Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Death Penalty Should be Applied to Corporations that Defraud Government

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
whatelseisnew Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:49 AM
Original message
Death Penalty Should be Applied to Corporations that Defraud Government


http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1230-02.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DECEMBER 30, 2003
10:00 AM


WASHINGTON - December 30 - The death penalty should be applied to corporations convicted of defrauding the
federal government, according to a report released today by the Corporate Crime Reporter. The report ranks the top
100 False Claims Act settlements by amount of the settlement. It also lists the whistleblower's share of the settlement -
if known. (The report can be found, in its entirety, at www.corporatecrimereporter.com)

The report calls on federal officials to seriously consider applying the corporate death penalty to companies convicted
of defrauding the federal government. "The federal government has the authority to prohibit corporations convicted of
serious crimes from doing business with the federal government," said Russell Mokhiber, editor of the Corporate Crime
Reporter, a weekly newsletter based in Washington, D.C. "This debarment or exclusion authority is considered the
equivalent of the death penalty, because for major health care corporations and defense corporations which rely on
federal contracts, denying them federal contracts would effectively put them out of business."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Punkingal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
1. My hubby says that all the time.
It would work, too, but of course, it won't happen. (I hate to be so cynical.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewGuy Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. Catching and jailing the guilty exec seems more important to me.
If we penalize companies we penalize the economy, the employees, the union that is involved, etc. However, if we catch and punish the executive in charge we prevent future occurances and leave the company to continue serving the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DinahMoeHum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
3. You should also strip the guilty exec of his assets. . .
as the Eddie Murphy character in the movie "Trading Places" says:
"it occurs to me that the way to hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people"

:evilfrown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cthrumatrix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. where's the media coverage of the Tyco CEO trial ...?
Or do we not show corporate abuse, cheating and scandals that DO AFFECT people and their 401K's...

this has more merit than these other trials we have shoved in our faces 7x24
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peregrine Donating Member (712 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. Death penalty
for the most part these were settlement agreements between the gov't and the company. The death penalty will bring about court battles. Also you will be dealing with companies who are major employers and campaign contributors in several congressional districts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. First we Klll all the Corporations
Then we strip the criminals who ran them of their ill-gotten gains.

But first must kill the corporation-sell the assets, pay off the creditors, employees first, and nullify the old Supreme ruling that corporations are people. Best to give the corporation to the lowest 5 rungs of the ladder? The possibilities to truly fix a whole lot of problems boggles the mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewGuy Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. If you kill the corporation...
who will provide the health carew and the military equipment we need. Or do you think that health care and defense are not worth having?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baby_bear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Universal (national) health care would resolve one part
We shouldn't be depending upon the health of corrupt corporations to provide our health care. And there are plenty of companies that would be happy to take the place of Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. If the government would debar the defrauders, behavior would change VERY quickly.

There is NO good reason for corporations that defraud to continue to do business with the people of the U.S., i.e., the federal government.

s_m

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewGuy Donating Member (305 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Universal health care wouldn't help here
The fraud cases they are talking about are taking place in our existing universal, for those over age 65, health care system.

And no, there are not plenty of companies looking to take over for Haliburton, bechtel, etc. These are huge companies that are very specialized in the defense and government contracting arena.

I have done government contracting on both construction efforts and in service work. In both cases, many companies will not work with the government because of the red tape required to do so and because they require so many audits and they will publish audit findings without waiting to see the response from the company involved in the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Since the work (need) that the company did would still - in theory - exist
wouldn't it just open the market up to other competitors? And to fill that void created those companies would have to expand... and hire people.. and offer healthcare/etc.?

Seems to me that other accounting firms in Texas swept in and took over the business left by Anderson when they lost their charter to do business in Texas.

If there were serious reprecussions (such as losing a charter to do business) - then there is a greater incentive for employees and board members to step in and correct potential problems (such as fraud) before it reaches the point where this (losing the charter) would be a factor. Currently there are more incentives to turn a blind eye (and or to get in on the fraud) - Enron is a good example of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TolstoyAndy Donating Member (493 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Despite the red tape ...
... we the people are still being ripped off.

Either we don't have enough red tape, or it is being circumvented.

Halliburton and Bechtel are guilty of crimes against humanity (HAL in Iraq just IMHO for stealing oil, but Bechtel to any impartial observer in its H2O privatization in South America) and they are not alone in those crimes.

We will not be safe until corporate person-hood is revoked and these criminals are punished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. i think the red tape is used to keep unwanted competition out..
..out of the playing field of the halliburtons, the bechtels and the carlyles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. we'll do it the same way...
that the rest of the world does it...


try pulling fraud against the federal gov't, as a citizen, and see what happens...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mbperrin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Adam Smith did not believe that stock corporations should exist.
There are plenty of non-stock companies that could provide anything we need, just as they did before the current large artificial non-accountable forms began taking over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malvina Reynolds Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
24. One more time:
why are so very many nations able to provide healthcare for all their citizens and we aren't?

This is a distraction from the death penalty the corporations indeed deserve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pocoloco Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
9. Not so much the blame of the corporations but of their leaders.
It is my belief that this is treason and should be punished as such!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undergroundpanther Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Basics
Not evrything has to be thrown to the whim of profit seeking and I think it is stupid to expect greedy people looking to make a buck for themselves to be interested in the common good especially if the common good means it might cost more money.Talk is cheap and people buy it time and again..but really cleaning up pollution and following safety regulations ect..that is expensive..And ciorporations need to be'lean' to compete and so thier motives for existing run against the common welfare of humanity.
Food,shelter,transport,water,heat(electric),communication,and healthcare or laws/government should never be "privatized" Why? Because they are nessecities of life.

In this world the way it is these are nessecities.
We have mad cow because of penny pinching greedy Ceos
We have Fannie Mae scandal because of Penny pinching Greedy Ceos
We have Haliburton writing US foreign policy,Towns planned around carsand the poor have no way to get around, and unwise use of fossil fuels because of Penny pinching Greedy Ceos
We have water lords in europe,and villages with dry wells because of the coca cola companies Penny pinching Greedy Ceos
We have Enron scandals because of Penny pinching Greedy Ceos
We have World com because of Penny pinching Greedy Ceos.
We have medicare scandals and hospital insurance fraud because of Penny pinching Greedy Ceos.

Our government is beholden to corporate interests because of Penny pinching Greedy Ceos
Nothing I depend on, or impacts my life personally like laws the govt.makes,should be in the hands of any Ceo.
There is or should be a wall of seperation between church and state,there also should be a wall between corporation and state.
*********************************************
A hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, it did not seem urgent that we understand the relationship between business and a healthy environment, because natural resources seemed unlimited. But on the verge of a new millenniums we know that we have decimated ninety-seven percent of the ancient forests in North America; every day our farmers and ranchers draw out 20 billion more gallons of water from the ground than are replaced by rainfall; the Ogalala Aquifer, an underwater river beneath the Great Plains larger than any body of fresh water on earth, will dry up within thirty to forty years at present rates of extraction; globally we lose 25 billion tons of fertile topsoil every year, the equivalent of all the wheatfields in Australia. These critical losses are occurring while the world population is increasing at the rate of 90 million people per year. Quite simply, our business practices are destroying life on earth. Given current corporate practices, not one wildlife reserve, wilderness, or indigenous culture will survive the global market economy. We know that every natural system on the planet is disintegrating. The land, water, air and sea have been functionally transformed from life-supporting systems into repositories for waste. There is no polite way to say that business is destroying the world. —Paul Hawkin,
THE ECOLOGY OF COMMERCE



ELEVEN INHERENT RULES
OF CORPORATE BEHAVIOR by Jerry Mander

The following list is an attempt to articulate the obligatory rules by which corporations operate. Some of the rules overlap, but taken together they help reveal why corporations behave as they do and how they have come to dominate their environment and the human beings within it.

The Profit Imperative: Profit is the ultimate measure of all corporate decisions. It takes precedence over community well-being, worker health, public health, peace, environmental preservation or national security. Corporations will even find ways to trade with national "enemies"—Libya, Iran, the former Soviet Union, Cuba—when public policy abhors it. The profit imperative and the growth imperative are the most fundamental corporate drives; together they represent the corporation's instinct to "live."

The Growth Imperative: Corporations live or die by whether they can sustain growth. On this depends relationships to investors, to the stock market, to banks and to public perception. The growth imperative also fuels the corporate desire to find and develop scarce resources in obscure parts of the world.

This effect is now clearly visible, as the world's few remaining pristine places are sacrificed to corporate production. The peoples who inhabit these resource-rich regions are similarly pressured to give up their traditional ways and climb on the wheel of production-consumption. Corporate planners consciously attempt to bring "less developed societies into the modem world" to create infrastructures for development, as well as new workers and new consumers. Corporations claim that they do this for altruistic reasons to raise the living standard—but corporations have no altruism.

Theoretically, privately held corporations—those owned by individuals or families—do not have the imperative to expand. In practice, however, their behavior is the same. Such privately held giants as Bechtel Corporation have shown no propensity to moderate growth.

Competition and Aggression: Corporations place every person in management in fierce competition with each other. Anyone interested in a corporate career must hone his or her ability to seize the moment. This applies to gaining an edge over another company or over a colleague within the company. As an employee, you are expected to be part of the "team," but you also must be ready to climb over your own colleagues.

Corporate ideology holds that competition improves worker incentive and corporate performances and therefore benefits society. Our society has accepted this premise utterly. Unfortunately, however, it also surfaces in personal relationships. Living by standards of competition and aggression on the job, human beings have few avenues to express softer, more personal feelings. (In politics, non-aggressive behavior is interpreted as weakness.)

Amorality: Not being human, corporations do not have morals or altruistic goals. So decisions that maybe antithetical to community goals or environmental health are made without misgivings. In fact, corporate executives praise "non-emotionality" as a basis for "objective" decision-making.

Corporations, however, seek to hide their amorality and attempt to act as if they were altruistic. Lately, there has been a concerted effort by American industry to appear concerned with environmental cleanup, community arts or drug programs. Corporate efforts that seem altruistic are really Public relations ploys or directly self-serving projects.

There has recently been a spurt of corporate advertising about how corporations work to clean the environment. A company that installs offshore oil rigs will run ads about how fish are thriving under the rigs. Logging companies known for their clearcutting practices will run millions of dollars' worth of ads about their "tree farms."

It is a fair rule of thumb that corporations tend to advertise the very qualities they do not have in order to allay negative public perceptions. When corporations say "we care," it is almost always in response to the widespread perception that they do not have feelings or morals.

If the benefits do not accrue, the altruistic pose is dropped. When Exxon realized that its cleanup of Alaskan shores was not easing the public rage about the oil spill, it simply dropped all pretense of altruism and ceased working.

Hierarchy: Corporate laws require that corporations be structured into classes of superiors and subordinated within a centralized pyramidal structure: chairman, directors, chief executive officer, vice presidents, division managers and so on. The efficiency of this hierarchical form (which also characterizes the military, the government and most institutions in our society) is rarely questioned.

The effect on society from adopting the hierarchical form is to make it seem natural that we have all been placed within a national pecking order. Some jobs are better than others, some lifestyles are better than others, some neighborhoods, some races, some kinds of knowledge. Men over women. Westerners over non-Westerners. Humans over nature.

That effective, non-hierarchical modes of organization exist on the planet, and have been successful for millennia, is barely known by most Americans.

Quantification, Linearity, Segmentation: Corporations require that subjective information be translated into objective form, i.e. numbers. The subjective or spiritual aspects of forests, for example, cannot be translated, and so do not enter corporate equations. Forests are evaluated only as "board feet."

When corporations are asked to clean up their smokestack emissions, they lobby to relax the new standards in order to contain costs. The result is that a predictable number of people are expected to become sick and die.

The operative corporate standard is not "as safe as humanly possible," but rather, "as safe as possible commensurate with maintaining acceptable profit."

Dehumanization: In the great majority of corporations, employees are viewed as ciphers, as non-managerial cogs in the wheel, replaceable by others or by machines.

As for management employees, not subject to quite the same indignities, they nonetheless must practice a style of decision making that "does not let feelings get in the way." This applies as much to firing employees as it does to dealing with the consequences of corporate behavior in the environment or the community.

Exploitation: All corporate profit is obtained by a simple formula: Profit equals the difference between the amount paid to an employee and the economic value of the employee's output, and/or the difference between the amount paid for raw materials used in production (including costs of processing), and the ultimate sales price of processed raw materials. Karl Marx was right: a worker is not compensated for full value of his or her labor—neither is the raw material supplier. The owners of capital skim off part of the value as profit. Profit is based on underpayment.

Capitalists argue that this is a fair deal, since both workers and the people who mine or farm the resources (usually in Third World environments) get paid. But this arrangement is inherently imbalanced. The owner of the capital—the corporation or the bank always obtains additional benefit. While the worker makes a wage, the owner of capital gets the benefit of the worker's labor, plus the surplus profit the worker produces, which is then reinvested to produce yet more surplus.

Ephemerality: Corporations exist beyond time and space: they are legal creations that only exist on paper. They do not die a natural death; they outlive their own creators. They have no commitment to locale, employees or neighbors. Having no morality, no commitment to place and no physical nature (a factory, while being a physical entity, is not the corporation). A corporation can relocate all of its operations at the first sign of inconvenience—demanding employees, high taxes and restrictive environmental laws. The traditional ideal of community engagement is antithetical to corporation behavior.

Opposition to Nature: Though individuals who work for corporations may personally love nature, corporations themselves, and corporate societies, are intrinsically committed to intervening in, altering and transforming nature. For corporations engaged in commodity manufacturing, profit comes from transmogrifying raw materials into saleable forms. Metals from the ground are converted into cars.

Trees are converted into boards, houses, furniture and paper products. Oil is converted into energy. In all such energy, a piece of nature is taken from where it belongs and processed into a new form. All manufacturing depends upon intervention and reorganization of nature. After natural resources are used up in one part of the globe, the corporation moves on to another part.

This transformation of nature occurs in all societies where manufacturing takes place. But in capitalist, corporate societies, the process is accelerated because capitalist societies and corporations must grow by extracting resources from nature and reprocessing them at an ever-quickening pace. Meanwhile, the consumption end of the cycle is also accelerated by corporations that have an interest in convincing people that commodities bring material satisfaction. Inner satisfaction, self-sufficiency, contentment in nature or a lack of a desire to acquire wealth are subversive to corporate goals.

Banks finance the conversion of nature insurance companies help reduce the financial risks involved. On a finite planet, the process cannot continue indefinitely.

Homogenization: American rhetoric claims that commodity society delivers greater choice and diversity than other societies. "Choice" in this context means product choice in the marketplace: many brands to choose from and diverse features on otherwise identical products. Actually, corporations have a stake in all of us living our lives in a similar manner, achieving our pleasures from things that we buy in a world where each family lives isolated in a single family home and has the same machines as every other family on the block. The "singles" phenomenon has proved even more productive than the nuclear family, since each person duplicates the consumption patterns of every other person.

Lifestyles and economic systems that emphasize sharing commodities and work, that do not encourage commodity accumulation or that celebrate non-material values, are not good for business. People living collectively, sharing such "hard" goods as washing machines, cars and appliances (or worse, getting along without them) are outrageous to corporate commodity society.

Native societies—which celebrate an utterly non-material relationship to life, the planet and the spirit—are regarded as backward, inferior and unenlightened. We are told that they envy the choices we have. To the degree these societies continue to exist, they represent a threat to the homogenization of worldwide markets and culture. Corporate society works hard to retrain such people in attitudes and values appropriate to corporate goals.

In undeveloped parts of the world, satellite communication introduces Western television and advertising, while improvements in the technical infrastructure speed up the pace of development. Most of this activity is funded by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as well as agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, the Inter-American Bank and the Asian-American Bank, all of which serve multinational corporate enterprise.

The ultimate goal of corporate multinationals was expressed in a revealing quote by the president of Nabisco Corporation: "One world of homogeneous consumption. . . looking forward to the day when Arabs and Americans, Latinos and Scandinavians, will be munching Ritz crackers as enthusiastically as they already drink Coke or brush their teeth with Colgate." Page 31

In the book, Trilateralism, editor Holly Sklar wrote: "Corporations not only advertise products, they promote lifestyles rooted in consumption, patterned largely after the United States.... look forward to a post-national age in which social, economic and political values are transformed into universal values... a world economy in which all national economies beat to the rhythm of transnational corporate capitalism.... The Western way is the good way; national culture is inferior."

Form Is Content Corporations are inherently bold, aggressive and competitive. Though they exist in a society that claims to operate by moral principles, they are structurally amoral. It is inevitable that they will dehumanize people who work for them and the overall society as well. They are disloyal to workers, including their own managers. Corporations can be disloyal to the communities they have been part of for many years. Corporations do not care about nations; they live beyond boundaries. They are intrinsically committed to destroying nature. And they have an inexorable, unabatable, voracious need to grow and to expand. In dominating other cultures, in digging up the Earth, corporations blindly follow the codes that have been built into them as if they were genes.

We must abandon the idea that corporations can reform themselves. To ask corporate executives to behave in a morally defensible manner is absurd. Corporations, and the people within them, are following a system of logic that leads inexorably toward dominant behaviors. To ask corporations to behave otherwise is like asking an army to adopt pacifism.

Corporation: n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. —Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. corporations are abstract entities
of course there's no point in blaming a corporation as such; it's always people who do the things that 'a corporation does'.

That is exactly why a corporation should not have the same (and in many cases more) rights that a person has.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
prolesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 12:34 PM
Response to Original message
12. I would be in favor of jail
and stripping assets, but I don't believe in the death penalty — for anyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
salin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. I think pulling the charter to hold business
under certain circumstances (as the state of Texas did in the case of Anderson Accounting - related to obstruction of justice - done to cover up fraud) is legitimate. Or at least suspending the charter for a specified number of years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. Thom Hartmann talking about Mokhiber ---coming up next
www.ieamericaradio.com

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bozita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
17. CSPAN has the video of the press conference with Mokhiber up for viewing
http://www.cspan.org/

Took place live this morning at 10am ET.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drscm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
18. Wouldn't this be counter to the current *bush policy
of awarding no bid contracts (Halliburton) or seeking secret advice (Enron) from those who defraud?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
21. Use a lottery
Put all the names of the executives and board members in a hat and draw a name. Then execute him in front of those same people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
25. No. The CEOs should be jailed and should pay reparations
to whomever they ripped off. Someone like Ken Lay should be in jail for the rest of his life and ALL of his assets should be sold to repay the losses to employees and investors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dusty64 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-30-03 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
26. Sounds fair, seeing that
they want all the power and none of the penalties. I really wonder when Corporations were given the same rights as citizens including the right to control our government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 02:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC