Senator Wants Corporate-Wrongdoing Rules Eased

Sen. Arlen Specter wants to ease the guidelines that helped nail Enron and Arthur Anderson.

Yeah, because federal prosecutors were so mean to those iniators of the California blackouts. When you think about it, America would be so much better if Enron never collapsed. We would feel better about ourselves as a nation, strengthened by common myths. — BEN POPKEN

Senator Calls for an Easing of Corporate-Wrongdoing Rules [NYT]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. This from the man who brought us the theory of the Kennedy Assassination “Magic Bullet”. I do believe I am not alone among political wonks who believe Arlen Specter’s 15 minutes of fame have become interminable.

  2. Falconfire says:

    Arlen Specter is the perfect figurehead of what is wrong with the 1980’s on Republican party.

  3. JAGCLT says:

    In the above photo, Mr. Specter looks like a dried prune, which, in fact, he is.

  4. thefrontpage says:

    Let’s investigate Arlen Specter.

  5. RichardHead says:

    There should be guidelines, in general, for anyone named “Arlen.”

  6. JosephFinn says:

    Yeah, because federal prosecutors were so mean to those initiators of the California blackouts.

    Not to mention initiated the coup that ousted Gov. Davis in California by blaming the blackouts on him, leading to an energy-friendly Republican to take office.

  7. xecks says:

    I won’t cry at Arlen’s funeral.

  8. Stop being so mean to big companies!

  9. feelclose says:

    He’s got DSL. Makes good for mouthing for corporate pricks.

  10. schvitzatura says:

    Arlen Spectre, as portrayed by Jonathan Banks

    Uncanny!

  11. thrillhouse says:

    Lets hope he’s the next congressmen in line to fall from grace. As long as there are these old, out-of-touch, lobbyist-fueled farts in congress, we’ll all be screwed.

  12. FUBush says:

    The dying gasp of a republican troll.

    Speaking of ‘dying’, look at that photo.

    Has Arlen already been embalmed?

    BYE BYE.

  13. Sheik says:

    “Mr. Specter’s bill calls for “clear and practical limits” to protect the confidentiality of legal communications surrounding companies and employees under investigation.”

    so let me get this straight…Its cool to infringe on the rights of private individuals by tapping their phones with out a warrant, but companies that are suspected of wrong doings are going to be protected by this hack?

    The Senate needs a “are you fucking serious” comity to smack some sense into people like Spector.

    Sorry for swearing but things like this really get rub me the wrong way.

  14. robbie says:

    I mean, the two proposed changes in the article kind of make sense.

  15. Sheik says:

    What are the “two proposed changes”? I didn’t read any. It out lined two of the existing rules. They are meeting to scale them back to be more lenient on companies.

  16. DCAview says:

    Actually, Specter’s suggested changes make a lot of sense.

    First, he wants to limit the instances in which federal prosecutors can require a company to waive its attorney-client privilege in exchange for a (often ignored) promise that prosecutors will be more lenient on the company. Whatever you think of corporate lawyers, the right to confidential communications between someone facing indictment and their lawyer is an important protection in our system. (No, I am not a lawyer.)

    Second, Specter wants to prevent the Justice Department from requiring companies to stop paying the legal fees of employees who are under investigation or have been indicted. (By way of background, many articles of incorporation require a corporation to pay the legal expenses of an employee who faces potential liability from his or her work activities.) By strong-arming a corporation into cutting off employees’ legal expenses, the Justice Department is trying to create an unfair playing field in which its prosecutors have unlimited resources to prosecute corporate crimes while the individuals accused of the crimes have to rely on their own personal assets to defend themselves.

    (I know, I know, your heart cries for the poor indicted executives, but remember that a lot of times it’s the little, midlevel guys who face charges because prosecutors have trouble tying their bosses to whatever the alleged crime is and that mounting a defense against the federal government can cost millions.)