Spitzer: Indicting is 'Nuclear' Option

[420inTN]

1 hour, 56 minutes ago

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said on Wednesday that indicting a corporation was "akin to the nuclear option" and usually a "death penalty" for a company.

Speaking at New York conference, Spitzer said indicting a company was something his team tried to do "extraordinarily rarely" and was "a move that we take only upon overwhelming evidence."

The Attorney General added: "I don't like to indict a corporation. Indicting a corporation is essentially a death penalty for a corporation.

<snip>

On April 4, Spitzer calmed fears that his investigation into insurance giant American International Group Inc. could lead to criminal charges, saying a civil resolution could be worked out with the company.

more, full story here

[NEOBuckeye]

1. Well then, let's Indict Halliburton!

[420inTN]

2. I don't see that happening. n/t

[MrPrax]

3. Maybe Secret Courts...

with secret laws can ONLY save investors from the taint of 'bad' INDIVIDUALS that STEAL from 'publicly' traded companies...

Spitzer's political ambition seems to be getting in the way of his book, 'Corps for Dummies'...

[Tom Kitten]

4. A very compassionate view

wouldn't want to use the nuclear option, oh no...not part of the "culture of life"

[Elidor]

5. Indicting a corp is the "death penalty?" Yeah, right.

I guess wilfully killing their customers put Ford out of business, right? Union Carbide? Nope. I could go on.

[Marthe48]

6. Corporate Personhood

I listen to progressive radio via www.live365.com (Grassroots Infomedia and American Dream Radio esp) One of these had a broadcast by a woman, she was speaking about corporations, that at first they weren't meant to last forever, they would ask for a charter from the govt. for a specific project, when the project was completed, the corp. ended. I can't find a link to that report. On American Dream Radio, there is a link to a story by David Wolman and Heather Wax about a specific instance of corporate personhood vs. human beings' rights. There was another story too, that the Supreme Court decision about corporations being afforded civil rights was written in front of the decision by a clerk who was pro-business and all these laws protecting corporations is a lot of hooey.

www.freedomisforeverybody.org
www.americandreamradio.org

love these guys:)

[cosmicdot]

11. some links on corporations

CORPORATE RULE
By Jay Hanson

~snip~

NOWADAYS, EVERYONE KNOWS that corporations control our political system and subjugate our citizens. But before the Civil War of 1861, citizens controlled the corporations. Up to that time, corporations were chartered for a specific limited purpose (for example, building a toll road or canal) and for a specific, limited period of time (usually 20 or 30 years).

Each corporation was chartered to achieve a specific social goal that a legislature decided was in the public interest. At the end of the corporation's life time, its assets were distributed among the shareholders and the corporation ceased to exist. The number of owners was limited by the charter; the amount of capital they could aggregate was also limited. The owners were personally responsible for any liabilities or debts the company incurred, including wages owed to workers. Often profits were specifically limited in the charter. Corporations were not established merely to "make a profit."

Early Americans feared corporations as a threat to democracy and freedom. They feared that the owners (shareholders) would amass great wealth, control jobs and production, buy the newspapers, dominate the courts and control elections (one-dollar-one-vote).

After the Civil War, during the 1870s and 1880s, owners and managers of corporations pressed relentlessly to expand their powers, and the courts gave them what they wanted. Perhaps the most important change occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations the full constitutional protections of individual citizens. Congress had written the 14th Amendment to protect the rights of freed slaves, but in an 1886 decision (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad) this was expanded when the courts declared that no state shall deprive a corporation ". . . of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
~snip~

http://www.dieoff.org/page3.htm

Ending Corporate Governance
http://www.ratical.com/corporations/index.html

Rights of Money versus Rights of Living Persons
by David C. Korten
http://www.pcdf.org/1997/A20korten.htm

'They Rule' allows you to create maps of the interlocking directories of the top companies in the US in 2004. The data was collected from their websites and SEC filings in early 2004, so it may not be completely accurate - companies merge and disappear and directors shift boards.
http://www.theyrule.net/

imo, we're not going to make any progress without first addressing the issue of We the People v. Corporate America ... and, we have Congress full of portfolio'd corporatists not caring about the general welfare of our Nation.

without a sovereign government dedicated to maintain people over entities, what are we to do ... take over stock control of the Fortune 100???

[redqueen]

18. This stuff about corporate personhood needs its own thread in GD

I'd nominate it.

[Voltaire99]

13. Good points.

The fiction of corporate personhood is at the center of much that is harming us as a society.

Btw, in addition to the shows you mention, check out the excellent daily Democracy Now! broadcast--you can hear it at www.democracynow.org

[barb162]

7. Spitzer for Prez! He is one of the few people in this country

right now who is not afraid to take on the corporations. The SEC won't. The Bush administration is not even the government anymore... it is simply a part of the corporations. Until we get the corporations not running the country,not running the government, this country is going down.

[loudsue]

8. I'm with you! Spitzer is one kick-a** dude.

He takes no prisoners! There is one man that gets all of his ducks in a row before he goes for the jugular. We need to clone him in every state. That, alone, would put the repukes out of business for good.

:kick:

[barb162]

9. he has redefined what a state attorney-general is. He is a

true activist going against the bad guys with everything he's got. I am totally impressed with him and I don't know his party, though I suspect he is a Democrat.

[Beetwasher]

19. Yes, He's A Dem and He's Going To Kick Pataki's Ass To The Curb

in '06 and be the next Gov. of NY.

[Rockerdem]

10. Listen closely to what he said - Spitzer is a creature of New York

Hes saying that he will punish them by taking their cash. But a string of indictments would send many corporate HQs running. And Spitzer would be run out of town right after them. He knows how far the deeply embedded culture will let him push. Hes interested in higher office, not being a hero/martyr.

[Nostradammit]

12. You don't say.

Hmmm....

[Voltaire99]

14. Excellent point. Spitzer's heroics are nearly at an end; politics calls.

He has pushed as far as will be allowed, and now the quid pro quo for obeying the rules will be his political ascendance.

That said, he has performed adequately, and if he can latch some progressive social positions to his wagon, maybe he'll be worth supporting.

[w4rma]

15. "Maybe"? Good grief.

You really expect the politicians representing you to be *gods* don't you?

Do you even realize how much folks like Spitzer and other politicians who actually try to be ethical, and help this nation, sacrifice? Do you realize how wealthy and powerful they could be if they had chosen a route in life that was unethical?

You really need to give folks *every incintive* you can to be ethical because there are way too many incentives to do just the opposite.

[Voltaire99]

20. Thanks for your viewpoint

We were discussing Spitzer's limits and his ambitions, not decrying his ethics.

In any case, I disagree on two grounds with your philosophizing, w4rma.

First, choosing an ethical life is admirable, but it doesn't begin to be the full measure of public service. It's only a baseline for decency. Is your bar so low that you idolize pols for choosing an ethical life because they forego greater wealth? If so, relax already. Congress is a millionaire's club; almost everyone there is rich. As a mere AG Spitzer's not doing badly, himself. And John Kerry, well...

Second, it's hardly up to us to give pols "incentives" to be ethical, whatever that means. For those who choose it, the ethical life is incentive enough. If you're postulating some kind of reward system to keep pols on the straight and narrow, it's already there: they avoid censure, losing office or even going to jail. Beyond that, they serve us. Not the other way round. Enough about this romanticized "sacrifice"--this isn't high school civics or a Capra movie, w4rma! ;-)

You dislike my hard view of our political servants, whom you prefer to fawn over (a mistake that arguably serves to reduce their accountability). Fortunately, we're all free to choose at least this small measure of our relationship to power. :-)

[w4rma]

21. Apathetic attitudes like yours help make it harder for good people to

succeed in changing the system and in politics. In reality there are many variables that you are not taking account of with your puritan view of how folks in politics should live their lives and act. Our Congress will never consist of a majority of puritan monks who take vows of poverty no matter how much you'd like them to.

[Ellen Forradalom]

16. Would that the authorities were so generous with individuals.

Entities with legal personhood we treat with deference. Actual human beings? Throw 'em in the clink.

[420inTN]

17. But most human beings are worth millions.

Nor do they employ thousands of other human beings.