Randal Maurice Jelks: What is Going on with the Congressional Black Caucus?
[Randal Maurice Jelks is Associate Professor of American Studies and African American Studies and Associate Editor of American Studies at the University of Kansas.]
Yesterday the New York Times (NYT) reported on the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and its foundation. It was a fairly incriminating piece about how some of the largest American corporations, many of whom have interests that are in conflict with the political wellbeing of struggling black folk, are given access to CBC members via large donations to its foundation.
Now I am quite aware that black organizations are often held in greater scrutiny by the white dominated media outlets than others. But to its credit the NYT also reported on its front page that Goldman Sachs, the international brokerage and banking firm, helped the Greek government hide loans and mask deficits, which is now throwing the European Union and Wall Street into a tizzy. So the report on the CBC’s actions must be kept in perspective, the CBC’s alleged infractions are miniscule compared to Goldman Sachs’s international usury. However, what the CBC is alleged to have done in this article is troublesome for black voters. And frankly, if any of you live in one of the districts of a CBC member you should express your concern to them in writing.
Let me tell you my concerns from reading this article:
• Many residence of Chicago, and elsewhere, having been in a protracted fight with Wal-Mart over living wage ordinances. It appears Wal-Mart ranks 4th, out of 50 donors, in the size of its gifts to the CBC foundation. It begs the question, who are the members of the CBC representing? Are they advocating for working folk who cannot get health benefits out of Wal-Mart or a living wage? Wal-Mart’s donation seems at odds with the struggle for living wage ordinances taking place around the country.
• High-ranking donors also included some of the chief culprits in banking and mortgage lending that served up sub-primed mortgages—Citigroup and Countrywide to name just two. What did CBC members collectively say to these financial organizations about the interests of black consumers? Or, for that matter, what did CBC members jointly state on behalf of black credit card holders when Citigroup raised its credit card rates to nearly 30% this past fall?
• This list also includes some of the top drugmakers as well. None of these pharmaceutical companies are known for progressive actions as far as I know. Have any of these companies joined with the CBC in a concerted effort to make the social indices of black health statistics better? They haven’t lower the costs of their drugs for those living in poor communities, have they? And the most serious question what did CBC members concede to these companies in the House debate about Health Care legislation to gain these donations?
• Even more telling was the rank of the State Farm insurance Company, which is still a primary litigant being sued by many black people in the city of New Orleans over its breach of contract.. Folks are still haggling with State Farm five years after Katrina to get money to renovate or rebuild their homes. (Let me acknowledge for the sake of full disclosure I use State Farm Insurance).
• The other thing that is disturbing is that the CBC indicated that their foundation uses corporate donations to raise money for scholarships. However, if the graphic in the NYT is correct more money was spent on lavish parties than scholarships for undergraduate, graduate, or academic fellowships. If this report is true, it is wasteful stewardship.
• We need organize bodies such as the CBC to represent the various national interests of black people. The CBC was in its earliest years one of the most thoughtful groups in congress proposing policies that were beneficial to all Americans. Its legislative agenda on jobs, labor, welfare, and anti-apartheid were noble, even in the so-called hallowed Reagan years. However, the corporate bend over that the NYT reports undermines that legacy and challenges the legitimacy of the CBC at time when black people actually need strong organizations representing its many different interests.
I must confess I once attended a CBC function. It was twenty-six years ago. The one thing that stood out in my mind was how lavish the party was at the Washington D.C. Hilton. Now I do not believe black people ought to have inexpensive events, I love classy events too and I loved being in the company of black achievers and notables. However, in 1984, the economic downturn was anguishing and severe affecting nearly all of black America and the black poverty rate in DC was staggering. So the party’s grandness caused me to wonder how the goals of the CBC’s black-tie soiree matched up with the conditions that black people faced? Did this dress up function promote the kind of laws that would enhance and sustain black life? To the CBC’s credit there were lots of workshops informing young participants like myself about key policy issues, some of which I found quite helpful. However, I’ll never forget that at one of the CBC’s after parties Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael), a heroic civil rights activist and a radical, offered a few words. Ture was dressed in a splendid West African Boubou, having arrived from Guinea, West Africa, where he was then living. He stated with a wry sarcasm, if I can remember correctly, how black people loved a party but not the hard work of social change. Everyone laughed including the CBC members who laughed uncomfortably at his barb. However, if the NYT story about the CBC is correct, Ture’s words are more truthful today than they were back then.