Tag: bribery

New SEC Chief Criticized Foreign Anti-Bribery Law. Good.

“Trump’s pick for SEC chair criticized U.S. anti-bribery enforcement in 2011 as too zealous,” gasps one tweet reacting to President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Sullivan & Cromwell attorney Jay Clayton to head the Securities and Exchange Commission. In a subhead, the WSJ says Clayton “criticized SEC and [Department of] Justice handling of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as overly aggressive.”

Good! Clayton is right to voice such criticisms. As I’ve argued in this space, the 1977 FCPA “is a feel-good piece of overcriminalization that oversteps the proper bounds of federal lawmaking in at least four distinct ways, any of which should have prevented its passage”: it is extraterritorialvicariouspunitive, and vague. It is not clear that a more carefully drafted law would have been a good idea; my Cato colleague Jeffrey Miron writes that while curtailing Americans’ involvement in overseas corruption may be a well-intentioned goal, FCPA “discourages U.S. companies from doing business abroad in the first place,” is readily circumvented in many situations, fails to distinguish between the most corrosive forms of bribery and those in which favors to officials are “an attempt to get around laws that make little sense in the first place”—such as restrictions on entering markets—and leaves some countries to welter in poverty if they cannot fix a local culture of baksheesh.

All of this was made worse by the Obama administration’s decision to step up the pace of FCPA prosecution, which ran into a series of rebukes from federal judges throwing out high-profile cases. Allegations of FCPA violations led to a great furor about Wal-Mart’s operations in Mexico that mostly fizzled later, while other prosecutions have been based on purported corruption oddly reminiscent of practices that go on right here in the U.S. without anyone prosecuting, such as Western banks’ alleged practice overseas of hiring young relatives of influential persons, something that has been known to happen in politics and the media here in Washington, D.C.

Don’t back down, Mr. Clayton.

University of Michigan Study Confirms Link between Financial Bailout and Corruption

Since Senators engaged in open extortion and bribery to enact Reid’s government-run health care plan, it is hardly newsworthy that Washington is riddled with corruption. But the magnitude of sleaze is probably far greater than most people realize. There is a new study from a couple of academics at the University of Michigan, who found significant relationships between lobbying and bailout money, as well as a greater chance of getting bailouts depending on a bank’s ties with either the Federal Reserve or key members of Congress. Hopefully, people across America will draw the obvious conclusion and realize that big government is inherently corrupting, as discussed in this video. Reuters has the details on this latest example of big government and malfeasance:

U.S. banks that spent more money on lobbying were more likely to get government bailout money, according to a study released on Monday. Banks whose executives served on Federal Reserve boards were more likely to receive government bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the study from Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura, professors at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business. Banks with headquarters in the district of a U.S. House of Representatives member who serves on a committee or subcommittee relating to TARP also received more funds. Political influence was most helpful for poorly performing banks, the study found. “Political connections play an important role in a firm’s access to capital,” Sosyura, a University of Michigan assistant professor of finance, said in a statement. Banks with an executive who sat on the board of a Federal Reserve Bank were 31 percent more likely to get bailouts through TARP’s Capital Purchase Program, the study showed. Banks with ties to a finance committee member were 26 percent more likely to get capital purchase program funds.

Obama Says 20 Percent for Government Is Too Much!

While perusing Instapundit, I came across a post suggesting that President Obama thinks investment will suffer if government takes 20 percent of a company’s income. At first I thought this was a form of satire, but there is a real link to a speech that the President gave to the Parliament of Ghana. Indeed, the speech has several good comments:

Development depends on good governance. …Repression can take many forms, and too many nations, even those that have elections, are plagued by problems that condemn their people to poverty. No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves… No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top… No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, even if occasionally you sprinkle an election in there. And now is the time for that style of governance to end. 

My initial reaction, focusing on the passage about 20 percent being too much for government, is to ask why Obama wants higher tax rates in America? After all, he wants American small businesses to pay 40 percent, which is twice the burden he thinks is excessive for Ghanians. Upon further reflection, though, I wonder if the President is referring to corrupt bureaucrats asking for bribes. But, even if that is the case, why does that matter? Investors and entrepreneurs care about the amount of disposable income that is generated by an investment. Losing 20 percent to the tax collector has a negative impact on incentives, regardless of whether the money winds up in Treasury coffers or a bureaucrat’s pocket. In any event, it is good to see that the President recognizes that the economy suffers when government becomes too much of a burden. We just need to figure out how to convince him that the laws of economics work the same way in America as they do in Ghana.