"I Am Going To Be Small" by Jeffrey Brown, via Neatorama

Among other things, ACTA will outlaw P2P (even when used to share works that are legally available, like my books), and crack down on things like region-free DVD players. All of this is taking place out of the public eye, presumably with the intention of presenting it as a fait accompli just as the ink is drying on the treaty.

Wikileaks points out that the U.S. politician behind ACTA is Howard Berman from California, a Democrat whose top four campaign contributors for 2006 were Time Warner ($21,000), News Corp ($15,000), Sony Corp of America ($14,000), and Walt Disney Co ($13,550).

So what can you do, other than shake your head in disgust? Well, here's a list of members of the subcommittee overseeing the U.S. side of things, so you could start by seeing if your rep is listed and contacting him or her directly. One Boing Boing reader suggests contacting your representative regardless of committee membership—you can find the correct contact information here using your zip code or address.

"Proposed US ACTA multi-lateral intellectual property trade agreement (2007)" [Wikileaks via Boing Boing]
(Photo: Getty)

A 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 61% of American corporations, including 39% of large companies, paid no corporate income taxes between 1996 and 2000. Last year, corporations shouldered just 14.4% of the total U.S. tax burden, compared with about 50% in 1940.

Stats from the Congressional Budget Office show a trend toward individual citizens paying more in the years to come, and corporate "citizens" paying even less:

The tax burden on individuals is expected to climb from $1.16 trillion in 2007 to $1.21 trillion this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), while corporate tax receipts are expected to decline from $370 billion to $364 billion. By 2013, the CBO estimates, ordinary taxpayers' bills may climb to $1.86 trillion while corporate tax bills drop to $327 billion.

"Are You Paying For Corporate Fat Cats?" [Parade] (Thanks to Michael!)
(Photo: danperry.com)

In case you think $2.5 billion could bankrupt the company, The Salt Lake Tribune points out that Exxon Mobile's profit in the last quarter of 2007 was $11.7 billion, and that "the award represents less than three weeks' worth of Exxon profit." (Update: Consumerist reader oeolycus points out that several newspapers are misrepresenting Exxon's profit: "Their NET INCOME was $11 billion. Net profit is closer to $5 billion.") In this case, "excessive" seems to be related to what Exxon claims is appropriate under maritime law. Additionally, Exxon says it's already paid "$3.4 billion in criminal fines, cleanup costs and compensation payments."

The punitive damages would be dispersed to about 33,000 Alaskans, and Exxon is seeking to cut the per-person award from $75,000 to $30,000.

The New York Times' coverage of yesterday's argument is somewhat exciting to read, with Justice Ginsberg—who sympathizes with the plaintiffs—subjecting "Exxon's lawyer, Walter Dellinger, to a rapid-fire series of questions about his central arguments," and arguing with him about maritime law from as far back as 1818. By contrast, the Exxon-sympathetic Justice Breyer argued over how much culpability a company should accept for its employees' actions:

"This is a very dramatic accident. It involves oil spills, and they cause an enormous amount of trouble. But there are accidents every day, and ships are filled with accidents."

Given that punitive damages have not been the normal rule in maritime cases, Justice Breyer continued, "then it will be a new world for the shipping industry and for those who work on the ships" if the courts begin to impose them. "What principles do you have to suggest, if any," the justice asked Mr. Fisher, "for creating a fair system that isn't just arbitrary?"

"Exxon Valdez payout could be cut in half" [AP via Salt Lake Tribune]
"Justices Take Up Battle Over Exxon Valdez " [New York Times]
(Photo: Jack Smith/Associated Press)

"People were looking at an incredible number of accounts," Joan Shafer, WE Energies' vice president of customer service, said during a sworn deposition last year. "Politicians, community leaders, board members, officers, family, friends. All over the place."

Her testimony came in a legal case involving an employee who was fired in 2006 for repeatedly accessing information about her ex-boyfriend and another friend. An arbitrator in November upheld the woman's firing. The AP reviewed testimony and documents made public as part of the case.

The misuse came to light in 2004 when an employee helped leak information to the media during a heated race for Milwaukee mayor that a candidate, acting Mayor Marvin Pratt, was often behind in paying his heating bills. Pratt lost to the current mayor, Tom Barrett.

Pratt said he's convinced the disclosure cost him votes and unfairly damaged his reputation. Pratt said he recently met with top company executives and was satisfied it has stopped the problem as much as possible. He said he has dropped earlier plans to explore a lawsuit.

Worker snooping on customer data common [AP]

Coincidentally, the company said it will "take a one-time charge of $25 million in the fourth quarter of 2007, related to severance costs and certain asset write-downs."

"Chiquita Brands to restructure and cut jobs" [Reuters]

It seems that this offer was attractive to Procter and Gamble, because they've entered one of their charitable programs (which relies on their water purifying technology to provide safe drinking water to children) into the contest. And it looks like they may win.

Amex claims that the entry is legit because although the idea was entered by a Proctor and Gamble employee (who, by the way, is the director of the program), the "fulfilling organization" will be UNICEF. Ostensibly, UNICEF could then choose not to purchase the water purification technology from P&G, however unlikely that would be. From the Member's Project Website:

This project idea was submitted by a Cardmember who is employed at Proctor & Gamble, but the project idea Cardmembers are voting on is not the P&G's clean water program with PSI (Population Services International). American Express has selected UNICEF as the organization that will fulfill and bring the project idea to life. If this project wins, UNICEF will receive the final award money and make the decision about what technologies and purifiers they will use to clean water.

Any Cardmember was able to submit a project idea regardless of his or her affiliation with a for profit corporation or a non profit organization. Many project ideas were submitted by individuals with such affiliations. Decisions about which fulfilling organizations will bring the project ideas to life were made by American Express, not by the Cardmembers who proposed the project ideas.

Procter & Gamble is in the midst of making the world's clean-water crisis its primary philanthropic mission, using its Pur-brand household water-purification system. It reported last week that a study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that a system such as Pur is effective in cutting death rates from water-borne illnesses.

P&G, too, is keeping an eye on its bottom line while doing good. "It's a cause-related issue, but we'll also learn things about low-income consumers that are going to help P&G overall," says Greg Allgood, P&G's director for children's safe drinking water.

And what is the motive of the Child Safe Drinking water project? According to the New York Times, P&G will sell its various water purification products in the US, and use the profits to distribute more of its product overseas. This information won't be noted on the product's packages. Why? From the NYT:

The packages could note that profits will go to Population Services International, the nonprofit group that actually handles the distribution of Pur overseas, but that is not a well-known name. "We don't think it would be understandable to consumers," Mr. Allgood said.

Procter is also traveling incognito in the American Express Member's Project, a Web-based initiative that encourages people to submit ideas for solving a societal problem. American Express cardholders vote for their favorites, and American Express will award up to $5 million for the winning idea.

Mr. Allgood entered the science and theory behind the Children's Safe Drinking Water program. But he said that the Member Project's rules precluded him from naming it, or mentioning Pur or Procter.

Procter & Gamble's project has a fairly significant lead in the voting, which closes on August 7th.

Is Procter & Gamble (or the P&G employee) doing something wrong by entering its products in the contest? Here's the Child Safe Drinking Water blog, which clearly shows P&G's logo, but is presented as if the project is somewhat less significantly funded than one might imagine. After all, P&G calls "Children's Safe Drinking Water" their "global signature program," and according to the Times funds the project through sales of their products to US consumers. For comparison's sake, here's what "Children's Safe Drinking Water's" actual official site looks like.

So it's probably not hurting for cash. Then again, we find it hard to take what amounts to a gigantic PR clusterf*ck for Amex too seriously. If people are voting for children to get drinking water, and the children will get the drinking water...

What do the Consumerists think? Should P&G's project be disqualified in favor of projects from non-profit organizations?

Children's Safe Drinking Water Official Site
Amex Member's Project
A Reverse Profit Strategy Faces a Commercial Test [NYT]
Starbucks takes up cause for safe drinking water [USA Today]
Children's Safe Drinking Water Blog

Member's Project Thread Full of Angry Amex Members

Ultimately, Helvetica is a cipher—and this is the key to its success. It can be authoritative or ironic, sober or idealistic, corporate or cozy. It's the tofu of typefaces: bland in itself but ready to absorb whatever flavors you add to it. It's clean, legible, and well-designed, but its real power lies in its uncanny mutability.

The Helvetica Hegemony [Slate]
(Photo: dantegeek)