Enron - a case for government regulation of corporations

[Astronuc]

We often hear of 'free enterprise', 'free markets', 'less regulation', and so on, but what happens when the managers of a company act in criminal or negligent fashion.

The ENRON trial is now heating up with testimony from Jeff Skilling and later this month, Kenneth Lay. Both claim innocence and that they were duped into believeing everything was OK.

However, we then have testimony from people like Sherron Watkins:
Enron whistleblower Sherron Watkins testifies against former chairman Kenneth Lay. Watkins met with Lay four months before the company went bankrupt, and warned him about accounting problems. Prosecutors hope her testimony will show that Lay made intentionally misleading statements to investors. Lay then went on to freeze the retirement accounts of employees, while he and other officers dumped their stock to an unsuspecting market.

I am sure we'll hear the equivalent of "It wasn't me!"

See more at - Former Enron Executives Go on Trial
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5181660

[Jeff Ford]

I am a big supporter of less government, and in a case like this I don't think it was a lack of regulation that caused the problem. The people on trial here should be tried for theft by fraud, and, if convicted, forced to pay back as much of what they stole as possible.

[BobG]

We often hear of 'free enterprise', 'free markets', 'less regulation', and so on, but what happens when the managers of a company act in criminal or negligent fashion.

What kind of government regulation did you have in mind? As it is, when caught acting in a criminal or negligent fashion, the execs get tried for crimes.

Holding individuals in the company personally accountable is a good thing. It would be a hard thing to take a stand against your bosses if they wanted you to cook the books for them. The possibility of being a codefendant adds a little extra motivation to resist.

[Pengwuino]

I think this case shows the exact opposite (or well, half way): The government is doing its job when it comes to regulating businesses. What do we need? 300,000 government payrolled accountants being mandated into companies to make sure the government knows every litlte thing about the business? Talk about unconstitutional!

Plus you tell me how hard a $30k a year government accountant would be to bribe when they have almost no fear of losing their job (as is with government employees these days).

[russ_watters]

What kind of government regulation did you have in mind? As it is, when caught acting in a criminal or negligent fashion, the execs get tried for crimes. Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing - there are regulations that are being enforced. Or are you suggesting that the government needs to be constantly monitoring all corporations?

[Astronuc]

For one, I am not sure the regulations are being enforced. I remember some discussions many years ago about sanctioning the FASB, but various parties decided against it.

For another, as far as I can tell, many regulations are vague or ambiguous, and that is a big problem for prosecuting 'white collar' crime.

I sometimes have to wonder if regulation is deliberately made vague or ambiguous in order to allow what would be otherwise illegal activity.

Some experts have mentioned that Skilling and Lay could walk away without any jail time.

It will come down to whether the jury believes that Skilling and Lay knew about and/or approved the illegal activities of Fastow and others. It will be interesting to see what happens in regard to what the jury understands about Lay and his knowledge of problems according to Sherron Watkins.

[russ_watters]

I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'd be shocked if they didn't go to jail. The CFO is in jail for 10 years on a plea bargain! That means he thought that if he didn't take the plea, they'd string him up in front of the courthouse. The case must have bee ironclad - and there is no reason to presume the others will fare any better. The company itself was also convicted (one benefit of companies being considered singular entities is that companies can be tried). And if the others do go to jail, then the Enron case becomes an example of regulations that were enforced successfully.

Unfortunately, most laws are putative - you can't arrest someone until after they commit the crimes. So the only other option for things like Enron is to have the government following the companies around. And I sure don't want that.

[edward]

One thing that is evident is that fines do not work.
As far as I can determine it might help if the Justice department would publish a yearly report on corporate crime. It would at least let people know in a more timely manner who has done what in the corporate world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIMINALS OF THE 1990's

1) F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $500 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999

2) Daiwa Bank Ltd.
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $340 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(3), March 4, 1996

3) BASF Aktiengesellschaft
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $225 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 24, 1999

4) SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft (SGL AG)
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $135 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999

5) Exxon Corporation and Exxon Shipping
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $125 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(3), March 18, 1991

6) UCAR International, Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $110 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(6), April 13, 1998

7) Archer Daniels Midland
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $100 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1), October 21, 1996

8)(tie) Banker's Trust
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $60 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(1), March 15, 1999

8)(tie) Sears Bankruptcy Recovery Management Services
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $60 million
13 Corporate Crime Reporter 7(1), February 15, 1999

10) Haarman & Reimer Corp.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal fine: $50 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 5(4), February 3, 1997

11) Louisiana-Pacific Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $37 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(1), June 8, 1998

12) Hoechst AG
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $36 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(6), May 10, 1999

13) Damon Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $35.2 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(6), October 14, 1996

14) C.R. Bard Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $30.9 million
7 Corporate Crime Reporter 41(1), October 25, 1993

15) Genentech Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $30 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 16(3), April 19, 1999

16) Nippon Gohsei
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $21 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(3), July 19, 1999

17)(tie) Pfizer Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $20 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 26, 1999

17)(tie) Summitville Consolidated Mining Co. Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $20 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 20(3) May 20, 1996

19)(tie) Lucas Western Inc.
Type of Crime: False Statements
Criminal Fine: $18.5 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 4(6), January 30, 1995

19)(tie) Rockwell International Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $18.5 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(4), March 30, 1992

21) Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $18 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

22) Teledyne Industries Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $17.5 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(9), October 12, 1992

23) Northrop
Type of Crime: False statements
Criminal Fine: $17 million
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(1), March 5, 1990

24) Litton Applied Technology Division (ATD) and Litton Systems Canada (LSL)
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $16.5 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 27(1), July 5, 1999

25) Iroquois Pipeline Operating Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $15 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(1), June 3, 1996

26) Eastman Chemical Company
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $11 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 38(5), October 5, 1998

27) Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $10.65 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(1), June 2, 1997

28) Lonza AG
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $10.5 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 10(1), March 8, 1999

29) Kimberly Home Health Care Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $10.08 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(6), July 26, 1999

30)(tie) Ajinomoto Co. Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $10 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1), October 21, 1996

30)(tie) Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI)
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $10 million
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 3(1) January 22, 1990

30)(tie) Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co. Ltd.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $10 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(1), October 21, 1996

30)(tie) Warner-Lambert Company
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $10 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 46(1), December 4, 1995

34) General Electric
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $9.5 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(7), July 27, 1992

35)(tie) Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $9 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(3), June 8, 1998

35)(tie) Showa Denko Carbon
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $9 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999

37) IBM East Europe/Asia Ltd.
Type of Crime: Illegal exports
Criminal Fine: $8.5 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 32(1), August 10, 1998

38) Empire Sanitary Landfill Inc.
Type of crime: Campaign finance
Criminal fine: $8 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(3), October 13, 1997

39)(tie) Colonial Pipeline Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $7 million
13 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(3), March 1, 1999

39)(tie) Eklof Marine Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $7 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 37(4), September 29, 1997

41)(tie) Chevron
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $6.5 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter, 22(1), June 1, 1992

41)(tie) Rockwell International Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $6.5 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 15(4), April 15, 1996

43) Tokai Carbon Ltd. Co.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $6 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 19(4), May 10, 1999

44)(tie) Allied Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $5 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 45(1), November 25, 1996

44)(tie) Northern Brands International Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $5 million
13 Corporate Crime Reporter 1(1), January 4,1999

44)(tie) Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation
Type of Crime: Obstruction of justice
Criminal Fine: $5 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 2(3), January 16, 1995

44)(tie) Unisys
Type of Crime: Bribery
Criminal Fine: $5 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 35(11), September 16, 1991

44)(tie) Georgia Pacific Corporation
Type of Crime: Tax evasion
Criminal Fine: $5 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 38(8), October 7, 1991

49) Kanzaki Specialty Papers Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $4.5 million
8 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(4), July 18, 1994

50) ConAgra Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $4.4 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(1), March 24, 1997

51) Ryland Mortgage Company
Type of Crime: Financial
Criminal Fine: $4.2 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 32(1), August 10, 1998

52)(tie) Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $4 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(1), July 20, 1998

52)(tie) Borden Inc.
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $4 million
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(9), March 19, 1990

52)(tie) Dexter Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $4 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 35(6), September 14, 1992

52)(tie) Southland Corporation
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $4 million
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 11(9), March 19, 1990

52)(tie) Teledyne Industries Inc.
Type of Crime: Illegal exports
Criminal Fine: $4 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 5(3), February 6, 1995

52)(tie) Tyson Foods Inc.
Type of Crime: Public corruption
Criminal Fine: $4 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 1(3), January 5, 1998

58)(tie) Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3.75 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(6), July 22, 1991

58)(tie) Costain Coal Inc.
Type of Crime: Worker Death
Criminal Fine: $3.75 million
7 Corporate Crime Reporter 9(10), March 1, 1993

58)(tie) United States Sugar Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3.75 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 27(4), December 9, 1991

61) Saybolt, Inc., Saybolt North America
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3.4 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 33(1), August 17, 1998

62)(tie) Bristol-Myers Squibb
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 18(3), May 4, 1992

62)(tie) Chemical Waste Management Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 40(5), October 19, 1992

62)(tie) Ketchikan Pulp Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(1), April 3, 1995

62)(tie) United Technologies Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 27, 1991

62)(tie) Warner-Lambert Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $3 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 37(3), September 29, 1997

67)(tie) Arizona Chemical Co. Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $2.5 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(5), October 14, 1996

67)(tie) Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail)
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $2.5 million
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 31, 1995

69) International Paper
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $2.2 million
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 31(7), August 5, 1991

70)(tie) Consolidated Edison Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $2 million
8 Corporate Crime Reporter 46(5), November 28, 1994

70)(tie) Crop Growers Corporation
Type of Crime: Campaign finance
Criminal fine: $2 million
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 4(3), January 27, 1997

70)(tie) E-Systems Inc.
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $2 million
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 33, September 3, 1990

70)(tie) HAL Beheer BV
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $2 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 39(4), October 12, 1998

70)(tie) John Morrell and Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $2 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 6(3), February 12, 1996

70)(tie) United Technologies Corporation
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $2 million
6 Corporate Crime Reporter 34(4), September 7, 1992

76) Mitsubishi Corporation, Mitsubishi International Corporation
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $1.8 million
8 Corporate Crime Reporter 29(4), July 18, 1994

77)(tie) Blue Shield of California
Type of Crime: Fraud
Criminal Fine: $1.5 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 18(3), May 6, 1996

77)(tie) Browning-Ferris Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $1.5 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 23(3), June 8, 1998

77)(tie) Odwalla Inc.
Type of Crime: Food and drug
Criminal Fine: $1.5 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(1), July 27, 1998

77)(tie) Teledyne Inc.
Type of Crime: False statements
Criminal Fine: $1.5 million
7 Corporate Crime Reporter 34(12), September 6, 1993

77)(tie) Unocal Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $1.5 million
8 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(8), March 21, 1994

82)(tie) Doyon Drilling Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $1 million
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 21(1), May 25, 1998

82)(tie) Eastman Kodak
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $1 million
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 14(1), April 9, 1990

82)(tie) Case Corporation
Type of Crime: Illegal exports
Criminal Fine: $1 million
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(4), June 3, 1996

85) Marathon Oil
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $900,000
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 22(5), June 3, 1991

86) Hyundai Motor Company
Type of Crime: Campaign finance
Criminal Fine: $600,000
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 48(3), December 18, 1995

87)(tie) Baxter International Inc.
Type of Crime: Illegal Boycott
Criminal Fine: $500,000
7 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(7) , March 29, 1993

87)(tie) Bethship-Sabine Yard
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $500,000
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 26(4), July 3, 1995

87(tie) Palm Beach Cruises
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $500,000
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

87)(tie) Princess Cruises Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $500,000
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

91)(tie) Cerestar Bioproducts BV
Type of Crime: Antitrust
Criminal Fine: $400,000
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 28(3), June 29, 1998

91)(tie) Sun-Land Products of California
Type of Crime: Campaign finance
Criminal Fine: $400,000
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 33(1), August 17, 1998

93)(tie) American Cyanamid
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $250,000
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 46(5), December 3, 1990

93)(tie) Korean Air Lines
Type of Crime: Campaign finance
Criminal Fine: $250,000
9 Corporate Crime Reporter 47(1), December 11, 1995

93)(tie) Regency Cruises Inc.
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $250,000
12 Corporate Crime Reporter 30(4), July 26, 1999

96)(tie) Adolph Coors Company
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $200,000
4 Corporate Crime Reporter 43(3), November 12, 1990

96)(tie) Andrew and Williamson Sales Co.
Type of crime: Food and drug
Criminal fine: $200,000
11 Corporate Crime Reporter 44(4), November 17, 1997

96)(tie) Daewoo International (America) Corporation
Type of Fine: Campaign finance
Criminal Fine: $200,000
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 13(3), April 1, 1996

96)(tie) Exxon Corporation
Type of Crime: Environmental
Criminal Fine: $200,000
5 Corporate Crime Reporter 12(1), March 25, 1991

100) Samsung America Inc.
Type of Crime: Campaign finance
Criminal Fine: $150,000
10 Corporate Crime Reporter 6(5), February 12, 1996
http://www.corporatepredators.org/top100.html#Briefs

I don't see the new decade as being any better than the last.
Boeing was recently fined 15 million for selling civilian planes which contained a chip that is used in military applications.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040801450.html

[edward]

Some experts have mentioned that Skilling and Lay could walk away without any jail time.

It will come down to whether the jury believes that Skilling and Lay knew about and/or approved the illegal activities of Fastow and others. It will be interesting to see what happens in regard to what the jury understands about Lay and his knowledge of problems according to Sherron Watkins.

And even if they do get jail time, they could be set free by the president.
I have a gut feeling that the trials are being timed in a manner that will get them out of jail shortly after they put in.

[Pengwuino]

And even if they do get jail time, they could be set free by the president.
I have a gut feeling that the trials are being timed in a manner that will get them out of jail shortly after they put in.

Has that happened many times before? I'm not up on my history.....

[franznietzsche]

Has that happened many times before? I'm not up on my history.....


Clinton made a few suspect pardons at the end of his term involving tax evasion, IIRC. I don't remember the details. I'm sure there have been other incidents, but none within the reach of my memory.

[Pengwuino]

Clinton made a few suspect pardons at the end of his term involving tax evasion, IIRC. I don't remember the details. I'm sure there have been other incidents, but none within the reach of my memory.

That sounds a little familiar.... barely ringing a bell....

[russ_watters]

One thing that is evident is that fines do not work.
As far as I can determine it might help if the Justice department would publish a yearly report on corporate crime. It would at least let people know in a more timely manner who has done what in the corporate world.
If they've already been published, why the need to publish them again?

[wasteofo2]

What makes anyone think that the Government is less corrupt than Corporations?

[loseyourname]

Clinton made a few suspect pardons at the end of his term involving tax evasion, IIRC. I don't remember the details. I'm sure there have been other incidents, but none within the reach of my memory.

Marc Rich was the major questionable guy that made headlines. He was in for tax evasion and making illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis, and Clinton let him go hours before his term as president expired. He's since been linked to the oil for food scandal, which has just made it look that much worse.

Notably, Clinton also pardoned his own half-brother.

Anyway, what are you gonna do about that? If all of these guys are put away, but Bush then pardons them, the laws and corporate regulations in existence still did their jobs. The only way to keep them from being pardoned would be to immediately execute them, or take away the presidential power to pardon people. A president can be indicted for pardoning people for no good reason (for instance, it was thought that Rich was pardoned because of a huge donation he made to the Clinton Library shortly before being pardoned), but it's very difficult to prove.

[franznietzsche]

Marc Rich was the major questionable guy that made headlines. He was in for tax evasion and making illegal oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis, and Clinton let him go hours before his term as president expired. He's since been linked to the oil for food scandal, which has just made it look that much worse.

Notably, Clinton also pardoned his own half-brother.

Yeah that sounds right. Its all kinda hazy in my memory.

Anyway, what are you gonna do about that? If all of these guys are put away, but Bush then pardons them, the laws and corporate regulations in existence still did their jobs. The only way to keep them from being pardoned would be to immediately execute them, or take away the presidential power to pardon people. A president can be indicted for pardoning people for no good reason (for instance, it was thought that Rich was pardoned because of a huge donation he made to the Clinton Library shortly before being pardoned), but it's very difficult to prove.

I don't know what to do about it. I was simply responding to a question about corrupt pardons and whether they had happened before.

[edward]

If they've already been published, why the need to publish them again?

Thats my point, the criminal cases haven't been published, the DOJ has no budget for the publication of a list of these crimes. Individual entities compile the lists and publish them if and when they find out about them.

Otherwise they only appear in the news media on a hit or miss basis as there are prosecuted. If the general public could see a list of the yearly illegal activity of large corporations, it might be a real eye opener that would inspire the people to demand more accountability.

[Gokul43201]

Speaking of Presidential pardons (though it's a bit off topic) - is there a mechanism to veto/overturn a Presidential pardon ?

The only one I'm aware of (since it came up in 2000) is that a pardon that has not yet been accepted (the process can take several days, it appears) can be overturned by the President, even if he's not the same President that gave the pardon. So Bush could have, if he chose to, overturned several of Clinton's pardons, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure why he didn't.

But my question, again, is about some kind of oversight mechanism. Does such a thing exist ?

[russ_watters]

Thats my point, the criminal cases haven't been published... The source for the info in your post was a law journal - they have been published.

[edward]

The source for the info in your post was a law journal - they have been published.

Not by the DOJ. and the source indicates that. Which also is exactly what I stated.

[russ_watters]

Sorry, misred - you want one from the DoJ. But I still don't understand why that would matter - the DoJ isn't a newspaper or journal or tv station and these reports are already published in such outlets. So what extra good would it do for the DoJ to produce an additional report? Ie: Otherwise they only appear in the news media on a hit or miss basis as there are prosecuted. Well, and in general compilations like the one you linked. If the general public could see a list of the yearly illegal activity of large corporations... Like the one you linked....? It would at least let people know in a more timely manner... How would a yearly summary be more "timely" than publishing them as they come, like the media already does?

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of this than you even thought it was in the first place, but you did fill about two feet of forum space with the list you posted. It just seems to me that your list answers your own suggestion.

[edward]

Sorry, misred - you want one from the DoJ. But I still don't understand why that would matter - the DoJ isn't a newspaper or journal or tv station and these reports are already published in such outlets. So what extra good would it do for the DoJ to produce an additional report? Ie: Well, and in general compilations like the one you linked. Like the one you linked....? How would a yearly summary be more "timely" than publishing them as they come, like the media already does?

The DOJ would make the list official, not the hodgepoge of various media stories that certain people claim are biased.:rolleyes:

Maybe I'm making a bigger deal out of this than you even thought it was in the first place, but you did fill about two feet of forum space with the list you posted. It just seems to me that your list answers your own suggestion.

Not at all, the list from the link covered the entire decade of the nineties and only included the 100 worst. I don't want to wait ten years to find out who did what. Yet at the same time I was trying to make the point that there is an enormous number of corporate scandals happening. The smaller ones are not always reported in the Media.

You seem to make a bigger deal out of eveything Russ.:wink: OK I admit it I do it myself sometimes, but my post was on topic and informative. So was the link to Boeing being fined $15 Million.

Regardless, the corporate scandals have to stop. And the only way that is going to happen is if they are watched like a hawk.

[TheStatutoryApe]

The DOJ would make the list official, not the hodgepoge of various media stories that certain people claim are biased.:rolleyes:



Not at all, the list from the link covered the entire decade of the nineties and only included the 100 worst. I don't want to wait ten years to find out who did what. Yet at the same time I was trying to make the point that there is an enormous number of corporate scandals happening. The smaller ones are not always reported in the Media.

You seem to make a bigger deal out of eveything Russ.:wink: OK I admit it I do it myself sometimes, but my post was on topic and informative. So was the link to Boeing being fined $15 Million.

Regardless, the corporate scandals have to stop. And the only way that is going to happen is if they are watched like a hawk.

So instead of the media coverage of these issues the DoJ should spend how ever many thousands of dollars they will wind up saying the project costs to issue a list so that the media can tell us who is on the list?

[Gokul43201]

The DOJ would make the list official, not the hodgepoge of various media stories that certain people claim are biased.:rolleyes: You'd trust a White House document over something reported by the media ? :eek: :wink:

[edward]

So instead of the media coverage of these issues the DoJ should spend how ever many thousands of dollars they will wind up saying the project costs to issue a list so that the media can tell us who is on the list?

Thats about it. The media would have an official list rather than the hodgepodge of articles I mentioned. The list could also be posted on the DOJ web site. From my point of view it would be better to have all of the incidents listed in one place. If you had to make a grocery list federal style it would be on 18 differen't sheets of paper, then you would have to find the sheets in 12 differen't places.

It doesn't cost much at all to keep a runing tally of information. Putting it together later from the various places the information has been recorded does.

Example: When my local paper requested information from the Arizona sector of the Border Patrol about how many illegals had been detained trying to enter the country in a certain time frame, and the countries of origin of those illegals, The Border patrol didn't have a list with that information. The News paper had to gain access to Border Patrol records and compile the list on it's own.

The Border Patrol now keeps that info on in one place. BTW the illegals were from 17 differen't countries.

[russ_watters]

You'd trust a White House document over something reported by the media ? :eek: :wink: Can irony cause a heart attack? I've made my point... Russ, out.

[BobG]

I think I tend to agree with Astronuc to a certain degree. The corporate scandals are bad, but there's always going to be a criminal element. As long as offenders are punished and the punishment is effective in keeping the amount of corporate crime, the system works.

The involvement of auditing firms such as Arthur Anderson and investment firms such as Merrill Lynch is more disturbing. These are companies people rely on for honest information about the market. The average investor just doesn't have the time to become an investment expert. They have to rely on information from others. If you can't trust the auditing firms and investment firms that monitor and analyze corporations, investors lose more than just money - they lose faith in the entire system and the entire market crashes.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the solution to the Enron, Worldcom, Tyco, Arthur Anderson crimes) addresses this, but I'm not sure it goes far enough. It requires auditing firms to change which auditors within its company audit a corporation, but it doesn't require corporations to change which auditing firm audits them. It prevents individuals within an auditing firm from colluding with a corporation to commit fraud, but Arthur Anderson was involved in over half of the major recent scandals. That's a top to bottom problem, not just a couple crooks within the firm. Likewise, Merrill Lynch tended to take some adverse action against individual investment analysts that raised concerns about corporations favored by Merrill Lynch's management. We really need some protection against firms creating a culture of corruption within their offices vs. protection against individual crime.

And, in a more cynical vein, here's a list of the best federal prisons to serve time in for those of you aspiring to become a CEO: The 12 best places to go to prison (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/forbes/P149874.asp?GT1=8180)

[russ_watters]

The involvement of auditing firms such as Arthur Anderson and investment firms such as Merrill Lynch is more disturbing. I certainly agree with that. That execs in corporations will sometimes flout the law for personal profit isn't all that surprising and as long as they continue to get punished for it, I'm ok with the way things are. But the idea that a company as respected as AA could actually conspire with the people they were charged with auditing would have seemed laughable before it happened.

Fortunately, AA fell almost as hard as Enron, and perhaps the two cases will send a message about the risks of such actions - that they do not go unpunished.

Aside: Interestingly, looked up AA before posting this and found that their conviction was overturned for technical reasons last year. Still, though the company technically still exists, it is roughly 1/100th the size it used to be, with virtually all of its employees dealing with the fallout from the scandal. It is unlikely to ever recover.

[Astronuc]

HOUSTON — A U.S. judge Wednesday approved a $6.6 billion civil settlement by three banks accused by Enron Corp. shareholders of helping the company hide financial misdeeds that led to its collapse.

The settlements to be paid to former Enron shareholders include $2.4 billion from Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, $2.2 billion from JP Morgan Chase (JPM) and $2 billion from Citigroup (C).

U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon gave preliminary approval to the settlement with the three banks in February.

Including earlier settlements with firms such as Lehman Brothers (LEH) and Bank of America (BAC), shareholders are now due to receive more than $7.2 billion of the $40 billion plaintiffs in the cases have claimed they lost in Enron's collapse.

The civil suit filed by shareholders against Enron, its banks and several former top executives including Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow, is scheduled to start in October, according to lead shareholder attorney William Lerach.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196794,00.html

A conservative buddy of mine sent me the link. :biggrin: Otherwise I wouldn't use FOX. :rofl:

[Ivan Seeking]

And the verdicts are: GUILTY!!!

Lay and Skilling are not having a good day.

Interestingly, they will be sentenced on Sept 11.

[turbo]

And the verdicts are: GUILTY!!!

Lay and Schilling are not having a good day.

Interestingly, they will be sentenced on Sept 11.What timing! They could be ordered to report to prison, say, November 13th to begin their sentences, and Bush would still have plenty of time to pardon them both after the mid-term elections, without them having to serve even a day.

[BobG]

What timing! They could be ordered to report to prison, say, November 13th to begin their sentences, and Bush would still have plenty of time to pardon them both after the mid-term elections, without them having to serve even a day.
You think he'd be willing to take yet another hit in the polls just because Lay, Enron, and Enron employees chipped in nearly $2 million dollars over the course of Bush's rise to Governor of Texas and on to President of the United States? :rolleyes:

Bush-Lay (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060525/cm_thenation/186743)

[turbo]

You think he'd be willing to take yet another hit in the polls just because Lay, Enron, and Enron employees chipped in nearly $2 million dollars over the course of Bush's rise to Governor of Texas and on to President of the United States? :rolleyes:

Bush-Lay (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060525/cm_thenation/186743)
Well, he can't be elected President again, and he's got a guaranteed pension, and his daddy will get him a very lucrative position with the Carlisle group when he's out of office, so why should he care what the polls say? He can either pardon "the boys" right after the mid-terms, or right after the 2008 election. The question is whether the $2 million is worth the 2 years in the country club detention center.

[Astronuc]

A headline I received - Enron Appeal? Good Luck, Many Lawyers Say
Lawyers for Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling are expected to appeal Thursday's guilty verdicts against their clients, in which a Houston jury found that the former Enron executives lied to investors as their company spiraled into bankruptcy. But many legal experts say that getting the decision overturned will be exceedingly difficult. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is widely considered to be friendly to government prosecutors, and the legal standard for reversal is high, lawyers said.
http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/?p=3517

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3898668.html

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1198371,00.html
Regardless of whether the jury verdict against Kenneth L. Lay and Jeffrey K. Skilling is upheld, testimony from 56 days of trial has sealed what is sure to be history's judgment, according to an analysis by The New York Times' Kurt Eichenwald.
The government scored a huge win with the convictions and some experts think it will embolden prosecutors to pin even more responsibility on executives for business failures. But Forbes.com argues that a prosecutor's zeal wanes in direct proportion to the visibility of the target.
I still maintain that the legal system, particularly the body of laws regarding commerce and the conduct of business, should be direct and straightforward, and not ambiguous, with regard to accountability of corporate leaders. It doesn't seem that way, otherwise, whey did these guys think they were not responsible at the point when and where they new something was terribly wrong with the company.

The appropriate action would have been for Lay and Skilling to notify authorities that something was amiss so that sale of stock could have been suspended. But they seem to have been involved, at least in the shenanigans of Fastow. :rolleyes:

This should never have happened in the first place! :grumpy:

[BobG]

The appropriate action would have been for Lay and Skilling to notify authorities that something was amiss so that sale of stock could have been suspended. But they seem to have been involved, at least in the shenanigans of Fastow. :rolleyes:

This should never have happened in the first place! :grumpy:
More than that. Skilling's the one who created a cut-throat climate where employees would do anything to survive, let alone get ahead. He and his top staff would rank the employees, giving rewards to those who reported the biggest profits and firing those at the bottom of the list. As long as the reports showed big profits, it didn't matter what was behind the reports. He had plausible deniability - he didn't ask and he didn't care. When fraudulent reports are running through the entire organization, you have to hold the person at the top that created the environment accountable even if he didn't actually do any of the dirty work. Fastow was more the star peformer within Skilling's environment rather the creator of the environment.

[Astronuc]

He had plausible deniability - he didn't ask and he didn't care. I don't see Skilling as having plausible deniability - but rather "criminal negligence" at least - and perhaps some form of malfeasance.

The original company in which I worked took a nosedive, partly due to mismanagement. I organized a coup to sack the COB/President, and I was successful. I actually got more votes to be on the board myself than the COB/Pres. Unfortunately, I didn't get enough to be on the board, and my VP was elected with others. The outside board members all subsequently resigned. Another VP was elected to board and they named him President, but he turned out to be another total idiot.

The VP of my division then orchestrated the sale of our division to another company during the following year. :rolleyes: I left after that for a better job and much less BS.

I ended up losing a good chunk of cash which was supposed to safe in a retirement account. Others lost even more, but the senior managers, including the one's we sacked made off with a lot of cash that they had secretly protected.

I have zero tolerance for corruption and corporate mismanagement. :grumpy: :mad:

I probably could have pressed for criminal investigations, except that would have forced me to compromise the well-being of my family. If I had been alone, I would have gone after those corrupt and negligent managers - with any and all legal means.

[Astronuc]

A sad twist to this story.

Enron founder Kenneth Lay dies at 64 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060705/ap_on_bi_ge/obit_lay;_ylt=AkcIXZzGqOQm_nMsD1HpSLAkkKQB;_ylu=X3 oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)
HOUSTON - Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay, who was convicted of helping perpetuate one of the most sprawling business frauds in U.S. history, has died. He was 64. Nicknamed "Kenny Boy" by President Bush, Lay led Enron's meteoric rise from a staid natural gas pipeline company formed by a 1985 merger to an energy and trading conglomerate that reached No. 7 on the Fortune 500 in 2000 and claimed $101 billion in annual revenues. My condolensces to his family. :frown:

Lay died of a heart attack, his pastor in Houston said.

64 is too young!

[Pengwuino]

Well that's one of the prices you pay for being a CEO. This was the last thing i expected would happen... my condolensces as well.

[Astronuc]

Many articles will write about Lay's legacy. This one, from someone who knew Lay, is interesting.

Ken Lay's legacy
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/07/05/PM200607055.html
But some who knew Ken Lay long before Enron say they weren't at all surprised at what happened to that company. I talked to longtime energy industry journalist Barbara Shook today at her office in Houston. Kai Ryssdal

-----------------------------------------------------
Meanwhile - Backdating options scandal moves forward
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2006/07/05/PM200607052.html
At least 50 companies have had to open their books to the feds in the scandal of backdating stock options. Now, the SEC appears ready to pursue civil charges against one of them.

[MeJennifer]

Well I do not seriously doubt that he indeed is dead.
But with a man with very influential friends and money and with the fact he had a big jail sentence in front of him it would be interesting if some journalist double checks, just in case, in say a few months from now, if he is not living in the Bahama's with a new identity, courtesy of the CIA, or so.

For starters he was one of the single largest financial backers of George W. Bush's political career, and is (or was) one of the president's closest friends.

[selfAdjoint]

I'd be more interested in making sure they did a blood test for ricin. As you say MeJennifer, he was "connected" to Bush (in the Mafia sense), and was facing a prison term in which he might be tempted to sing about matters other than Enron.

[MeJennifer]

I'd be more interested in making sure they did a blood test for ricin. As you say MeJennifer, he was "connected" to Bush (in the Mafia sense), and was facing a prison term in which he might be tempted to sing about matters other than Enron.
That might be possible as well, good point!

Enron was frequently calling on the Bush administration to "help" them with contracts. There are published letters to Bush to that effect.

[edward]

I'd be more interested in making sure they did a blood test for ricin. As you say MeJennifer, he was "connected" to Bush (in the Mafia sense), and was facing a prison term in which he might be tempted to sing about matters other than Enron.

Lay would have certainly been one of the oil and energy exeutives who attended Cheney's secret little meeting. You know, the one where they supposedly decided on our national energy policy, but also were clued in on the upcomming invasion of Iraq and how the Iraqi oil would be divided.

[Pengwuino]

Now we're getting into serious Conspiracy Theory rhetoric...

[MeJennifer]

Apparently the heart attack was sudden and according to Newswatch 50 (http://www.newswatch50.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=C1C895B0-FC01-416B-A8D7-BACE2E685D8F):
"Lay, who described himself as naturally optimistic, displayed no signs of ill health throughout his grueling four-month trial. "

No signs of ill health and then a massive heart attack.
Well it is possible.

[russ_watters]

As has been pointed out before, if the absolute worst that people speculate about that meeting had happened - that the meeting had consisted simply of Lay handing Cheney a binder with his new energy policy and then a bag of money - it would still have been perfectly legal.

Lets not be naive here, guys. What is lobbying, anyway?

[edward]

As has been pointed out before, if the absolute worst that people speculate about that meeting had happened - that the meeting had consisted simply of Lay handing Cheney a binder with his new energy policy and then a bag of money - it would still have been perfectly legal.

No one knows what went on in that meeting, a lot of top energy ecutives were there, and apparently the invasion of another country was announced in secret. A secret kept to this day.

How do I conclude that the invasion of Iraq was announced on that day? Easy, the war was to be paid for with revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil. Who would have had to be prepared to process and sell the oil? The executives in that room.

Lets not be naive here, guys. What is lobbying, anyway?

Ahh except we don't know who was lobbying whom. Was it the oil executives lobbying Cheney, not likely, in the oil business Cheney holds all of the cards and Cheney was the one with war on his mind. Most likely it was Cheney trying to convince the oil companies to process and sell the oil taken in an illegal war.

[edward]

As has been pointed out before, if the absolute worst that people speculate about that meeting had happened - that the meeting had consisted simply of Lay handing Cheney a binder with his new energy policy and then a bag of money - it would still have been perfectly legal.

Unless something illegal was discussed.

Lets not be naive here, guys. What is lobbying, anyway?

This.

The energy turmoil of 2000-01 prompted Bush to establish a task force charged with developing a long-range plan to meet U.S. energy requirements. With the advice of his close friend and largest campaign contributor, Enron CEO, Ken Lay, Bush picked Vice President Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, to head this group. In 2001 the Task Force formulated the National Energy Policy (NEP), or Cheney Report, bypassing possibilities for energy independence and reduced oil consumption with a declaration of ambitions to establish new sources of oil.
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html



And this.

Enron CEO Kenneth Lay knew he needed high-level help. So he arranged to meet with a man who had headed a corporation with extensive business ties to Enron and who had been a prime recipient of Enron's political largesse. Vice President Dick Cheney cleared his calendar for an April 17 private meeting with Lay regarding what aides described as "energy policy matters" and "the energy crisis in California." At the meeting Lay handed Cheney a memo that read in part: "The administration should reject any attempt to re-regulate wholesale power markets by adopting price caps.

The day after he met with Lay, Cheney gave a rare phone interview to the Los Angeles Times that had one recurrent theme: Price caps were out of the question. Dismissing the strategy as "short-term political relief for the politicians," Cheney bluntly declared, "I don't see that as a possibility."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

[russ_watters]

How do I conclude that the invasion of Iraq was announced on that day? Easy, the war was to be paid for with revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil. Who would have had to be prepared to process and sell the oil? The executives in that room.

Most likely it was Cheney trying to convince the oil companies to process and sell the oil taken in an illegal war. But the Iraq war was not paid for by the sale of Iraqi oil, as ordered by Bush himself! Not even much (any? not sure...) of the reconstruction is being paid for by Iraqi oil.

[russ_watters]

Unless something illegal was discussed.

This.

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

And this.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols You're claiming those things are illegal? How so?

[Plastic Photon]

Skilling will never spend a day in jail. His lawyers will drag this through the courts for the next 15-20 years.


But the Iraq war was not paid for by the sale of Iraqi oil, as ordered by Bush himself!
?I have never heard of this. I know Bush himself turned down certain oil offers from the Iraq government.

[edward]

But the Iraq war was not paid for by the sale of Iraqi oil, as ordered by Bush himself! Not even much (any? not sure...) of the reconstruction is being paid for by Iraqi oil.

Was not , or has not? It doesn't matter. It has not and won't be paid for with oil revenues. But regardless, the cost of reconstruction was supposed to have been and this was promised by the Bush administration. More than likely it will be my five year old grandson who will be paying for both this war and the reconstruction if it ever happens.

The fact that there has been little revenue form oil sales is a reflection on our inability to secure the oil fields and pipe lines.

Iraq was supposed to be a quick in quick out venture with the sale of Iraqi oil picking up the tab for the reconstruction. What was to happen with the revenues from the sale of Iraqi oil after reconstruction was completed was never really disclosed. If anyone knew in advance it had to be the oil companies.

[edward]

You're claiming those things are illegal? How so?

Nice try at quoting out of context, or was it an attempt at obfuscation, I really can"t.
decide. Either way no cigar russ. The wo links:

This
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

And this
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020415/nichols

Are directly below your own statement:

Originally Posted by russ_watters
Lets not be naive here, guys. What is lobbying, anyway?

The links were obviously examples of lobbying and influence peddling at its best, or worst, depending on how you look at it.

[russ_watters]

Was not , or has not? It doesn't matter. It has not and won't be paid for with oil revenues. But regardless, the cost of reconstruction was supposed to have been and this was promised by the Bush administration. More than likely it will be my five year old grandson who will be paying for both this war and the reconstruction if it ever happens. You said, quite directly, that the war was to be paid for by Iraqi oil. And that is quite simply false. In addition, you said: Who would have had to be prepared to process and sell the oil? The executives in that room. Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "process and sell", but it sounds to me like you mean that Big Oil was going to set up refineries in Iraq and take the oil as soon as it came out of the ground. Again, that isn't what was intended nor is it what happened. Nice try at quoting out of context, or was it an attempt at obfuscation, I really can"t. I quoted your entire post - that's all the context you provided! The links were obviously examples of lobbying and influence peddling at its best, or worst, depending on how you look at it. Both are references to the very meetings where you say illegal things happened. I already provided a hypothetical example of the worst that lobbying could be - were you simply agreeing with me? What's the point of that? I want evidence of the illegal activity and evidence that the Iraq war was planned in that meeting. How about providing some evidence to back up the outrageous claims you are making. The banal ones don't require it.

[Astronuc]

Q: Will the revenue from Iraqi oil production pay for reconstruction?
http://www.usiraqprocon.org/bin/procon/procon.cgi?database=5-H-subs-1.db&command=viewone&id=7&rnd=905.768323871209

This webpage last updated 04/04/05.

The answer is not so clear cut!

----------------------------------------------------------

IRAQI FIRE SALE: CPA RUSHES TO GIVE AWAY BILLIONS IN IRAQI OIL REVENUES
June 2004
http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/reports/061504.shtml

New York, June 16, 2004—With international attention focused on the impending transfer of power in Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority is committing billions of dollars to ill-conceived projects just before it dissolves, according to a new briefing by the Open Society Institute's Iraq Revenue Watch Project. The briefing, Iraqi Fire Sale: CPA Giving Away Oil Revenue Billions Before Transition, says that the U.S.-controlled Program Review Board in charge of managing Iraq's finances recently approved the expenditure of nearly $2 billion dollars in Iraqi funds for reconstruction projects.

"With so much money available for cash give-aways, and so little planning on how the process will work, it will be all but impossible to avoid corruption and waste" said Svetlana Tsalik, director of OSI's Revenue Watch.

The money will come out of the Development Fund for Iraq, the main repository for Iraqi oil revenues. But a number of the expenditures the Program Review Board approved will go toward sectors for which Congress has already allocated American tax dollars. This includes $500 million earmarked for Iraqi security forces, even though Congress allocated $3.2 billion for the same purpose. Likewise, the Program Review Board approved $315 million for the electricity sector despite a $5.5 billion U.S. appropriation for the same sector. And $460 million, on top of the $1.7 billion allocated by Congress, is set to go to Iraq's oil industry.

----------------------------------------------------------

Report: $20B of Iraq's Oil Revenue Unaccounted For By U.S.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/30/1514255
A new report finds that the U.S. handed over "power" to Iraq without properly accounting for what it has done with some $20 billion of Iraq's own money. We speak with one of the authors of the report in British charity Christian Aid. [includes transcript]
The Bush administration handed over power to Iraq without properly accounting for what it has done with some $20 billion of Iraq's own money. This according to a new report published Monday by Christian Aid - a leading British charity.

The report points out that the May 2003 U.N. resolution giving the C.P.A. the right to spend Iraqi oil revenue required the creation of an international oversight board, which would appoint an auditor to ensure that the funds were spent to benefit the Iraqi people.

Instead, the U.S. stalled, and the auditor didn't begin work until April 2004. Even then, according to an interim report, it faced "resistance from C.P.A. staff." And now, with the audit still unpublished, the C.P.A. has been dissolved.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Guardian (UK)
April 26, 2003
American to Oversee Iraqi Oil Industry
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0426-RunIraq.html

----------------------------------------------------------

Restarting the Flow: Restoring Iraqi Oil Production
by Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1693
http://www.heritage.org/research/MiddleEast/BG1693.cfm

Protecting Iraqi Oil Revenue
The Bush Administration has issued an executive order barring claims in U.S. courts against Iraqi oil or proceeds from it.* It has also coordinated with other permanent U.S. Security Council members--the United Kingdom, France, China, and Russia--on the imposition of a moratorium on Iraq's national debt.

The U.S. should further coordinate its actions with companies and sovereign claimants (states) to delay reparations for Gulf War damages and other claims. Iraq needs breathing space in order to restart its cash flow and get its oil industry up and running again.

* George W. Bush, "Executive Order Protecting the Development Fund for Iraq and Certain Other Property in Which Iraq Has an Interest," May 22, 2003, at www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030522-15.html.

----------------------------------------------------------

US Is Quietly Spending $2.5 Billion from Iraqi Oil Revenues to Pay for Iraqi Projects
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/dfi/2004/0621usspending.htm
By Steven R. Weisman
New York Times
June 21, 2004
Struggling with bureaucratic problems in spending the money appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq, American authorities are moving quietly and quickly to spend $2.5 billion from a different source, Iraqi oil revenue, for projects employing tens of thousands of Iraqis, especially in the country's hot spots, Bush administration officials say. The spending program, which was started unannounced, has been undertaken in consultation with Iraqi ministers, despite misgivings that the oil revenue belonged to Iraq and that it should be set aside for use when Iraq's sovereignty is restored, scheduled for June 30.

Because of deteriorating security and complex delays in contracts that have slowed the spending of the $18 billion in Congressionally appropriated money, occupation authorities say they decided recently that they had to spend the Iraqi money to build schools, factories and oil fields, and to turn Iraqis away from violence. "The security needs were just overwhelming," said an occupation official. "Would we rather have been able to save the money and have a nice kitty? Sure. There's always a tension between putting money to work right away and having it available for a tough year next year. This is the way we resolved it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------

As for what was discussed or mentioned by Cheney and energy industry executives, that is unknown due to the secrecy.

While Enron does not seem to be involved - because they were in serious trouble during '99-'00, Halliburton was a beneficiary of Bush largesse - no-bid, multi-billion dollar contracts. Halliburton was deemed the only organization capable of providing the support to the military in Iraq. The question is - did Cheney and Bush tip Halliburton with regard to the invasion - or did Bush and Cheney (while Cheney was still at Halliburton) discuss the invasion of Iraq? In that case, Halliburton was already moving on a plan for the logistics by the time the war was launched.

[edward]

OK Russ you win. I mistakenly used the term war and reconstruction caused by the war interchangeably. You and your family can pay for this illegal war and the reconstruction of Iraq.:rolleyes: The tab is about $500 billion currently.

Iraqi oil money being used to pay for the war was an inferred result of the way the war was promoted. Most people I talk to, especially republicans, insist that the cost of the war still will be paid for with Iraqi oil. They are the same people who came to believe that Iraq was involved in 911.

Before the war, US officials engaged in a delicate balancing act. They sought to counter the pervasive belief in the Middle East and Europe that the war was all about oil, while vaguely telling the US taxpayer not to worry about the cost.

Although in reality it is now apparent that big oil looked into the situation pre war. (see link) Those pushing for the war were already informed that the Iraqi oil infrastructure was a calamity.

Behind the scenes, however, senior figures in the administration - including Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary, Douglas Feith, in charge of Pentagon postwar planning, Vice-President Richard Cheney, as well as the CIA's George Tenet - were being advised by former officials, experts and corporate bosses that the badly dilapidated Iraqi oil industry in no way represented a financial lifeline.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0116-10.htm

This all constitutes another big lie that was told to the American people. This is another example of the Administartion talking out of both sides of its collective mouth.

How about providing some evidence to back up the outrageous claims you are making. The banal ones don't require it.

Now russ, do you really think that I could possibly have hard evidence on what happened in Cheneys secret meeting? The secret meeting can be used to hide behind, and it has been, but there is damning circumstatial evidence. Ken Lay knew what happened in that meeting, and that was the direction that this thread had turned.

Some things in life are obvious. Personally I don't have to drop a brick on my head to know that it will be painful.

[ray b]

the war was not about cheap oil
cheap oil is not what the oil CORPs want
the plot was to reduce the total amount of oil on the world markets
and there by rase prices
less oil at a higher price = more oil CORP income
for less expence a true win win for the backers of the BuSh2 team
too bad ENRON went broke when they did
as they would have boosted the prices
to ever higher then current levels and made a mint in the process
as tricking the markets was what ENRON was all about

[edward]

the war was not about cheap oil
cheap oil is not what the oil CORPs want
the plot was to reduce the total amount of oil on the world markets
and there by rase prices
less oil at a higher price = more oil CORP income

It appears then that the oil executives got their most precious wish.

As far as the U.S. stakes in this, and in light of the fact that permanent bases are being built in Iraq, I think one of the secret reasons for the war was to establish a permanent American military presence in the Middle East. The Saudi's don't want us and the UAE and Kuait are just to small.

[Astronuc]

Getting back on track somewhat -

Leading the groups hoping to scale back regulation are, left to right, R. Glenn Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, John L. Thornton, a former president of Goldman Sachs, Robert Glauber, a former NASD chairman, Donald Evans, a former commerce secretary, and Samuel DiPiazza, chief executive of PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Businesses Seek Protection on Legal Front
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/business/29corporate.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 — Frustrated with laws and regulations that have made companies and accounting firms more open to lawsuits from investors and the government, corporate America — with the encouragement of the Bush administration — is preparing to fight back.

Now that corruption cases like Enron and WorldCom are falling out of the news, two influential industry groups with close ties to administration officials are hoping to swing the regulatory pendulum in the opposite direction. The groups are drafting proposals to provide broad new protections to corporations and accounting firms from criminal cases brought by federal and state prosecutors as well as a stronger shield against civil lawsuits from investors.

Although the details are still being worked out, the groups’ proposals aim to limit the liability of accounting firms for the work they do on behalf of clients, to force prosecutors to target individual wrongdoers rather than entire companies, and to scale back shareholder lawsuits.

The groups hope to reduce what they see as some burdens imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, landmark post-Enron legislation adopted in 2002. The law, which placed significant new auditing and governance requirements on companies, gave broad discretion for interpretation to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The groups are also interested in rolling back rules and policies that have been on the books for decades.

To alleviate concerns that the new Congress may not adopt the proposals — regardless of which party holds power in the legislative branch next year — many are being tailored so that they could be adopted through rulemaking by the S.E.C. and enforcement policy changes at the Justice Department.

The proposals will begin to be laid out in public shortly after Election Day, members of the groups said in recent interviews. One of the committees was formed by the United States Chamber of Commerce and until recently was headed by Robert K. Steel. :rolleyes:

Of course, some businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime. The reason for laws is to 'protect' people. Corporations enjoy far more protection than individuals, and corporate managers can use (or abuse) the umbrella of corporate protection - as Lay and Skilling attempted to do.

[Futobingoro]

Of course, businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime.I hope you realize that this subject is not one-sided.

Ironically, unregulated labor groups are prone to commit the same injustices as unregulated businesses. Reading up on the Landrum Griffin Act (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/bus/A0828769.html) is instructional here.

Apparently, there have been more than a few cases of "misuse of funds" by union officials. The Landrum-Griffin Act even created a bill of rights to protect union members against abuses of power. If I were feeling Astronuc-ey, I would add the ubiquitous "Rolleyes" or "Laughing" smilies here for effect.

On a more serious note, however, I must say that the Landrum-Griffin Act serves as an important warning against drastic changes in economic policy. Sure, the bad working conditions of the 19th century may have warranted some kind of worker-organized leverage over management, but Landrum-Griffin shows us that unions can not always be trusted to wield this leverage responsibly. It is almost farcical to imagine that some unions might have picketed against themselves.

It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems.

[selfAdjoint]

The Landrum-Griffin Act even created a bill of rights to protect union members against abuses of power.

So why object to an act with a similar aim for corporations?

And tu quoque is a very weak kind of argument, if you really wanted to discuss, and not just snark.

[Futobingoro]

And tu quoque is a very weak kind of argument, if you really wanted to discuss, and not just snark.I did not use the Landrum-Griffin Act to dismiss unions as hypocrites, I used it to question the practice of blindly favoring the regulation of businesses. In fact, I was very careful in my choice of words. I consciously made sure that I included the highlighted words in the following passage so I wouldn't be putting a negative label on all unions:Sure, the bad working conditions of the 19th century may have warranted some kind of worker-organized leverage over management, but Landrum-Griffin shows us that unions can not always be trusted to wield this leverage responsibly. It is almost farcical to imagine that some unions might have picketed against themselves.If you remove those words, this passage has an entirely different meaning, i.e. demonizing all unions. That paragraph even started out with the phrase, "On a more serious note, however," implying that the preceding remarks weren't relevant to my main point.

My point was not, "Unions don't practice what they preach, so their ideas on regulating business are invalid." That would have been a tu quoque.

My point was, "It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems."

[Futobingoro]

Of course, businesses and the management would prefer no constraint whatsoever - and so does organized crime.It wouldn't be proper to counter an accusation of reasoning fallacy with an accusation of my own, would it? After all, the Nazis at Nuremburg made a futile attempt at dismissing the Allies' accusations by coming up with some accusations of their own.

But I think my point has already been made. :smile:

[Astronuc]

Motivation for Landrum-Griffin Act was
. . . evidence of collusion between dishonest employers and union officials, the use of violence by certain segments of labor leadership, and the diversion and misuse of labor union funds by high-ranking officials.

I hope you realize that this subject is not one-sided. No one said it was.

I have a few problems with Union Management - especially when they start behaving like some corporate managers. To be fair, I know a lot of good/great corporate managers, who have high ethical standards. They are not the ones seeking to roll back regulation, and they are not the ones with whom I have problems. It is the corporate managers who wish to remove regulation and proper constraint, or who seek protection/shielding from liability from their own improper action. I'd have the same issue with regard to union managers and politicians who seek to prevent regulation of their actions.

Certainly laws need to be fair and reasonable.

Along the lines of unions and their management, I have always wondered why unions have never gone on strike over the quality of the products or goods they manufacture, as opposed to going on strike over wages or benefits. Maybe I missed something along the way.

My point was, "It is therefore prudent to consider every possibility when one advocates the transfer of power from one authority to another. It might not be as cut-and-dry as it seems." Of course.

[matthew baird]

Talking about government regulation of industries........
There is one in particular that runs rampant and is not regulated whatsoever. That industry is law. I have no problem paying good money for a job well done, but in the case of lawyers, they can practically do nothing then charge you a grand. Wth is that all about? Other industries are regulated agressively, but not them, why is that? There is no justification for the crazy amounts they charge people.