Five Candidates for the Corporate Death Penalty

Published on Thursday, October 20, 2011 by Single Payer Action

by Russell Mokhiber

One of the most famous signs to come out of Occupy Wall Street stated simply: “I will believe corporations are people when Texas executes one.”

That was sort of a joke.

But in fact, for the benefit of real live human beings, some corporations ought to be executed.

When it comes to the serious crimes that big corporations engage in – pollution, corruption, fraud, threatening the lives of real Americans – the death penalty is off the table. (photo: David Shankbone)

My guess is that most of the occupiers at Wall Street would be in favor of the corporate death penalty.

Some – like Richard Grossman – would criminalize the corporate form.

But if you want to take the incremental approach, here’s my list of five candidates for the corporate death penalty.

Health insurance corporations. Most western industrialized countries – with the exception of the USA – already have this death penalty in place. In those countries, corporations are not allowed to sell primary private health insurance. Instead, there is a public single payer – everybody in, nobody out. Under this death penalty proposal corporations like Aetna, CIGNA, UnitedHealth, and Wellpoint would be put out of business. And with a public single payer to replace them, we’d save billions of dollars and the lives of more than 45,000 Americans who die every year from lack of health insurance.

Nuclear power corporations. Do we really need a Fukushima here in the United States? We do not. Without government loan guarantees and federal limits on nuclear liability, the industry would be put out of business. So, we could simply cut the federal subsidy and that would be the end of it. And we should. A wide range of safer, cleaner energy options is available to replace the energy currently being generated by unsafe nuclear power.

Giant Banks. Wells Fargo. Citibank. Bank of America. JP Morgan Chase. Morgan Stanley. Goldman Sachs. They should be executed – broken up and replaced by smaller banks. Break up the big banks. And impose a hard cap on their size. No bank should have assets of more than four percent of GDP. There is support across the political spectrum for this proposal. During the debate over financial reform, the measure garnered 33 votes in the Senate – it was called the Brown-Kaufman amendment.

Fracking corporations. Hydraulic fracturing – fracking – is wrecking havoc in the northeastern part of the United States. Any corporation engaged in fracking behavior that threatens drinking water supplies ought to be put out of business. Anti-fracking activists in New York have already drafted legislation that would criminalize fracking corporations.

Corporate criminal recidivists. Legislatures should adopt provisions to strip corporations of their charters for serious corporate violations or for recidivist behavior. Some states already have such provisions, although they are rarely invoked.

Some corporations have been put to death for wrongful behavior, but they have been mostly smaller companies.

In 1983, the Attorney General of Virginia asked the state’s corporation commission to dissolve a book company convicted of possessing obscene films.

But when it comes to the serious crimes that big corporations engage in – pollution, corruption, fraud, threatening the lives of real Americans – the death penalty is off the table.

If we are serious about corporate crime, the death penalty is a deterrent that will work.

Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime Reporter. He is also founder of singlepayeraction.org, and editor of the website Morgan County USA.

10,000 May Die in Ecuador Due to Chevron's Pollution

by Nick Magel from Commondreams.org

Shockwaves rippled through the world's largest environmental lawsuit on Friday, as a new damages assessment was submitted in the lawsuit between 30,000 Indigenous peoples and local farmers against the global oil giant Chevron. The damages assessment finds that because of factors still persisting in the Ecuadorean rainforest from Chevron's pollution, nearly 10,000 Ecuadoreans are at significant risk of dying from cancer by the year 2080. The technical and medical experts who authored the assessment claim that the conditions that remain from Chevron's systemic pollution in the Amazon will continue to cause cancer, birth defects, and other ailments for decades.

"The information in this submission is highly significant because it reflects clearly that there is a terrible oil-related disaster in Ecuador in the area where Chevron operated," said Pablo Fajardo, lead lawyer for the Ecuadorian communities suing Chevron.

The new assessment also placed damages to Ecuadorian communities at $40-90 billion rather than the court's original $27.3 billion. The increase in damages is due to Chevron's "unjust enrichment." Unjust enrichment is essentially money saved by using sub-standard drilling practices. Simply, Chevron cut corners and communities paid the price, a very high price.

Fajardo was clear about Chevron's human impact in the region. "What these analyses make chillingly clear is that thousands of Ecuadorian citizens may well contract and die of cancer in the coming decades because of Chevron's contamination."

Marta Isabel Arrobo, 49, recalls numerous health problems she and her family have suffered living in close proximity to several toxic oil pits abandoned by Texaco (now Chevron) in the Ecuadorean Amazon rainforest. Photo by Caroline Bennett / Rainforest Action Network

This new damages assessment submitted by the plaintiffs comes after the presiding judge opened a 45-day window for both parties to submit their own damage assessments to the court. The plantiffs accepted the offer while Chevron rejected the opportunity. A peculiar move considering Chevron has spent the last two years attacking original independent damages assessment that contained over 105 expert reports and more than 64,000 samples. Fajardo points that many of the reports and samples Chevron argues are in fact Chevron's own filings.

"The Ecuador court has more than enough evidence and expert analyses to determine the cost of remediating the extensive oil pollution that has devastated thousands in the region for decades," Fajardo added. "There are more than 100 different expert reports in evidence, dozens of them produced by Chevron, which overwhelmingly demonstrate extensive contamination at all of Chevron's former oil production facilities."

Furthermore, court documents filed in US federal court two weeks ago detailed environmental audits commissioned by Texaco in 1993 (Chevron bought Texaco in 2001) before they pulled out of Ecuador showed that:

· "Hydrocarbon contamination requiring remediation at all production facilities and a majority of the drill sites."· "Produced water (which contains carcinogens and toxic heavy metals) is being discharged to the environment in all cases."· "Contamination of soil and water was observed at well sites, production stations and along roadways, flowlines and secondary pipelines.

Rainforest Action Network Executive Director Rebecca Tarbotton follows up, "These documents say two things. One, if Chevron is genuinely digging for truth, they are only going to find more evidence that shows one thing: they are guilty. Two, these documents not only illustrate Chevron's liability; they demonstrate the company's knowledge of this liability when they acquired Texaco." Although somewhat technical, you can read the audits here and here.

These audits and the new damages assessment were completed decades apart, but both illustrate the insurmountable evidence against Chevron. Perhaps it is that reality that has left Chevron refusing to complete its own assessment. The breadth of Chevron's pollution and the toxic conditions that still exist in the Amazon are clear not matter whose assessment it is.

The official court assessment placed the human cost and ecological damages at $27.3 billion in 2008. Since that amount was established Chevron divested energy from arguing the case and relied on a delay and deflect strategy. Having already conceded that it expects to be found liable for the pollution, Chevron has turned its efforts towards spy tapes, manufactured media, and a PR blitz even BP is envious of.

One of Chevron's most infamous ploys is that of a spy videotape scandal (not to be confused with Chevron's attempts to turn journalists into spies). Chevron associates, one a former drug runner and the other a former employee, secretly videotaped conversations in which they actively attempted to entrap the judge presiding over the court case, the case as come to emblemize Chevron's "dirty tricks". Coincidently this "dirty trick" and its legality being called into question the same week as the new damage assessments announcement.

Diego Borja, a former Chevron employee, has been ordered by a US federal judge to appear for a deposition to explain his relationship with Chevron and his motive for the potentially illegal video sting operation.

The US federal judge who ordered the subpoena said: "There is evidence ... suggesting that Mr. Borja was not an innocent third party who just happened to learn of the alleged bribery scheme but rather was a long-time associate of Chevron whom Chevron would pay for any favorable testimony."

It's easy to understand why the judge would draw such conclusions. Soon after Borja recorded himself in conversations Chevron uprooted him from Ecuador gave him a $10,000 monthly stipend and placed him in a secluded townhouse on the outskirts of San Ramon CA, where Chevron's world headquarters are located. There he as been hidden from the public while Chevron pays for his legal fees and counsel. Depending on the outcome of the deposition Chevron could find itself in not only a very embarrassing situation but also a very illegal one.

As the truth in Ecaudor continues to back Chevron into a corner we unfortunately can expect more baseless fireworks and delay tactics. However, a recent article on Dow Jones is hopeful in describing the case as "entering a decisive stage." Then we can turn our focus from Chevron's shenanigans to Chevron's clean up in the Amazon communities that have waited to long for Chevron to do what's right.

Nick Magel is a Human Rights and Environmental campaigner working on corporate accountability projects for the last 4 years. He lives in San Francisco. You can follow him on twitter @nickmagel or email him at njmagel@yahoo.com