Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
I guess I should not be surprised anymore, but it still saddens me to read that our old friend, Halliburton, has pled guilty to destroying evidence concerning their participation in the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion and the subsequent environmental disaster in 2010. If they pled guilty why should I be upset? I am upset that the Department of Justice agreed to a $1.1 Billion fine instead of jail time. Once again a corporate “citizen” has committed a crime and no one is going to jail.
I understand the costs involved in taking a case of this magnitude to trial, in order to press for prison time for the culpable officers. However, if this had been an individual would the Justice Department have balked at trying to get a conviction and jail time? I am not the only one concerned with the Justice Department’s soft handling of corporate criminals.
“David Uhlmann, an University of Michigan environmental law professor and former chief of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section, said the settlement raises questions about the absence of criminal charges against the company.
“Halliburton did not admit negligence in today’s settlement but the fact that they agreed to pay over $1 billion raises anew questions about why the Justice Department did not charge the company criminally for its role in causing the Gulf oil spill,” Uhlmann said in an email reply to USA TODAY questions about the settlement.” Reader Supported News
I can’t blame Halliburton for working to get a fine instead of jail time, but how can we stop corporate criminals from breaking the law in the future when the worst case scenario for them is the payment of a fine that could be tax-deductible? Halliburton was also looking at more serious financial uncertainty if it had not reached a settlement because of its role in the Deepwater Horizon fiasco and would have had to deal with the multiple BP claimants. Wouldn’t that give the Justice Department more bargaining power to insist on some jail time?
“With the agreement, Halliburton removes itself from future liability regarding legal claims filed on behalf of thousands of fishermen, business owners and others who said their lives and livelihoods were ruined by the spill.
“Halliburton wanted out,” said LeCesne. “Since their failed cement mixture is a the epicenter of culpability in this incident, they didn’t want to take any further chances.”‘ RSN
This is not the first time that a corporate “person” has committed crimes and only had to face a fine. We have seen it in the numerous Banks who have bought their way out of criminal liability. What will it take for the Justice Department to actually push for a criminal penalty in these corporate bad actor cases?
Shouldn’t a corporation that has allegedly committed crimes run the same risk as any individual when it comes to going to jail for those crimes? This problem of allowing corporations to buy their way out of criminal prosecutions is not a new issue. According to one Harvard Law Professor, Brandon Garrett, it started after the prosecution of the Arthur Anderson case in 2002 and after the conviction was overturned on appeal, prosecutors have been hesitant to go for criminal penalties in corporate cases.
“Federal prosecutors cemented their current approach to corporate prosecutions following the Arthur Andersen trial, which took place in 2002, and which I describe in the book—the jury convicted Andersen, resulting in the collapse of the company, but the conviction was then reversed on appeal. Fearful of the backlash should more high-profile cases end in disaster, prosecutors decided to allow more companies to avoid a conviction by entering deferred and non-prosecution agreements. Those deals took off in 2003, and they first caught my attention in 2006, when just a few dozen had been entered. The new approach was firmly in place when the financial crisis hit in 2007, and perhaps as a result, some companies may have felt they could settle prosecutions as a cost of doing business.” Harvard University Press Blog
Whatever reasons the Department of Justice is relying upon to push for civil fines instead of going for criminal convictions, the result stated by Prof. Garrett above would seem to be an easy decision for large corporations. Pay some money and walk away from the crimes. With the Department of Justice playing softball on corporate crime, why should the large corporations change their ways? As you may recall, Bank of America has been cited at least 6 separate times and no one has yet gone to jail. Time for a change in the Justice Department’s approach, don’t you think?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
Firstly, have an option in every election to vote, “None of the above.” That’s the first step. That will open eyes. Maybe not yours, but people not blinded by partisanship, you know MOST of the people in this country! Have you ever listened or read Ralph Nader. No wait, you probably hate him because he cost Fat Al Gore the election in your mind. Right??
Not terribly helpful, Nick. How does one break the duopoly WITHOUT campaign reform?
Campaign reform w/o destroying the duopoly hold on this nation is meaningless. We need more choices. Without more choices NOTHING will ever change.
Interesting.
Crickets from “The Vocal Opposition” here.
Guess Nick, Paul C., and Karen S., don’t find campaign reform very compelling.
I guess an in-depth discussion of presidential athleticism is much more important.
I have a comment that appears to be DOA prior to the one @ 4:14PM which I tried to repost a moment ago.
@Rafflaw, what are your thoughts on the impact reversing Citizens United would have on the release of Fahrenheit 9/11?
Annie
on 1, September 8, 2014 at 12:32 pmdocmadison
rcocean and others
The Senate is voting today on a constitutional amendment for campaign reform!
Stop your bitchin’ and call your Senator to support this amendment!
*********************************
I did just that very thing this AM!
=========================
You go girl!
“We kick they butt!”
on 1, September 8, 2014 at 12:32 pmdocmadison
rcocean and others
The Senate is voting today on a constitutional amendment for campaign reform!
Stop your bitchin’ and call your Senator to support this amendment!
*********************************
I did just that very thing this AM!
What docmadison said about calling your Senators to support the overturn of Citizens United.
If DOJ prosecutors refuse to file criminal charges, why couldn’t a citizen plaintiff harmed by the company petition the court to “convene a grand jury to appoint a special prosecutor”?
In other words just bypass those obstructing justice altogether with a citizen grand jury to drive the process.
@Ross, that’s basically how our legal system will impose criminal liability. If I order you to commit a crime for my benefit, I myself am committing a crime as well, distinguish that with the owner of a pizzeria whose delivery personnel assaults a patron, (an ultra vires action), the owner of the pizzeria remains vicariously liable in tort, but to impose criminal liability would be unfair under such circumstances.
Aridog
I’m all for ending funding by corps, unions, PACs, superPACS. All elections should be publicly funded. Period.
rcocean and others
The Senate is voting today on a constitutional amendment for campaign reform!
Stop your bitchin’ and call your Senator to support this amendment!
Since most corporations aren’t democratic but top-down dictatorships, shouldn’t the criminal charges go after the top management (decision makers) instead of penalizing the employees who only follow orders?
For example: U.S. corporations were complicit in torture, renditions (kidnappings) and blacklisting programs – shouldn’t those “deciders” face criminal charges? We put former Qwest Communications CEO, Joseph Nacchio, in prison for “following the law” in February of 2001 (before 9/11) for requiring a judicial warrant from the rubber-stamp FISA court to illegally wiretap.
So we punish those that comply with the laws and reward those that break the law – today we are seeing the end product of such a system. We used to call those Banana Republics or Kangaroo Courts!
Rafflaw…how about removing the money influence by BOTH corporations and unions? Why limit one class (stockholders) and not another (union membership)…and I have been AFL-CIO twice, originally as skilled trades. I find the influence of both corporations via lobbyists (and money) and unions via lobbyists (and money) to be repulsive.
Where am I wrong?
Whoops, another post eaten up by the filters. It was a question vis a vis Citizens United and application to either Corporations or Unions, or both.
Citizens United still concerned independent expenditures. If the ruling went against Citizens United, they would’ve been prevented from releasing their anti-Hillary diatribe simply because Hillary Clinton was embroiled in a primary battle with then-Senator Obama. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, produced by his corporation, Dog Eat Dog, Inc., would’ve been so impacted if Bush had been subject to a primary challenge and in fact did impact the release date since the BCRA would’ve placed a 60 day window that Moore would’ve been prevented from acting within. Fact is at the time Citizens United didn’t have what was called the ‘press exception’ an exception to granted by the FEC to the likes of MSNBC, Fox, etc….Citizens United would’ve been prevented from doing something MSNBC would’ve been well within their statutory right to do. That’s the government picking and choosing who gets to be in the press, and its fundamentally wrong.
doc,
Without removing money from our political system, very few problems can be solved. The lobbyists have purchased much of both houses and a majority in the Supreme Court and some would argue the White House. Until we get the money out, the corporate and wealthy will have continue to have control on our government. Removing the stain that is Citizens United is item number one on the save the country checklist.
rafflaw – could you explain to me how lobbyists have bought the Supreme Court?
When you get pad by the government can you commit crimes?
rcocean
Do you know the following?
“In a victory for campaign finance reform, the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning voted to advance Tom Udall’s (D-New Mexico) proposed constitutional amendment that would restore authority back to Congress, individual states, and the American people to regulate political donations and election spending.
The 28th Amendment, which would effectively overturn recent Supreme Court rulings that have increased the influence of extremely wealthy donors and corporations, will now go before the full U.S. Senate for a vote this fall.”
So SOMEBODY is working for campaign finance reform. It sure would be helpful if the rest of us kept up to date with those who are working for reform. Maybe it would be a good idea to contact your Senator and Representative and tell them you want them to support this constitutional amendment.
P.S. Prof. Turley supports the Citizen United decision. I wonder how he would feel about a constitutional amendment.