"Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
“Our police are beholden to a foreign company,” Tara Houska, founder of the Indigenous frontline group Giniw Collective, told the Guardian. “They are working hand in hand with big oil. They are actively working for a company. Their duty is owed to the state of Minnesota and to the tribal citizens of Minnesota.”"
The company does much more than just funding the police comparable to tax revenue, they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.
underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional.
You can effectively force this type of corruption by cutting apportionment without cutting responsibilities. C.f....
* IRS unable to investigate rich tax cheats due to lack of agents
> underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional.
You fail to address the question in my earlier comment: what's the difference between:
1. a company being forced to pay taxes to the local government, and the local government using that to fund the police
It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors.
The police budget should be set by the local government, breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.
> It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors.
According to the article there's already a layer of indirection.
"independent account manager allocates the funds"
What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something?
>The police budget should be set by the local government
Considering that the payment is being forced by the utility commission, I doubt the local government is able to spend the money as they see fit (ie. spend it on schools rather than police). For all intents and purposes their budget-setting ability is fairly limited.
>breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.
Is there any indication that's the case? As far as I understand it the utility commission is forcing the pipeline company to give the police a given amount, and the pipeline is complying with that requirement. Is the pipline company setting a bounty per protester beaten up or something?
> What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something?
Local government is partly elected, and beholden to its citizens. The independent account manager is neither. Furthermore, the article states that the company pays for overtime and such, so yes, they're directly paying to those more willing spend time on the matter, and can directly incentivise them.
>Local government is partly elected, and beholden to its citizens. The independent account manager is neither.
but the police chief is still beholden to its citizens? I'm still not clear on how the pipeline company being forced to fund them makes them beholden to the pipeline company. Suppose the pipeline company was forced to pay me $10k/month. Does that mean I'll be beholden to them? If rather than wiring the money directly to my account, they wire it to a shell company, and the shell company wires it to me, does that make me beholden to the shell company? Would you support the pipeline company funding the police anonymously using cash?
>Furthermore, the article states that the company pays for overtime and such
that's actually the more reasonable concern here, if you assume that more time on patrol = more protesters beaten up and/or civil rights violated. However, if that's actually the case my I'd be more concerned about why that's the way in the first place.
1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police.
2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob.
I'll be honest that I don't see this point as a good faith argument. Unless you are making some societal critique here on the number of governmental functions, up to and including aesthetic preferences for hair styles [0], that US society assigns to police fundamentally usurps the process of democracy?
So you're just going to ignore an entirely valid concern?
>1 - there is a process of public representation and societal input via elected government representatives, transparency, equality, and indirectness. EVERYONE pays the local government which then decides on priorities and apportions funds. Their taxes, like your and my taxes, go to all government services not just police.
you seem to arguing for something entirely different. rather than the pipeline company paying $x to fund the police department, you want the pipeline company to pay $x the local government so they can fund schools or whatever. While that's a reasonable demand, it's also entirely separate from what's actually happening (ie. the utilities commission requiring the pipeline company to fund the police so taxpayers aren't on the hook to secure their pipelines). It's not really "oh no the police are corrupt because the pipeline company is paying for them!", it's more "oh no the pipeline company isn't funding local government services!".
>2 - does not and is effectively equivalent to paying protection money to the mob.
I'm not sure what's the point you're trying to make here. Is the government the bad guy here for making the pipeline company pay police for protection? I'm sure the pipeline company would be happy to get rid of an expense.
>they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.
I'm not seeing that in the quoted excerpts. Specifically,
>But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols
"company meets daily with police" just means... "company meets daily with police". It doesn't mean the company is ordering the police around. Maybe the pipeline company has knowledge about the local geography and/or protester movements. Is telling that to the police wrong? Moreover, I fail to see where the leverage is coming from. Suppose the company wants the police to illegally beat up protesters. The police chief refuses. What's the pipeline company going to do, fire them? That's not an option because they're forced to pay the police.
>And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
Yes, that's how police works. If my house is getting robbed or my neighbor is partying a bit too loud, I call the police to deal with it. I don't wait for the police to show up on their own accord. Me calling up the police doesn't mean I'm using them "like a bunch of private goons".
I hope you're able to draw a distinction between protests of the public near a state park and through native land against a company and their pipeline which is inherently an issue of public land usage and environmental concerns and some thief rummaging through your garage. It should be very obvious why that is a bad faith comparison.
The right of the public to protest and protect their land, in a democracy at least, holds quite some value, and furthermore in a democracy the police answers to the people and citizens it serves, in this case native people, they should not have the oil company CEO on speed dial.
Am I missing something here? Is the pipeline company calling the police in bad faith? ie. they're reporting protesters even though they're not on pipeline company land? Is the legal situation regarding land rights in that area so conflicted that it's impossible to know who owns what? Even if there are appeals going on, there should be some sort of current decision about who can access/use the land.
>Can the tribes call up the police to have them enforce treaty rights that the oil companies are infringing?
Police aren't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner. A protester trespassing on pipeline company's property is a fairly cut and dry case that the police can act on it. Some treaty dispute between the tribe and the pipeline company is vague enough that they'll need a court ruling before they can act. If the tribes can get a court ruling, they can definitely call up the police to enforce those treaty rights.
>> Yes, that's how police works.
>Yes, that's the problem.
I'm baffled by this. You think that being able to call up a police to report a disturbance/crime, is a problem?
Funny how the pipeline company's "property" is cut and dry, but a 200 year-old treaty guaranteeing access to that land isn't recognized, is't it?
The problem with the police that I'm talking about here is that they readily apply violence to suppress protest on behalf of corporate interests, when the legal situation is actually far more complex.
If it's just so simple as "the pipeline companies meet with the police every day," do tribal leaders get the same courtesy?
> Funny how the pipeline company's "property" is cut and dry, but a 200 year-old treaty guaranteeing access to that land isn't recognized, is't it?
No.
I'm also not surprised that the anti-pipeline activists presented talking points that sound vaguely compelling and garner maximum sympathy from an average layperson.
>The problem with the police that I'm talking about here is that they readily apply violence to suppress protest on behalf of corporate interests, when the legal situation is actually far more complex.
I agree it's complex, but just because it's complex, doesn't mean that the pipeline is in a legal limbo zone where nobody owns it and everyone can do what they want. I suspect that's happening is that legally speaking, the pipeline company has gotten the necessary permits/approvals/decisions that they can start construction and evict trespassers. There might still be additional appeals on top, but they're not convincing enough for a judge to grant an injunction. You might disagree with this, and say that the justice system should be more obstructionist, but that's more of a problem with the judicial system than the police, and has nothing to do with this article's accusation that the police are being bribed or whatever.
"Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters.
“Our police are beholden to a foreign company,” Tara Houska, founder of the Indigenous frontline group Giniw Collective, told the Guardian. “They are working hand in hand with big oil. They are actively working for a company. Their duty is owed to the state of Minnesota and to the tribal citizens of Minnesota.”"
The company does much more than just funding the police comparable to tax revenue, they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.