SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
russell mokhiber
Corporate Crime Woke Corporatism and the Rise of Law and Order Politics
We need a headline that reads – “In a Setback to Woke Corporatism, Congressional Campaigns Shift to Law and Order for Corporate Criminals.”
Oct 31, 2021
In late 2021, when Americans think of progressive or liberal politics, what do they think of?
Defund the Police.
Cancel culture.
Not corporate crime.
Political corruption.
Corporate culture.
The agenda has been set by the corporations and led to the rise of woke corporatism.
Corporations and corporate criminals embrace 2021 liberal values to escape 1921 liberal values.
Or as New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put it in a 2018 column titled The Rise of Woke Capital -
"In every era and every political dispensation, businessmen ask themselves: What am I required to do to make money unmolested by the government?"
Four pillars of woke corporatism - Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase, Democratic Congressional Leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and President Biden - all have taken a knee for Black Lives Matter.
And when they stand up, they go back to work for Wall Street.
Woke corporatism protects a criminal justice system that throws poor whites and blacks into prison for minor drug crimes while allowing corporate criminal drug pushers off the hook.
Think -- Purdue Pharma.
In 2006, prosecutors in western Virginia wanted to put an end to the Purdue Pharma sponsored opioid epidemic.
Those prosecutors wrote a more than 100 page prosecution memo.
"The memo was an incendiary catalog of corporate malfeasance," reporter Patrick Radden Keefe writes in his book Empire of Pain: The Secret History of the Sackler Dynasty.
"It wasn't just that it spelled out a litany of prosecutable misdeeds. It substantiated, in forensic detail, the knowledge and direction of those misdeeds at the highest levels of Purdue."
But corporate criminal defense lawyers went over the heads of line prosecutors to Main Justice and the criminal prosecution that could have limited the damage was turned back. (To get a nutshell overview of the story, check out Barry Meier's New York Times 2019 report and mini documentary - A Secret Opioid Memo That Could Have Slowed An Epidemic.)
Woke corporatism protects a death penalty for individuals but prevents a death penalty for culpable corporations.
Think -- health insurance corporations.
Are there any corporations more deserving of the corporate death penalty than health insurance companies?
Americans overwhelmingly want to put insurance companies out of their misery and ours.
But woke corporatism prevents this humane execution at every turn.
Those who made their names calling for the death penalty for insurance companies - Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal - refuse to raise the issue this year in deference to the corporate powers that be.
Sanders has yet to introduce his single payer bill in the Senate. And while Jayapal introduced hers, she has refused to hold the hearings she promised earlier this year.
Single payer would replace major health insurance companies with Medicare for All saving hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of American lives a year.
Instead of defunding the corporate crime police, we should be making heroes and heroines out of those on the front lines in the battle against corporate crime.
How many Americans know the name Frances Kelsey?
She was the young Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official who, fifty years ago, prevented a pharmaceutical disaster in the United States by refusing to authorize the anti-nausea drug thalidomide for market in the United States because she was concerned about the drug's safety.
Resisting pressure from the company, Kelsey refused for over a year to approve the drug. She was vindicated when it was shown that where the drug was being used in Europe and around the world, it caused serious birth defects - babies born with no arms and no legs.
A headline in the Washington Post yesterday reads - In a Setback for Black Lives Matter, Mayoral Campaigns Shift to Law and Order.
Today we need a headline that reads - "In a Setback to Woke Corporatism, Congressional Campaigns Shift to Law and Order for Corporate Criminals."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ari & I: July 14, 2003
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (July 14)
Jul 14, 2003
Note from Russell Mokhiber:
On July 14, 2003, Ari Fleischer held his last White House press briefing. He left the White House to start a consulting firm that will advise corporate executives on how to handle the news media. The new White House Press Secretary is Scott McClellan. I'll continue this feature under the headline: "Scottie & Me."
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, in the 2002 election campaign, the Republican Party took in $7.2 million from convicted criminals. Is the President okay with his party taking millions of dollars from convicted criminals? Ari
Ari Fleischer: I have no idea what you are referring to -
Mokhiber: I'm referring to, let me tell you -
Fleischer: Obviously, if money is received - both parties from people who are later found out to be people who shouldn't be giving money - then it gets returned.
Mokhiber: These are actually major corporations convicted of crimes. ADM gave $1.7 million, Pfizer $1.1 million, Chevron $875,000. Is the President okay with those companies giving direct contributions to the Republican Party after being convicted of crimes?
Fleischer: Russell, as you know, the Presidential campaign takes no money from corporations.
Mokhiber: I'm talking about the party.
Fleischer: Well, you'll have to address your questions to the party.
Mokhiber: Well, as the titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: I don't know what information you have where you can that this corporation is a criminal.
Mokhiber: Convicted - they pled guilty to crimes.
Fleischer: Were the crimes of such a nature that they are no longer in existence?
Mokhiber: ADM pled guilty to one of the most massive antitrust crimes and paid a $100 million fine.
Fleischer: I think you need to address any questions about specific companies with the specifics in mind, and if that company is still doing business and is still in operation, that means it is still in operation with the law, and every case is individual, and the party decides about whether the money needs to be returned or not. But I don't have specifics.
Mokhiber: One follow-up.
Fleischer: Go ahead, Russell.
Mokhiber: One follow up. It's actually a broad philosophical question. Is the President okay with taking money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: I informed you that the President does not take money from corporations.
Mokhiber: No, I'm talking about - as titular head of the party, is he okay with the party taking money from convicted criminals. For example, in Enron -
Fleischer: I just have to differ with your notion that because a company has been fined -
Mokhiber: No, they pled guilty to crimes. They pled guilty to crimes.
Fleischer: Even so - I don't know what specifics you are referring to - that that company is a convicted criminal.
Mokhiber: If you plead guilty to a crime, you are a criminal.
Fleischer: Does that mean that they need to go out of business?
Mokhiber: I'm asking - should the Republican Party take money from convicted criminals?
Fleischer: You need to address your question to the Republican Party.
Mokhiber: But he's the titular head of the party.
Fleischer: And the titular head of the party refers you to the party.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ari & I: May 27, 2003
Russell Mokhiber questions White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (May 27)
May 27, 2003
Russell Mokhiber: Ari, there is a new documentary film by an Irish journalist, Jamie Doran. He alleges -
Ari Fleischer: I haven't seen it.
Mokhiber: Well, let me tell you about it. He alleges U.S. military involvement in a massacre of 3,000 Taliban prisoners in Afghanistan. He says that the 3,000 prisoners were forced into sealed containers and loaded onto trucks for transport to Sheberghan prison. When the prisoners began shouting for air, U.S. allied Afghan soldiers fired directly into the truck, killing many of them. Then, witnesses in the film said that when the trucks arrived and soldiers opened the containers, most of the people inside were dead. U.S. special forces redirected -
Fleischer: And your question is?
Mokhiber: Well, you said you hadn't seen it, so I'm giving you some background. One more thing - U.S. special forces redirected the containers carrying the dead into the desert and stood by as survivors were shot and buried.
Fleischer: I think I understand your movie review.
Mokhiber: And there is a mass grave of 3,000 Taliban prisoners. Question - does the President know about this massacre? Is he ordering an investigation?
Fleischer: Number one, I would not use a movie as a basis to make assumptions about what is right and what is wrong. If your question is about a factual matter in Afghanistan dealing with military actions, that is a question you should address to the Pentagon. I'm not aware of any such -
Mokhiber: Is the President aware of it?
Fleischer: I don't know if he is aware of this movie or not - I would doubt it.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular