Let us now take a walking tour of Washington, D.C., to see whether
the Enron scandal has loosened corporate America�s grip on our nation�s
capital. (Okay, the answer is no.) At the White House recently,
President Bush announced a 10-point plan that he said will "improve
corporate responsibility and help protect America�s shareholders."
It will not.
In fact, a quick analysis shows that the federal government already
has the authority to implement Bush�s proposals. No new laws are needed.
It�s merely a question of will power.
Even the toughest of the Bush ideas (#5�CEOs or other officers who
clearly abuse their power should lose their right to serve in any
corporate leadership positions) can be executed by the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) today, right now, with no law changes.
But given that the top cop on the securities fraud beat in Washington
is the accounting industry�s former top lawyer�that would be current SEC
chair Harvey Pitt�we may conclude this: there is no will, and there is
therefore no way this Bush�s 10-point proposal will "improve corporate
responsibility." It�s all smoke and mirrors.
Let�s remember that when Bush�s Treasury Secretary, Paul O�Neill,
last month proposed that corporate executives be held liable for their
negligent wrongdoing, he was quietly sent packing. Why?
When asked about why O�Neill�s proposal was shot down, a senior
administration official told reporters March 7 at the White House:
"Businessmen can make boo-boos. When you invest in a company in which a
businessman makes a mistake, a business judgment mistake, no one wants
to have anyone be guaranteed for those returns. (Translation: can�t hold
the executive responsible for mistakes under the "business judgment
rule.")
"And we�re trying to be very careful to steer away from that issue
and still leave investors on the hook for the choices businessmen make
about business." (No that is not a typo. According to the White House
transcript, he said "on the hook.")
Let us now proceed across the street, to the Treasury Department
annex, where the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has for years
been engaged in a kind of protection racket�enforcing the law against
large corporations for alleged violations of the Trading with the Enemy
Act, allowing the companies to settle those cases for a few thousand
dollars, and yet never informing the public about those settlements.
Until recently, that is, when as a result of a lawsuit we filed last
year, OFAC began releasing the documents detailing about 100 to 150 such
cases from 1998 to 2000. But still, the Treasury Department says it
won�t inform the public, in a timely manner, about which of our giant
corporations are "trading with the enemy."
Let us now proceed across town to the U.S. Sentencing Commission,
where it is the tenth anniversary of the sentencing guidelines for
corporate criminals. These guidelines were drafted in 1991. They created
a carrot-and-stick approach. If a corporation had a strong ethics
program, an 800-number for whistleblowers, a compliance officer with
teeth, but despite all of that, was still convicted of a crime, a judge
would give that "good" convicted corporation a lighter sentence.
If a corporation didn�t have a strong ethics program and wantonly
violated the law, the judge, under the sentencing guidelines, would give
that "bad" corporation a harsher sentence. The result of the guidelines:
there are now 800 corporations with ethics officers. The officers even
have their own trade group�the Ethics Officers Association. But have the
corporate crime sentencing guidelines reduced corporate crime? We doubt
it.
The U.S. Sentencing Commission says it wants to know the answer, so
it has announced the creation of a 15-member ad hoc panel to study the
effect the guidelines have had on corporate crime. But get this: 12 of
the 15 members are corporate white-collar criminal defense attorneys or
others from the corporate sector. Why no one from the public interest
community? Why no lawyers who sue corporations alleging wrongdoing? Why
no legal scholars critical of corporate influence over our democracy?
(The grip is tight.)
Let us now proceed to Capitol Hill, where Representative Dennis
Kucinich (D-Ohio) is introducing legislation that would create a Federal
Bureau of Audits. Today, corporations hire their own auditors. If the
auditors find something wrong and try to get it fixed, a corporation can
lawfully fire the auditor and hire another more to its liking.
Rep. Kucinich�s bill would require that publicly held companies go to
the Federal Bureau of Audits and be assigned a government auditor. It�s
one of the few reforms we�ve seen floated in recent months that have a
chance of preventing future Enrons. And yet, at the press conference
where Rep. Kucinich announced his legislation, there were two reporters.
And no co-sponsors.
The Democrats, who like the Republicans are marinated in corporate
cash and culture, see Rep. Kucinich�s bill as too hot to handle. The
reason: accounting firms stand to lose tens of millions of dollars in
auditing business to the federal government.
Let us now proceed down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the J. Edgar Hoover
building, where the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is about to
release its yearly "Crime in the United States Report." If history is a
guide, the report will document all kinds of street crimes, but not even
mention the wave of corporate crime and violence sweeping over our
country�this despite the well-documented reality that corporate crime
and violence inflicts far more damage on society than all street crime
combined.
Let us now proceed uptown, to the K Street corridor, where we find
thousands of corporate lobbyists working diligently late into the night
to ensure that whatever citizen energies were released from the Enron
earthquake are contained within reasonable bounds.
After all, businessmen make boo-boos.
(Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
Crime Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor, www.essential.org/monitor. They are co-authors of
Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on
Democracy.)