A Theory of Elite Deviance

Elite deviance, in all its forms, now constitutes a major social problem for American society and, as will be explored, much of the world as well. This does not mean, however, that there is a consensus concerning what constitutes deviance. Notions of elite wrongdoing, white-collar crime, and related concepts are now the focus of intense debate in the social sciences. In this regard, the conflict perspective and the evidence amassed in support of it offer the best starting point concerning a causal theory of elite deviance.

Criminologists and students of criminal justice tend to focus on the study of individual criminals in their research. The criminal justice system itself was originally established to protect the rights of accused persons, not to discover the causes of or ways to prevent criminal activity. As a result of this bias in American society, the social sciences focus heavily on individual crimes, individual rights, and individual cases. This is especially the case with street crimes (for example, homicide, robbery, burglary, and rape), which receive the lionís share of attention and resources in law enforcement, the courts, and correctional institutions. Street crimes are also the major preoccupation of both the criminology and criminal justice fields.

This is not to say that the street crime problem is unimportant. Indeed, as we will examine later in this book, street crime, organized crime, and elite deviance are interrelated in numerous ways (see Chapter 8). In fact, the crime problem in the United States is actually rooted in a system in which lower-class criminals, organized crime, a corrupt public sector, and deviant corporations cooperate for purposes of profit and power.

Thus, our examination begins with the proposition that crime and deviance are societally patterned. This means that certain sociological factors cause crimes to be committed by both individuals and organizations.

Among the most important of these factors in American society is the U.S. power structure itself.

The U.S. Social Structure: The Power Elite

The view of the U.S. social structure that we support is the one advocated by the late C. Wright Mills.40 Mills proposed that the dominant institutional structures of American life comprise a power elite of the largest corporations, the federal government, and the military. These dominant institutions are headed by elites, people whose positions within organizations have provided them the greatest amounts of wealth, power, and often prestige of any such positions in the nation. Immediately below this power elite is a subgroup of corporations that comprise the mass media. The source of their power is communications, which clearly differentiates elites from non-elites in American society. A sizable Washington press core waits for the daily pronouncements of political elites. Moreover, 90 percent of the commercials on prime-time television are sponsored by the nationís 500 largest corporations.41

The corporate, political, and military worlds are interrelated in numerous ways. Most members of the presidentís cabinet come from the ranks of big business and return there when their government service ends; numerous Pentagon employees, civilian and military, are employed by weapons industry firms upon retirement.

These interrelationships mean that the deviance within this elite often involves two or more organizations: one or more corporations and one or more government agencies. Power and private wealth are concentrated in the hands of the elite. Together, these institutions determine primary societal objectives, priorities, and policies and thus greatly influence the so-called lesser institutions (that is, the family, religion, and education). The elite dominate these lesser socializing institutions and thus shape the American social character.

The Evidence for a Power Elite. In the United States, elites possess not only great riches and the ability to make decisions that affect the conduct of non-elites (political power), but studies reveal that they also exert a great deal of control over such resources as education, prestige, status, skills of leadership, information, knowledge of political processes, ability to communicate, and organization. "Moreover, elites [in America] are drawn disproportionately fromÖ societyís upper classes, which are made up of those personsÖ who own or control a disproportionate share of the societal institutions industry, commerce, finance, education, the military, communications, civic affairs, and law."42

One recent study concludes that there are 5,416 positions within the nationís most powerful economic, governmental, military, media, legal, civic and educational institutions. These positions constitute a few ten thousandths of 1 percent of the population.43 Yet the amount of resources that they control is immense. Consider these data for the early 1990s:

In industry, 100 out of 200,000 corporations control 55 percent of all industrial assets. The largest 500 industrial corporations control three-quarters of manufacturing assets. The largest 800 corporations employ one of every five workers in the civilian labor force.44

In transportation and utilities, 50 out of 67,000 companies control two-thirds of the assets in the airline, railroad, communications, electricity, and gas industries.45

In banking, 50 out of 14,763 banks control 64 percent of all banking assets. Three of these banks, Bank America, Citicorp, and Chase Manhattan, control almost 20 percent of such assets.

In insurance, 50 out of 2,048 firms control 80 percent of all insurance assets. Two insurance companies, Prudential and Metropolitan Life, control nearly one-quarter of such assets.46

In the mass media, a mere fifty corporations are in control. Twenty companies own half the 61 million newspapers sold daily in the United States, and another twenty companies receive over half the revenues from the 61,000 U.S. magazines published. Three firms control most of the revenues and audiences in television, while ten control radio, eleven control book publishing, and four control movies.47

One basis of this great concentration of power and resources is the income and wealth possessed by the elite, that is, its economic power. Such wealth is owned by relatively few individuals in families and corporations.

International data now indicate that wealth is more unequally distributed in the United States than in other modern democracies. Thus, by the 1990ís, the top 1 percent of wealth holders owned 42 percent of Americaís wealth. Moreover, from 1983 to 1989, the share of the nationís income held by the top 20 percent increased from 52 to 56 percent while that of the remaining 80 percent decreased from 48.1 to 44.5 percent.48

Collectively, economic power is centralized in a relatively few major corporations and financial institutions. "Out of the 2 million or so corporations, some 200 nonfinancial companies account for 80 percent of all resources used in manufacturing; 60 percent of all assets, three-fifths of all buildings, equipment, and land are owned by nonfinancial companies."49

The top 100 industrial corporations now control 75 percent of the assets of Fortune 500 corporations.50 One study of the 250 largest U.S. corporations found that all but a handful (17) had at least one of their chief executives sitting on the board of at least 1 additional corporation in the top 250. Some of them even held seats on competing companies, a practice that has been illegal since 1914 with the passage of the Clayton Antitrust Act. Moreover, even people who serve on the board of directors of one company may serve as an executive of another company. This situation has been found to exist for more than 250 directors of the top 500 corporations.51

More important than such interlocks is the shared ownership that characterizes U.S. corporate capitalism, concentrated among large banks and wealthy families. Of the 14,000 commercial banks in the United States, 100 control half of all bank deposits.52 Many of these banks administer the trust funds of wealthy individuals or other sources of capital with which they purchase stock. One study done in the 1980s observed that people who sit on the board of directors of General Motors also have seats on 29 other corporate boards, including Gulf Oil, Anaconda Copper, Proctor & Gamble, Chase Manhattan Bank, and American Express. Collectively, the number of boards interlocked by members of these corporations includes 700 companies. Most important, these networks of interlocking directorates tend to remain stable over time.

What do all these facts mean? The largest 500 or so manufacturing firms and some 50 financial institutions, controlling two-thirds of all business income and half the nationís bank deposits, are interlocked by directorships and controlled by less than 0.5 percent of the population. Put simply, U.S. corporate assets reside in a few hands. More specifically, half of all assets in industry, banking, insurance, utilities, transportation, telecommunications, and the mass media is controlled by a mere 4,500 individual presidents and directors.53 This concentration allows a very small corporate community to exercise power over one-third of the nationís gross national product and considerable indirect influence over the remainder of the nationís goods and services.54 This is true because corporate leaders can invest money where and when they choose; expand, close, or move their factories and offices at a momentís notice; and hire, promote, and fire employees as they see fit. These powers give them direct influence over the great majority of Americans who depend on wages and salaries for their incomes. They also give the corporate rich indirect influence over elected and appointed officials because the growth and stability of a city, state, or the country as a whole can be jeopardized by a lack of business confidence in government.55

The Political Elite. Aside from the economic elite, the nation also possesses political elite. The political elite, to a significant extent, overlaps with, yet is independent from, the economic elite. The corporate managers, owners (super-rich individuals and families), and directors are, for the most part, members of the American upper class. Membership in the upper class is typically measured by such indicators as (1) oneís name in the Social Register, and exclusive list of influential persons published in major U.S. cities and containing the names of about 138,000 persons; (2) attendance at elite private secondary schools and universities; (3) membership in exclusive social clubs and annual attendance at upper-class vacation retreats (e.g., Bohemian Grove, Pacific Union Club, Knickerbocker Club); and, of course, (4) seats on boards of the largest interlocked corporations.56

The political elite differs from the corporate or economic elite in that it includes persons occupying "key federal government positions in the executive (presidential), judicial (the Supreme Court and lesser federal courts), and legislative (congressional) branches [and]Ö the top command positions in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines."57 Numerous studies reveal that the political elite is composed of persons from both the upper-middle class (lawyers, small businesspeople, doctors, farmers, educators, and other professionals) and the upper class. The upper class tends to dominate the federal branch of the government, while upper-middle-class professionals make up the preponderance of the legislative branch. A study of presidential cabinets, from McKinley to Nixon, examining the degree to which cabinet heads were recruited from the ranks of big business, indicated that, from 1897 to 1973, big business supplied from 60 percent (under McKinley) to 95.7 percent (under Nixon) of presidential cabinet members.58

Another study found that 63 percent of the secretaries of state, 62 percent of the secretaries of defense, and 63 percent of the treasury secretaries have been members of the national upper class.59 A few examples of the members of the power elite include the following:

John Foster Dulles was secretary of state from 1953 to 1960. Before his appointment he was senior partner in a prestigious law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, and sat on the boards of numerous corporations: Bank of New York, American Bank Note Company, United Railroad, International Nickel of Canada, American Cotton Corporation, and European Textile Corporation. Dulles was also a trustee of leading civic organizations: the New York Public Library, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His brother, Allen, was director of the CIA (1953-1961) and a member of the Warren Commission, the panel set up by President Johnson to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy.

Alexander Haig, secretary of state in 1981-1982, is currently president of United Technologies Corporation, a major defense contractor. Haig is a former four-star U.S. Army general; former Supreme Commander of NATO forces in Europe; former assistant to President Nixon; former deputy commander of the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, New York; and former deputy secretary of defense. He is the man most responsible for the terms set down in the pardon of President Nixon following the Watergate scandal.

Corporate position has rarely been better represented in government than it is by the position of secretary of the treasury.

George Bushís treasury secretary, Nicholas Brady, was a former chairman of Dillion Read & Company, a major Wall Street investment firm, and member of the board of directors of Purolator, National Cast Register, Georgia International, and Media General.

Jimmy Carterís treasury head, Michael Blumenthal, is president of the Bendix Corporation, former vice president of Crown Cork Company, and trustee of the Council on Foreign Relations.

President Clinton promised the American people a cabinet that looks like America, meaning there would be more women and minorities. However, he did not promise us a cabinet that resembled Americaís social class makeup. President Clinton appointed more millionaires to cabinet posts than Reagan or Bush.60 Among the examples are these:

Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen was a champion of tax breaks for corporations during his Senate career, and 89 percent of Bentsenís $2.5 million campaign fund in his last Senate bid came from corporate political action committees (PACs). Bentsenís personal worth exceeds $10 million, and he possesses holdings in a number of businesses in Texas. His deputy secretary, Roger Altman, comes from a Wall Street investment firm, Blackstone Group. This company has been involved in the four largest American acquisitions made by Japanese firms, including Sonyís takeover of Columbia Pictures and CBS Records.

Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, former head of the Democratic National Committee, hails from an elite law firm, Patton, Boggs, and Blow. Brown has represented many major corporations, including Japan Airlines and American Express, and his firm represents such clients as Mutual Life Insurance, New York Life, and the former dictator of Haiti, "Baby Doc" Duvalier.

Trade Representative Mickey Kantor was law partner in Manatt, Phelps, Phillips, & Kantor, which has represented Occidental Petroleum, Atlantic Richfield Coal and Oil, Martin Marietta, and Philip Morris Tobacco Company. Kantor represented tobacco industry groups trying to prevent passage of a smoke-free restaurant bill in Beverly Hills, California.

Secretary of State Warren Christopher, a lawyer from OíMelveny and Meyers, represented Exxon oil corporation in its pollution of Prince William Sound, Alaska. He also represented E.F. Hutton after its check floating scandal in which Hutton took advantage of the lag between the time checks were written and the time that they actually cleared, earning millions in extra interest. Christopher has also served on the board of Southern California Edison, Lockheed, United Airlines, Bankerís Trust (New York), Occidental Petroleum, and Japanís Fuji Bank and Mitsubishi Corporation.

Thus, it makes little difference whether the White House is run by Republicans or Democrats; those who run the government largely tend to come from corporate backgrounds and share remarkably similar educational and cultural experiences and affiliations.

In the 99th Congress, 251 members were lawyers (the most common profession), and the next largest share were in business, especially service industries (publishing, broadcasting, and real estate). Fifty members spent all or part of their careers in education, and thirty were in communications. Perhaps more important is the legislatorsí economic status.

An estimated one-third of all senators were millionaires, and two-thirds of all senators supplemented their salaries with outside incomes of $20,000 or more. The House [was] more middle class economically speaking, butÖ at least 30 of their members are millionaires, and more than 100 report incomes of $20,000 or more annually beyond their congressional salaries.61

While it is true that economic power and state or government power are interlinked, they are not related in a conspiratorial fashion. This is an important point because a number of people who have written on the subjects of elite power and political corruption do believe in conspiracies.62 A second distorted view of the elite has been put forth by certain muckraking journalists, who hold that while the state and the upper class are relatively independent, certain "moral and legal lapses in this independence" occur.63 This view purports that the business class gets what it desires from government by engaging in all manner of corruption, lobbying, and other forms of illegal or unethical behavior.

The view expressed in this book is that the conspiratorial view of elite behavior is simplistic. Even though conspiracies do occur from time to time and always will, such explanations do a disservice to the complex nature of elite power and elite deviance.

The conspiratorial view of the elite is unrealistic for a number of reasons. First, not only are the elite somewhat diverse as to class background, but they are ideologically diverse, as well. That is, political opinions among elites range from conservative to social democrat. Although it is true that the elites agree on the basic rules of politics (that is, free elections, the court system, and the rule of law) and believe in the capitalist economic system, they disagree considerably about such issues as the power of business, civil rights, welfare, and foreign policy.64

Second, elites do not control the federal government because they do not possess a monopoly of political power. The structure of capitalist society is such that elite rule is faced with economic and other crises (for example, inflation, unemployment, war, racism) that lead non-elite interests to demand changes consistent with their interests (for example, unemployment benefits in periods of high unemployment). As William Chambliss has concluded, "The persistence of and importance of the conflicts resolved through law necessarily create occasions where well-organized groups representing [non-elite] class interests manage to effect important legislation."65

Third, the conspiratorial view relating to elites dominating the state through corruption masks some of the most important unethical patterns that characterize much of elite deviance. For example, during the hearings regarding his appointment as vice-president in the mid-1970s, Nelson Rockefeller was questioned about his gift-giving habits but was not held "accountable for the shootings at Attica (prison) orÖ for the involvement of Chase Manhattan [Bank] in the repressive system of South African racism."66

Likewise, the right wingís conspiratorial view of a capitalist elite plotting to lead the nation into communism hides much of the unethical behavior of corporations that results as a consequence of the structure of corporate capitalism itself. As mentioned, about one-third of the economy is dominated by corporate giants. Such giantism means that, in many manufacturing (for example, cereals, soups, autos, and tires) and financial industries, a handful of firms (often four or less) accounts for more than half the market in a particular industry or service. Such situations are often characterized by artificially high prices due not to secret price-fixing conspiracies but to a practice known as price leadership. This results when one firm decides to raise prices on a given product and is then copied by the other major firms in the same field. The costs of these monopolistic price distortions are discussed in length in Chapter 3. This and other unethical practices considered in detail in this volume are not accounted for by conspiratorial views of the economy and government and the linkages between them.

Our position is that it is more fruitful to consider deviance within the context of the relationships between business and governmental organizations, the functions performed by government, and the internal organizational structure of both the corporate and political organizations that constitute the elite sectors of society. In sum, we concur with Michael Parentiís view that "Elite power is principally systemic and legitimating rather than conspiratorial and secretive."67

Economy-State Linkages and the Functions of Government

To understand the interrelationships between the economy and the state is to comprehend how elites attempt to formulate and implement public policy. These interrelationships are based on connections among corporations, large law firms that represent large corporations, elite colleges and universities, the mass media, private philanthropic foundations, major research organizations (think tanks), political parties, and the executive and legislative branches of the federal government. Key examples of these interlocks of moneys, personnel, and policies are pictured in Figure 1.1.

Aside from the major corporations and the federal government, the rest of the organizations are included for several reasons:

1. Twenty-five universities and colleges listed in Figure 1.1 control 50 percent of all educational endowment funds and include some 656 corporate and other elites as their presidents and trustees. Moreover, only 50 foundations out of 12,000 control 40 percent of all foundation assets.68 The officers of such foundations often have experience in elite corporations, educational institutions, and/or government.

2. The elite civic associations bring together elites from the corporate, educational, legal, and governmental worlds. Such organizations have been described as "central coordinating mechanisms in national policy making."69 These organizations issue public position papers and investigative reports on matters of domestic and foreign policy. Membership in one or more of these organizations is sometimes a prerequisite to a high-ranking post within the executive branch of the federal government.

For example, the majority of the Carter cabinet (including Jimmy Carter himself) served on the Trilateral Commission prior to assuming office. The commission was formed by David Rockefeller, chairman of the board of the Chase Manhattan Bank; heir to the Exxon fortune; graduate of Harvard; member of the boards of directors of B.F. Goodrich, Rockefeller Brothers, Inc., and Equitable Life Insurance; and trustee of Harvard. Rockefeller is also the chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR). Almost all recent secretaries of state, including Cyrus Vance and Henry Kissinger, have been CFR members.70

3. The mass media are concentrated in that there are three major television and radio networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS. These networks are also multinational corporations that own or are owned by other corporations. For example, NBC is owned by General Electric, a major manufacturer of appliances and weapons systems components. Controlling shares in the three television networks are owned by five New York commercial banks: Chase Manhattan, Morgan Guaranty, Citibank, Bankers Trust, and the Bank of New York.71

The media also include the major wire services, Associated Press and United Press International, from which most national and international news make their way into U.S. radio, television, and newspapers. Regarding newspapers and news weeklies, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post), and U.S. News & World Report are regarded as the most influential publications in their field.72 Most cable TV networks are also owned by media conglomerates. One exception is the holdings of Ted Turner, which include the Cable News Network (CNN), stations WTBS and TNT, and the Atlanta Braves, Hawks, and Falcons sports teams.

Moreover, the major sponsors of television programs on the three networks are other large corporations. The media tend to portray deviant behavior as violent behavior that is perpetrated by poor non-elites. As one recent study concludes, the crime reported in television news and newsmagazines includes kidnappings and particularly gruesome murders. "Ordinary people who carry out nonviolent crimes or violate the mores rarely appear in national news."73 However, "the economically powerful, such as officers of large corporations and holders of great wealth, are filmed or written about rarely, and then usually for reasons having little to do with their economic power, [except] when they are involved in some conflict with the federal government or are having legal difficulties."74

Overall, the media function to portray crime and deviance as a problem created by non-elites and to describe corporate capitalism as a system characterized by competition, freedom, and, while flawed, the best of all existing worlds. As a Time magazine profile put it: "Plainly capitalism is not working well enough. But there is no evidence to show the fault is in the system --- or that there is a better alternativeÖ For all its blemishes capitalism still holds out the most creative and dynamic force that any civilization has ever discovered: the power of the free ambitious individual."75

Such propagandistic exercises are also characteristic of numerous television commercials and public service announcements (often prepared by the elite National Advertising Council) that insist that the oil companies are "working to keep your trust" or that our "economics quotients" (knowledge about the U.S. economic system) could stand improvement. Thus, one overall function of the mass media is to ensure the continuation and growth of the system of corporate capitalism.

4. Twenty-eight super law firms do much of the legal work for the corporations, mass media, and educational and civic foundations. In addition, senior lawyers in such firms often fill posts on various foundations and civic and educational institutions and from time to time assume various posts within the executive branch of the federal government. A good example of one such super lawyer is Paul Warnke, President Carterís chief negotiator in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. Warnke is also a member of the Trilateral Commission, a director of the CFR, a former assistant secretary of defense, and partner in a Washington law firm that included former Defense Secretary Clark Clifford.76

5. Finally, there are numerous elite-related think tanks, primarily research institutes. In general, these operations receive moneys from both public and private sources, depending on the type of research that they do. For example, about 5 percent of the Department of Defenseís research and development budget in the 1960s and early 1970s went to such research organizations.77

Think tanks perform a very wide variety of research tasks and are closely allied with the business arm of the American power elite. For instance, the American Enterprise Institute is allied with the conservative wing of the Republican party and Southern Democrats. Its activities primarily involve studies, the end products of which are policy proposals aimed at enhancing the profitability and power of its corporate clients.78

Item: In the 1970s new "think tanks," especially the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Heritage Foundation, were established and richly endowed by corporate money. The right-wing Heritage Foundation was started with a $250,000 donation from Colorado beer tycoon Joseph Coors. AEIís patrons included AT&T ($125,000), Chase Manhattan Bank ($125,000), Exxon ($130,000), General Electric ($65,000), General Motors ($100,000), and Proctor & Gamble ($165,000). AEI quickly became a "primary source of Washington opinion" shaping the policy positions of Washington politicians and the mass media.79

The American Enterprise Institute and other think tanks also prepare studies for influential big business lobby groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce. In short, think tanks provide valuable research aid in achieving the policy aims of elites, both inside and outside of government. Figure 1.1 on page 21 depicts the structures that supply personnel, money, and policy to the federal government but does not describe the processes used by or the benefits from the state sought by elites. Such means and benefits are important in that when they are abused, they constitute forms of elite deviance. These benefits will be discussed in following sections.

Lobbying. The principle of majority rule is sometimes violated by special interests, which, by deals, propaganda, and the financial support of political candidates, attempt to deflect the political process for their own benefit. Individuals, families, corporations, and various organizations use a variety of means to obtain numerous benefits from congressional committees, regulatory agencies, and executive bureaucracies. To accomplish their goals, lobbyists for the special interests "along with the slick brochures, expert testimonies, and technical reports,Ö still have the slush fund, the kickback, the stock award, the high paying job offer from industry, the lavish parties and prostitutes, the meals, transportation, housing and vacation accommodations, and the many other hustling enticements of money."80

The existence of lobbyists does not ensure that the national interests will be served or that the concerns of all groups will be heard. Who, for example, speaks for the interests of schoolchildren, minority groups, the poor, people who are mentally retarded, renters, migrant workers, in short for the relatively powerless? And if there is a voice for these people, does it match the clout of lobbyists backed by the fantastic financial resources of the elite?

In fairness, it must be stressed that the success of such lobbies is not ensured.

Big economic interests donít always win. The cargo preference bill was defeated. So was the 1979 sugar quota. The Consumer Cooperative Bank bill passed the House by one vote and became law. Sometimes scandal or the weight of evidence can push Congress in the right direction. And it must be noted that when a congressman from Michigan votes to bail out Chrysler, or a congressman from Wisconsin votes for dairy price supports, he is also voting to benefit his own constituents. This may not favor the public interest, but it is predictable politics, not personal corruptionÖ To receive money from an interest doesnít mean a member of Congress is controlled, per se. There are indentured politicians and there are principled conservatives; the former virtually auction their souls to the highest bidder while the latter may truly believe that the government shouldnít be forcing pharmaceutical firms to pre-market test their drugs.81

Nevertheless, corporate lobbies usually do exert a significant influence.

Financing Political Campaigns. Perhaps one of the most elite-dominated and undemocratic features (at least in its consequences) of the U.S. political system is a result of the manner in which campaigns are financed. Political campaigns are expensive, with statewide campaigns sometimes costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and national campaigns running into the millions. This money is raised from contributions, and campaign contributions now represent a major scandal for both political parties. In the 1996 presidential elections the Democratic party attempted to raise $200 million for the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign. Some of the tactics used involved clear violations of federal law.

Between 1983 and 1988, 163 savings and loan (S&L) political action committees (PACs) gave $11 million to congressional candidates, with donations increasing 42 percent just before the S&L bailout was authorized by Congress.82 The campaign donations from the S&L industry resulted in the most massive financial scandal in U.S. history. Members of various S&Ls allowed Democratic Congress members to use S&L-owned yachts for fundraising purposes and even paid for one influential congressmanís dinners, which amounted to $20,000 for a single year. S&L lobbyists also contributed to the establishment of a business school for Utah Senator Jake Garn, who co-authored a bill allowing S&Ls to engage in all manner of questionable financial practices. The final cost to the public may be over $1 trillion. (See Chapter 2 for details.)

Endnotes

40. See especially the following by C. Wright Mills: The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959); The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); and Character and Social Structure (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, 1953) (with Hans Gerth). Other useful works include Joseph Simecca, The Sociological Theory of C. Wright Mills (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat, 1978); Society and Freedom: An Introduction to Humanist Sociology (New York: St. Martinís Press, 1981); and John Eldridge, C. Wright Mills (New York: Tavistock, 1983).

41. See Michael Parenti, Make Believe Media: The Politics of Entertainment (New York: St. Martinís Press, 1991); and Erick Barnouw, The Sponsor (New York: Oxford, 1978).

42. T. Dye and H. Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy, 9th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1993), For an excellent summary of the evidence supporting the existence of an elite, see Harold Kerbo and Richard Della Fave, "The Empirical Side of the Power Elite Debate," Sociological Quarterly 20, Winter 1979, 5-220.

43. Ibid., 14, 19, 235.

44. See Douglas Dowd, U.S. Capitalist Development Since 1776: Of, By, and For Which People? (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1993), 113-15.

45. Thomas Dye, Whoís Running America? 3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983), 38.

46. Thomas Dye, Whoís Running America? 4th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1986), 16-19.

47. Ben Bagdikian, Media Monopoly (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983), 3; and John Hewitt, "Building Media Empires," in Media U.S.A., ed. A. Asa Berger (New York , Longman, 1991), 396.

48. See Edward N. Wolff, "How the Pie Is Sliced, Americaís Growing Concentration of Wealth," American Prospect, Summer 1995, 58-64.

49. Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House, 1990), 17, 28; and Kevin Phillips, Boiling Point (New York: Random House, 1993), Chapter1.

50. Dowd, 1993, 114.

51. These figures are taken from Peter Evans and Steve Schneider, "The Political Economy of the Corporation," in Critical Issues in Sociology, ed. Scott McNall (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, 1980), 221.

52. Evans and Schneider, 222.

53. Dye (4th ed.) 176.

54. G. David Garson, Power and Politics in the United States (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, 1973), 181, 182, 185.

55. G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America Now? (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1983), 77. Such power also stems from the fact that the U.S. upper class contributes heavily to political parties, campaigns, and PACs (see discussion that follows). Moreover, its media ownership aids it in gaining an "impact on the consciousness of all (social) classes in the nation." From D. Gilbert and J. Kahl, The American Class Structure (Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press, 1982), 348-49.

For more endnote info see Elite Deviance by David R. Simon, isbn: 0205321763