As long as the law sees money as speech, scream loudly with your pocketbook

We have seen some major political squabbles over the past decade as the Supreme Court has determined that money is speech and corporations are people.  Many, probably correctly, see this as bestowing unequal and unbalanced power into a small portion of the population.  However, where many see a problem, I see an opportunity.  No matter ones position in society financially, we all spend a relatively equal amount on the basics of life, and a small amount of individual spending power spread out over millions of people can have a greater impact - in some circumstances - than a single, wealthy individual.

In short, if you believe in something, make sure that those from whom you purchase support those beliefs.

Two stories this week drive home the potential.  First, on Politico, Andrew Restuccia wrote a piece describing Sierra Club and ForestEthics' combined call for Coca Cola and Pepsi to remove the worst of petroleum products, oil from tar sands, from its supply chain.  The manufacturers use a significant amount of fuel to power transportation vehicles, and as such can sway the industry significantly.  The piece summarizes that:

The groups are calling on Pepsi and Coke to use their status as major U.S. companies to alter their contracts with fuel and transportation providers to require that their fuel come from refineries that do not rely on oil sands. ForestEthics has identified 60 U.S. refineries that process Canadian oil sands into fuel.

Although this specific campaign is targeted at pressuring decision-makers (advertisement focuses on the Atlanta and Dallas homes of Coca-Cola and PepsiCo respectively), the title of the campaign, "Tastes Like Tar Sands", gives the consumer the image of what their choice means for our quality of life.  Drinking the popular beverages means that mining will destroy forest lands, transporting the fuel to refineries will present dangers to groundwater and food-growing regions, and burning the fuel will harm human health.  Consumers that accept these consequences will continue to drink the product, both those that do not accept them can let the companies know through their purchases.  Corporations thrive on brand loyalty, wishing to spend marketing dollars only on the acquisition of new market share, not on holding onto existing customer base.  Even a modest migration can impact decision making.

In another example of the impact of aggregated financial decision-making, leaders of a number of pension funds have asked leaders of nearly 50 fossil-fuel-driven companies for assessments of how climate change focused restrictions will affect investment.  As Kevin Begos from AP reported,

Ehnes [Jack, head of the California Teacher's Retirement Fund] made clear that his fund is not seeking to punish the fossil fuel companies but rather work with them to study the issue and identify long-term options that will be good for shareholders, the environment and the firms. While the pension funds are concerned about climate change, their strategy is more moderate than a student-led movement that is asking schools around the country to divest from fossil fuels.

This prudent investigation recognizes that high capital investment in exploration does not pay profits until resources are depleted.  Long-term investors have the right to understand how their participation in that investment will fare as insurance costs, disaster response, and resulting legislation seek to apportion costs into the marketplace.  I would expect that the assessment would additionally look at how increased prices for resources, as demand for them climbs faster than increased production, will affect the market for the product and potentially weaken returns.  An individual holding stock, or participating in a 401k, would not have the weight that participants in a pension fund might have to make this kind of demand of industry.  This is where true checks-and-balances exist in the corporate system that almost none of us have any say over.

We all have little time in our days for much of anything beyond work, sleep and time with family.  Asking anyone to carve out time to look deeper into their purchasing decisions than the basic information they find on the shelf does ask much.  That time spent, however, can reap real benefit onto the quality of life ones family - or even just ones self - enjoys.  Even if the impact on our specific circumstance turns out to be small, taking that civic obligation seriously improves someone's life, and if we develop a culture of that in our nation, we will receive the benefit.

The opportunity is there, if we choose to "buy-in".