How is this related to Lockheed Martin?

on

 

How is this related to Lockheed Martin?

It is notable that some members of the Carlyle Group's board of directors and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) have positions of influence with Lockheed Martin.

For example, Lockheed Martin’s board of directors currently includes Daniel F. Akerson, former Vice Chairman and Managing Director of The Carlyle Group. Lockheed Martin’s CEO James Taiclet now sits on the board of CFR[1] alongside CFR’s chairman David Rubenstein, a co-founder and co-chairman of the Carlyle Group.

Another example is Richard Armitage, a former Deputy Secretary of State and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Armitage is a member of the CFR, and he also serves on the board of directors of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (‘CSIS’, see below), a think tank that has close ties to Lockheed Martin. Armitage is likely to have some influence over the company's lobbying efforts.

It is important to note that not all members of the Carlyle Group's board of directors or the CFR have positions of influence with Lockheed Martin. However, the members who do have these positions can potentially use their influence to benefit the company.

The relationship between the Carlyle Group, CFR, and Lockheed Martin is a complex one. It is important to be aware of this relationship when evaluating the companies' activities and their potential impact on public policy.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and Lockheed Martin have close ties. These ties include:

·         Shared personnel: Many CSIS scholars and fellows have worked for Lockheed Martin or have had close ties to the company. For example, former CSIS President and CEO John J. Hamre was the Deputy Secretary of Defense from 1993 to 1997, and he is currently a board member of Lockheed Martin.

·         Financial support: Lockheed Martin is a major donor to CSIS. In 2022, the company donated $1 million to the organization.

·         Research collaboration: CSIS and Lockheed Martin have collaborated on research projects on a variety of topics, including national security, defence policy, and international relations.

·         Lobbying: CSIS has lobbied on behalf of Lockheed Martin's interests on Capitol Hill. For example, in 2021, CSIS published a report arguing that the U.S. should increase its defence spending.

The close ties between CSIS and Lockheed Martin have been the subject of some controversy. Critics have argued that the ties could create a conflict of interest, as CSIS could be biased in favour of Lockheed Martin's interests. However, CSIS has defended its ties to Lockheed Martin, arguing that the company's financial support is essential to the organization's work.

It is important to note that not all CSIS scholars and fellows have close ties to Lockheed Martin. However, the ties that do exist could potentially influence the organization's research and policy recommendations.

Australia also has close ties to CSIS. Melbourne packaging billionaire Anthony Pratt, whose US companies employ about 10,000 Americans, is a key financial backer. Pratt Industries endowed the inaugural Australia chair, a move that came to fruition at the end of 2021, shortly after then-prime minister Scott Morrison announced AUKUS. Pratt has a ubiquitous presence across US and Australia relations. He had the political heft to bring together former PM Scott Morrison and then-US president Donald Trump at the opening of a Pratt packaging facility in Ohio in 2019. Pratt has a prominent role in the American Australian Association, which was founded by the Murdochs in New York and continues to be dominated by Murdoch influence. He is also a fan of Australia’s defence minister, Richard Marles; Marles refers to Pratt as “my good friend”. Pratt introduced Marles at a CSIS event in July last year thus: “Deputy Prime Minister Marles is a true friend of the United States and I believe he will be the greatest defence minister Australia has ever had.”[2]

The “Big Three” through their cross-ownership and combined voting power effectively in a position to control Lockheed Martin.[3]  Some commentators have coined the phrase “Power of Twelve” approximating a size of a company Board of Directors, potentially putting the control of the entire economy in the hands of twelve individuals.[4] In June 2022 the Financial Times even suggested who those individuals may be.[5] Some familiar names include:

1.       Laurence (“Larry”) Fink who is the current chairman and CEO of BlackRock, BlackRock is the largest money-management firm in the world with more than US$10 trillion in assets under management. He sits on the boards of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and World Economic Forum. BlackRock is the largest investor in weapon manufacturers through its U.S. Aerospace and Defense ETF. As noted above, BlackRock is a major beneficial owner of Lockheed Martin.

2.       Mortimer Joseph ("Tim") Buckley who is CEO of The Vanguard Group, currently the second largest shareholder of Lockheed Martin.

3.       Ronald (“Ron”) O’Hanley who is chairman and chief executive officer of State Street: currently the biggest shareholder of Lockheed Martin.

One author (Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-Industrial Complex -  William D. Hartung 2011) has posited that Lockheed Martin has “shaped US foreign policy for decades.”[6] Lockheed Martin is a major defence contractor, and it provides the U.S. government with a wide range of weapons and military systems. The company has a significant lobbying presence in Washington, D.C., and it spends millions of dollars each year to influence government policy. Lockheed Martin's directors and shareholders are also well-connected to the government. Many of them are former government officials, and they have close ties to members of Congress and the Pentagon. This gives them access to decision-makers and allows them to advocate for the company's interests.

According to the magazine Politico, Lockheed Martin has "a political network that is already the envy of its competitors", and its contracts enjoy wide bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress thanks to it having "perfected the strategy of spreading jobs on weapons programs in key states and congressional districts".[7] The company's 2010 lobbying expenditure by the third quarter was $9.9 million (2009 total: $13.7 million).[8]

In addition, Lockheed Martin is a major employer in the United States. The company has over 100,000 employees, and it generates billions of dollars in revenue each year. This gives the company a significant economic stake in the defence industry, and it can use this leverage to influence government policy. For example, in 2017, Lockheed Martin lobbied against a proposal to reduce the number of F-35 fighter jets that the U.S. government would purchase. The company argued that the F-35 is essential to the U.S. military's ability to deter threats from Russia and China. The lobbying effort was successful, and the U.S. government ultimately decided to purchase more F-35s.

An interesting video called "How Lockheed Got Too Big to Fail" is here.


[7] Munsil, Leigh; Wright, Austin (August 12, 2015). "Is Lockheed Martin too big to fail? Lockheed has made itself dominant on Capitol Hill – with defense jobs in virtually every state". Politico.

[8] "Lockheed Martin Lobbying Expenditure". OpenSecrets and "Lobbying Disclosure Act Database". United States Senate

Comments

Post a Comment