Subj:   G.H.W.BushJr. on Corporate Personhood . . . ?
Date:   99-06-05 00:32:15 EDT
From:   xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:     xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

DISCLAIMER: NO, THIS IS NOT A JOKE!
Go to <www.gwbush.com> for yourself and see.

This is not a joke either: this man will very likely be the United State's
next president.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 1, 1999

"Limited liability" would be a thing of the past, under a bold new initiative
to  punish shareholders and managers for corporate crimes by imprisonment or,
in lesser cases, the confiscation of shares.

"Corporations want to be human," said Governor and likely Presidential
candidate George W. Bush yesterday at Yale University's law school, "and we
owe it to them to help them."

Bush described the corporate urge to become human as "compassionate avarice,"
and said that it was "not entirely about getting richer."

"One would have to be very cynical indeed to think that corporations, when
they won protection as 'persons' under the 'Freed Slave' Amendment, were
thinking only of their own wealth," Bush said.  He was referring to the 14th
Amendment, which had been designed to protect the rights of freed slaves, and
which was used
       http://www.ratical.com/corporations/TCoBeij.html
in 1886 to establish corporations as "natural persons" under the law.

"Corporations clearly just want to join our fine species, and an epic
enterprise like that is not to be taken lightly."  Bush said that corporate
"limited liability," whereby shareholders are not responsible for crimes
committed in their name, prevents corporations from being responsible.  The
only way to change that, Bush said, is to start punishing shareholders in
corporations that commit crimes. (See end section for specific examples of
the punishments Bush is proposing.)

"We've got to get tough on crimes committed by corporations, just like we've
tried with teenage kids. 'Tough on crime' policies don't work with humans,
but corporations are much more rational, much more cause-and-effect-driven.
They can be intimidated into behaving correctly."

Good for markets?

While some experts dispute whether corporations can ever actually have a
conscience or become human, Bush said he has "experienced a consensus" that
punishing corporations for the crimes they commit will at the very least have
a positive effect on the market.

"Everyone agrees that government regulation makes markets sluggish," said
Bush.  "Government regulation has been necessary because it's the only
controls we have.  But if each shareholder and manager is personally
responsible for corporate crimes -- including safety errors and all the way
down to lies about quality -- then you've automatically got market controls
of the process. And not only will government regulation be unnecessary, but
you'll also eliminate the need for several layers of management, further
increasing profit margins."

Bush easily dismissed concerns that personal liability for corporate crimes
might discourage individual investors from taking a risk. "People love to
gamble," he said, "and this will make it all very real."

For those who do not thrive on such risks, Bush suggested that the mutual
fund industry would easily adapt to manage complex decision-making processes,
just as it has in the past. "The prime mechanism of regulation will be
shareholder judgement, delegated or not.  If investment in one company is
likely to land you in jail, you'll invest in another instead.

Mutual fund companies will find it an exciting challenge to obtain and keep
investor confidence, and this challenge will reinvigorate the industry, and
in fact the  whole concept of investment."

Appropriate punishments

When Bush spoke about proper punishment regimens for corporate crimes, he
tellingly began with what is not punishment.

"Fines are not punishment, they do not build character," Bush said.

"What's a ten-million-dollar fine to a giant corporation?  Fines seldom if
ever affect the pocketbooks of shareholders or managers, those who make the
decisions or power the machine.  But hitting pockets and people directly is a
totally different thing."

"We must remove the burden for controlling corporations from big government
and regulation -- such as fines -- and place it squarely on the judiciary,"
Bush said.

Bush outlined his unique two-tiered punishment program, which would punish
corporations for legal infractions according to their severity.  Bush
explained that there would be two "suites" of punishment, for levels of crime
roughly corresponding to misdemeanors and felonies.  In one "suite" -- for
"misdemeanors" like bilking taxpayers of seven-figure dollar amounts,
overcharging consumers, attempting monopolies, and contributing to simple
human troubles like asthma and brief bouts of homelessness -- punishment
would take the form of short- or long-term share confiscation.  Dividends of
confiscated shares would pay for remedial actions, where possible, as well as
public-good programs like the education of human prisoners.

"My own brother was a player in the Savings and Loan scandal," Bush said,
"but he's prepared to face the consequences.  Remedies for serious problems
are never easy, especially when they hit at the root."

The second punishment "suite," for "felonies" -- causing major diseases,
committing homicide, contributing to national disasters in the U.S. or
abroad, large-scale bilking of taxpayers, etc. -- would involve direct
punishment of the managers and shareholders in question.

The Governor used Union Carbide's 1984 Bhopal massacre, in which thousands of
villagers were killed by lethal gas, as an example of a crime that would be
classified as a "felony."  Others included the German industry forced-labor
cases, the Mattel sweatshop fires, etc. (While retroactive prosecutions based
on new laws are usually not permissible, these crimes might be, based on the
pending Pinochet case, as well as the Nuremberg cases of 1945.)

In the Union Carbide example, the Governor took out a pocket calculator and
tallied up figures.  Each death would cost the company a "negligent homicide"
charge, for approximately twenty years of incarceration each.  Twenty years
multiplied by 2000 equals 40,000 years in prison, with aggravating factors
such as a lack of remorse or compassion tripling the total.

This penalty would be divided among Union Carbide executives -- including
middle management, and including those who were not with Union Carbide at the
time, but now are. Also affected would be shareholders, each of whom could
expect to spend from a few weeks to several years in prison, depending on the
size of their investment. (This would apply even to those who had invested
via "mutual funds," without knowing the precise direction of their
investments.)

A minimum penalty could be set by a judge -- so that an investor with even a
fraction of a share would be liable for that minimum, say two weeks in jail.
A maximum penalty could be set as well.

Although Bush addressed with ease most questions concerning the punishment
programs, he admitted that several major problems remain to  be solved.  The
death penalty, for example, while often merited in corporate crime cases, had
no obvious application -- "We're can't talk about 'little deaths' here," said
Bush, making an obscure bilingual pun better left untranslated.

Also, the issue of global markets poses. "These changes and penalties will
have to be agreed on by a global governing body like the WTO, not only here
at home in Texas and America.  Otherwise they may create a better market
here, but the changes will be irrelevant in the bigger picture.  And
influencing such a powerful and state-independent body like the WTO is an
involved process."

Despite these problems, Bush and his team remain confident that their
corporate-punishment program will greatly improve the human landscape. "We
feel certain that in this case as in all other free-market cases, the search
for the right combination will do nothing but benefit consumers."


Reply via email to