S. income taxes. UPS would owe an estimated $1.12 billion in federal income taxes if its use of offshore tax avoidance was eliminated.

NOTE:*All data in this blog is re-posted from Sen. Barney Frank’s report, “Meet the Top Wall Street and Corporate Tax Dodgers” released on Feb. 7, 2013. View the full report and full list of 31 corporations here.

TAKE ACTION:

Sign Global Exchange’s petition to Congress demanding an action to assert that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Corporations should have to pay taxes like all the rest of us! All of the above unethical avoidance of fair and legitimate corporate taxes are made possible and ‘legal’ through the undue influence of corporate lobbyists floating to off-shore tax havens on a sea of money in politics. Stand up with us to get Money OUT and Voters in!

Global Exchange has joined more than 60 other organizations to host a 99% Spring non violent direct action training – one of 912 events (and counting!) taking place during April 9-15. Thousands of people across the country have stepped up to plan a 99% Spring action training and we’re training all Global Exchange staff on April 12.

We will prepare ourselves to join a huge wave of progressive direct action nationwide this spring. All over America, the 99% movement is getting ready for 60 days of protests, sit-ins, rallies, marches, and more this spring—all aimed and confronting the power, greed, and influence of the 1%.

I jumped in to do this because I want to see the 99% Spring take off in a big way. We’d be joining a rich tradition in this country of non-violent direct action to make the change we know we need.

It’s exciting and I hope you can be part of it!

Sign up for a training here.

Sign up to host a training here.

Our movement will be holding huge rallies in every major city on Tax Day to call out the 1% who refuse to pay their fair share. We’ll be gathering massive crowds to confront CEOs and top executives at annual shareholder meetings of Wall Street banks, dirty energy polluters, and corporations that refuse to treat workers fairly. And we’ll be doing everything we can to call out the corrupting influence of corporate money on our elections. Global Exchange’s Occupy the Elections will be part of this campaign.

At the trainings we’ll be preparing ourselves to take part in these bold actions and to build connections with other progressives who want to see a 99% Spring in America.

Me, on the streets Jan 20, 2012, hope to see you on the streets soon!

We’ll practice telling the story of what happened to our economy and what a different future could look like, we’ll learn the history of nonviolent direct action, and we’ll train and plan to take direct action ourselves—in the footsteps of Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.—to win change. We have an amazing shared history of everyday people using direct action to transform the political landscape in this country from the civil rights movement to Occupy Wall Street.

This spring, I want to you join us in becoming a part of that legacy right where you live. Find out more here.

The following is the first of a two part series written by Hannah Zucherman about her experience working as the Community Rights Program intern at Global Exchange this summer. Hannah will be starting her third year at Sonoma State University next week.

As an intern to the Community Rights Program at Global Exchange this summer, I learned a lot —and most of what I learned is not in line with what the public school system taught me growing up. I would like to think that I have a strong understanding of how our government works from my history, civics and government classes that I took before college, but perhaps the school system whose mission it is to prepare us for the real world and to be contributing members of society did not completely fill their role. The biggest thing that I have learned so far this summer is just WHO our laws and government actually benefit.

Let me begin with the one of the most startling revelations of the summer: Oftentimes, the priority of local governments is to execute the needs of the state rather than being committed to representing residents’ rights first and foremost. Or, even more shocking, is the fact that corporations have the same “rights” as humans! It is ingrained in us from when we are young that corporations are driven mainly by money and short-term profit – and money trumps everything. So when it comes down to decision-making of course corporations are going to have the advantage. Yet, I had no idea that the law actually legally protected this kind of logic. Now not only do corporations have all the money and power, they are legally protected with the right to exploit people as well as natural resources.

These two concepts are more closely tied to each other than you might think. With these legal protections bestowed on corporations and government failing to prioritize citizen’s rights, corporations have a monopoly on resources. Corporations take local water at subsidized rates, bottle it and sell it back to us at inflated prices. The local communities don’t have the right to say “NO” to such activities, even when these activities damage their ecosystems. Whether it is mountaintop removal, gas fracking, mining, and more, the law says corporations have the right to make a profit even at the expense of the local community.

According to our own laws we are guaranteed certain rights, right? So then why is it that we have to go through lawsuit battles with corporations and go broke just trying to meet our basic needs? Rooted in English Common law (going back way before the war for our Independence) our current U.S. laws protect the few with money and not the many that government was created for. Our own laws make things very clear; our system is set up for commerce and ownership. There is no gray area to this idea; you own things or you are the thing that is owned. A corporation that owns land in your town also owns the water that flows though it, and can do pretty much whatever they want with the land, the minerals underground or the water, even if it harms the ecosystem and the larger community. They have this legal right and we do not have the right to tell them otherwise.

Most often it is more than just the taking of natural resources that the corporations are responsible for. The methods of extraction, or application of pesticides and toxic chemicals reaches further that just that of the site of resource extraction. The damage done impacts the immediate community putting the lives of many people and the surrounding environment at risk, creating cancer clusters, eroding the soil and polluting the water and air. We believe we have laws to protect us from such destruction, but in reality these regulatory laws protect corporations at the expense of the health and well-being of the communities where we live.

Stay tuned for the next part of the series where Hannah will explore the question of who really has the deciding power in the U.S. – corporations or citizens? Update: Part 2.