Proposed rule making it harder for companies to be indicted by the gov't or sued by the the public

[Robbien]

They are serious about this.

the government should be hesitant to ever indict companies, given possible damage to innocent shareholders and to the economy, and it said the law should be changed to give Washington the power to block state indictments of accounting or financial firms.

It added that if a state wanted to bring charges against either an auditing firm or a financial firm, the Justice Department should be able to block the prosecution “on the grounds of national interest.”

It also urges the commission to provide protection from lawsuits for directors who rely in good faith on auditors or on corporate officials.

And it suggests Congress consider limiting the liability of accounting firms, to protect them from collapse if they lose a major case.

and much more
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/business/30regs.html?_r=3&adxnnl=0&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1164901341-6BvozYN9Y3a01YwzYgxRag&pagewanted=print

Who are these people? Well

The report was produced by the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation, a group co-chaired by R. Glenn Hubbard, the dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Business, and John L. Thornton, the chairman of the Brookings Institution.

The committee has no official standing, but the identities of its leaders and its formation with an endorsement from Mr. Paulson have created an expectation that it may map out the Bush administration’s final two years of strategy in capital markets.

According to the article only one lone voice is out there right now speaking against these proposed changes. Harvey J. Goldschmid, a professor at Columbia Law School:

It would. . . dramatically diminish the effectiveness of the S.E.C., of criminal enforcement, of state attorney general enforcement and of private damage actions,”

“The recent drive for accountability and deterrence would be replaced by a world in which almost anything goes,”

All very scary stuff.

[sam sarrha]

1. can they pass that before january

[Robbien]

3. The article suggests many of the changes can be made

without the approval of congress

With Congress soon to be under control of the Democrats, the report recommends changes that can be made without legislation.

[lapfog_1]

2. Ahh, the Enron/Arthur Anderson bill.

Yet one more thing the the Democrats need to send a message about for the last 4 weeks here that they will filibuster should the repukes try to shove it through.

[Robbien]

7. The SoX bill. Some Dems have indicated they are willing to relax

Sarbanes Oxley regulations. This needs to be watched.

[IWantAChange]

4. Dems need to draw a line in the sand and send Dubyha a

message that things are about to change. It's time for America to be back in the hands of Americans NOT Corporate America.

[whistle]

5. That will certainly cover up a lot of corporate criminal activities

....corporations and professionals working under the cover and protection of corporations will be able to engage in all sorts of sociopathic and psychopathic activities and behaviors and never be held accountable. That sure sounds like corporate fascism to me!

<snip to videos>
THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.

for Part 1 click on: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622246866192924215

for Part 2 click on: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5186003157195621601

for Part 3 click on: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5464110271070759896

[betherenow]

6. They say gov't shouldn't be able to indict co's, because it would hurt innocent

shareholders. By that logic, then no CITIZEN should be indicted either. Besides, the pain caused to families and loved ones by such action is far graver than any perceived hurt caused to shareholders, who are little more than gamblers, hoping for a very quick score.

[Robbien]

8. Nice thought, but not in their world.

In their world citizens don't count, only companies and shareholders count.

Welcome to DU betherenow.
:hi:

[betherenow]

9. Thanks, Robbien EOM

nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

18. Ding Ding Ding Ding... You Win!! A free trip to Gitmo for Combatant staus.

Don't you know that War is Peace and your Truths are Lies?

[enough]

10. k&r

[htuttle]

11. Kleptocracies have notoriously short lifespans

[Armstead]

12. Final Two Years? Hell they've been doing this for six already.

[conscious evolution]

13. delete

[annabanana]

14. "innocent shareholders "

You share the profit, you share the blame. If corporations are going to be "people with the associated rights" then shareholders will have to share in the responsibility.

[Bjorn Against]

16. And if they want to be people, then shouldn't they have to follow the same laws as people?

If a corporation is a person, then shouldn't we be able to arrest that corporation when they break the law?

Corporate personhood is a myth, the reality is much worse. Corporations are given all the rights of a person, but are not held to the same standards as a person. They are basically considered to be a superior race of human that is above the law.

[DemReadingDU]

15. evening kick

[ArbustoBuster]

17. Protecting shareholders? Shareholders are already protected!

One of the functions of a corporation is to protect its shareholders' assets. If a company goes down - even if it goes down in flames, with the entire Board of Directors indicted for massive fraud - the shareholders are safe. All they lose is the value of their stocks.

While this can be devastating to the shareholders (it certainly made life hell for a number of middle-class shareholders in Enron who had put their retirement savings into the stock), it's still a protection. A company can owe huge piles of money, but the stockholders won't need to sell their cars and houses to pay for them. They simply lose the value of their stocks.

So anyone who says that "we need to protect innocent shareholders" is either lying to us, or is completely uncomprehending of the way stocks actually work. From what I'm seeing here, I'm leaning towards the belief that they're lying in order to make the economy more hostile to the middle and lower class and friendly to the rich.

[OregonBlue]

19. Contact Senate Banking Committee heads. Here are email address

Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Chairman: http://shelby.senate.gov/resources/contact.htm

Ranking Member: http://sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/email.html


Senate Subcommittee on Securities and Investment

Chairman: http://hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Home

Ranking Member: http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3128&cat=Opinion

They're coming back next week. Make sure they hear from us.

Contact Lou Dobbs.

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form5.html?9

Most people haven't heard anything about this!

[Morgana LaFey]

20. OMG. That is scary. nt