Former Attorney General Mukasey Lobbies For U.S. Chamber To Gut Foreign Bribery Law
Bush’s attorney general (not Gonzales, the much less incompetent but equally malevolent) Michael Mukasey has a new gig in which to ply his talents: making it easier for corporations to bribe foreign governments. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FPCA) is intended to stop U.S.-based multinational corporations from bribing foreign governments. Unlike the previous administration’s Department of Justice, under Mukasey, the Obama DOJ is enforcing the law.
Under Obama, the department collected more than $1 billion in fines during fiscal year 2010, the most the government has collected in the law’s 38-year history, and more than ten times the $87 million collected in 2007 by the Bush Administration.
The U.S. Chamber can’t have that, so of course, they’ve hired Mukasey to lobby Congress to amend the law.
Debevoise & Plimpton, where Mukasey is a partner, filed lobbying registration papers on his behalf this month, according to Senate records. The registration is for the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform and is effective back to March 3. It covers possible FCPA amendments and other issues “related to criminal law and policies affecting U.S. corporations.”The Chamber has become increasingly critical of the FCPA in recent months. It argues that the law, which allows the U.S. government to seek charges against corporations and individuals for bribes paid to local officials in other countries, is not working well and could be making U.S. companies less competitive.
In October, the Chamber released a policy paper proposing several specific changes to the law. The ideas included adding a “compliance defense,” so that a company could not be held criminally liable when an employee circumvents reasonable internal procedures….
When the Chamber released its proposals, Mukasey attended its annual legal summit and moderated a panel discussion on the FCPA. He noted the sharp rise in the Justice Department’s enforcement of the law during the past decade. “The expansion in prosecutions and investigations of course has brought a great deal of anxiety to companies in the United States,” he said, according to video of the panel.
See, the law “is not working well” when it is actaully enforced, that’s the message from Bush’s attorney general. That’s no great shock, given the Bush administration’s attitude toward the rule of law, but still pretty ironic. From an actual rule of law standpoint, the law seems to be working pretty well as enfroced. But the U.S. Chamber, and Mukasey, certainly can’t have that.
By: Joan McCarter, Daily Kos, March 18, 2011
Convenient Amnesia: House Republicans and The EPA
House Republicans are vigorously denouncing the Environmental Protection Agency as a rogue agency engaged in a borderline-illegal effort to regulate greenhouse gases. If anyone believes this to be a principled position, it is useful to recall that under President George W. Bush, the E.P.A. argued for very similar policies, based on the same reading of its responsibilities.
This reminder comes courtesy of Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, who released a personal letter written by Mr. Bush’s E.P.A administrator, Stephen Johnson, imploring the president to allow his agency to begin regulating carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. The letter was written in January 2008, only a month after the Office of Management and Budget — almost certainly under orders from Vice President Dick Cheney — had rebuffed a similar request.
Mr. Johnson reminded the president that the Supreme Court had said in 2007 that the federal government was required to regulate carbon dioxide if it endangered public health. He said that he had been persuaded that it did threaten public health and that both the law and the “latest science of climate change” had left him no choice but to issue a formal “endangerment finding.”
Mr. Johnson then outlined what he called a “prudent” plan for a multiyear reduction in emissions from vehicles and large industrial sources like power plants and refineries. So far as is known, he never got a reply.
That left the job of controlling carbon dioxide to Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s E.P.A. administrator. She issued an endangerment finding in 2009, and last year presented a plan for regulating emissions that closely resembles Mr. Johnson’s. That historical parallel did not deter Republicans from spending two hours on Wednesday grilling Ms. Jackson for “regulatory overreach.”
It is also worth recalling that the “cap and trade” proposal for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, so maligned by Republicans these days, was first proposed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 to control acid rain. Partisan amnesia may play well with some voters, but it is disastrous public policy.
By: Editorial-The New York Times Opinion Pages, February 12, 2011
Republicans Play Us For Dupes on Financial Reform
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell gestures while meeting with reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington
Conservatives are representing themselves as anti-bailout populists, while serving Wall Street.
Senate Republicans today debuted their new strategy for financial reform: Refuse to cooperate with Democrats on grounds that the Dems are too willing to give Wall Street what it wants.
I’m not making this up.
In a Senate floor speech, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans couldn’t support the legislation that emerged from Chris Dodd’s banking committee because it “institutionalizes” future taxpayer bailouts of the Street, giving the Federal Reserve “enhanced emergency lending authority that is far too open to abuse.” Senator Bob Corker, a senior Republican on the committee who had spent many weeks negotiating the bill with Dodd, huffed that Dodd’s final bill provides “the ability to have bailouts.”
Sen. Lamar Alexander, a member of the Senate Republican leadership, blasted Dodd for partisanship — “Dodd jerked the rug out from under Sen. Corker and went back into a partisan bill” — that is, partisanship toward Wall Street. Alexander said Republicans will hold out for a plan “that would end the practice of too big to fail and that would make certain that we don’t perpetually use taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street.”
Republicans have been looking for a way to oppose Senate Dems on financial reform without looking like patsies for the Street. And now they think they’ve found it — by trying to make Democrats look like patsies for the Street. The strategy is surely the handiwork of Republican pollster Frank Luntz who for months has been telling Republicans “the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout.” (See Luntz’s memo.)
Let’s be clear: The Dodd bill doesn’t go nearly far enough to rein in the Street. It allows so-called “specialized” derivatives to be traded without regulatory oversight; its capital requirements are weak; it gives far too much discretion to regulators, who, as we’ve seen, can fall asleep at the switch; it does nothing about conflicts of interest within credit rating agencies that rate the issues of the companies that put food on their plates; it puts a consumer protection agency inside the Fed whose consumer bureau didn’t protect consumers; it doesn’t do anything to control the size of banks; it delays dealing with other hard issues by assigning them to vaguely-defined “studies”; and, yes, it preserves the possibility that the Fed could launch another bank bailout.
But the Street thinks the Dodd bill goes way too far, and wants its Republican allies to water it down with more loopholes, studies, and regulatory discretion. Republicans figure they can accommodate the Street by refusing to give the Dems the votes they need unless the Dems agree to weaken the bill — while Republicans simultaneously tell the public they’re strengthening the bill and reducing the likelihood of future bailouts.
It’s a bizarre balancing act for the Republicans, reflecting the two opposing constituencies they have to appease — big business and Wall Street, on the one hand, and the emerging Tea Partiers, on the other. The Tea Partiers hate the Wall Street bailout as much as the left does. It was the bailout that “really got this ball rolling,” says Joseph Farah, publisher of WorldNetDaily, a website popular among Tea Party adherents. “That’s where the anger, where the frustration took root.”
The awkward fact, of course, is that the bank bailout originated with George W. Bush and a Republican congress. “Without this rescue plan,” Bush told the nation in September 2008, “the costs to the American economy could be disastrous.” New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, the leading Republican negotiator of the bailout bill, warned that without the bank bailout, “the trauma, the chaos, and the disruption to everyday Americans’ lives would be overwhelming.”
Republicans figure the public’s attention span is so short they won’t remember, and that the public understands so little about the details of financial reform that Republicans can weaken the Dodd bill without leaving any fingerprints.
I have a suggestion for Senate Democrats: Don’t let them get away with it. Smoke the Republicans out. Respond to their criticism that the Dodd bill leaves open the possibility that some future bank will become too big to fail by amending the bill to limit the size of banks to $100 billion of assets — so no bank can become too big, period. Challenge the Republicans to join you in voting for the amendment. If they decline, force them to explain themselves to their local Tea Partiers.
By Robert Reich April 14, 2010, Salon; Photo-AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.