Blogroll
Business Ethics Network
Consumerist
Corpwatch Blog
DavidSirota.com
Dirt Diggers Digest
Eyes on the Ties
Halliburton Watch
MonsantoWatch
Multinational Monitor
NYT's "The Card Game" Blog
Oil Change
Pharma Marketing Blog
POGO Blog
PR Watch
PrivatizationWatch
Real Times Investigations
Sunlight Foundation Blog
TPM Muckraker
Watchdog Blog
White Collar Crime Prof Blog
The widespread complaints about Toyota’s sticky accelerators are prompting criticism that federal regulators may be relying too heavily on automakers’ explanations and assurances. Much of this criticism is aimed at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
According to the Washington Post:
During agency reviews, officials have at times minimized or simply rejected consumer accounts of what happened in favor of the manufacturers' assessments, records show.
… “Unfortunately, if the manufacturer says it's OK, then it's OK with them," said Jeffery A. Pepski, 54, a Minnesota driver who unsuccessfully petitioned the NHTSA with a complaint that his Lexus ES 350 accelerated unexpectedly on his way home from work last year. "The agency follows that logic all the way through their investigations. They’re not really investigating with an open mind.”
NHTSA officials said Thursday that the agency does not rely solely on the manufacturers during investigations. The officials said the NHTSA has a staff of professional investigators who hear from drivers and companies. They take the cars in question on road tests, interview police and ensure that “all avenues are explored,” the officials said. Moreover, even critics concede that human memory is fallible.
… The agency and the manufacturers know each other well. Two top officials in Toyota's Washington office, which deals with the NHTSA, are former agency employees. It is a relationship “built on trust,” said Nicole Nason, who was the agency's administrator from 2006 to 2008.
Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety, says the agency appears to have been too willing to accept Toyota’s version of events. “It’s difficult to believe that Toyota doesn’t have information on what’s causing the failures,” he said. “When you have a recalcitrant manufacturer like Toyota, [NHTSA] should use their subpoena authority to get answers.”
Rep. John Kline (R-MN) organized an issue forum in January that criticized President Obama for being too supportive of labor unions. The forum was advertised as an event exploring the impact that the administration’s policies are having “on the current labor market and the rights of employees …” But one of the experts invited to speak at this forum was an odd choice.
TPM Muckraker explains why organizers invited Stephen Worth, the CEO of a Pennsylvania construction firm called Worth & Company:
Worth was there to offer the perspective of an ordinary American business owner, frustrated by the administration's alleged bias toward labor unions.
But one can only hope that Worth is not an ordinary business owner:
Last year, according to an order examined by TPM Muckraker, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor found that Worth & Company had violated the state’s Prevailing Wage Act by failing to maintain accurate wage records; by repeatedly employing too many lower-paid apprentices, rather than more highly paid workers; and by paying apprentices less per hour than the prevailing rate due, among other violations. The state found that Worth & Company’s actions "were willful and with a knowing disregard of the rights of its workers.”
In turn, Worth responded by filing legal action against the department. In a legal settlement, he agreed to pay more than $138,000 to the underpaid workers, TPM reports. He also agreed that his firm would not be allowed to receive new state contracts subject to the wage law until November 2010. Under the settlement, Worth did not make any admission of violating the Prevailing Wage Act.
Well, not exactly. A public relations firm in Maryland is dramatizing its concern over the Supreme Court’s recent decision on campaign finance by running for Congress.
Of course, a corporation cannot hold a public office, but the public relations firm called Murray Hill Inc. has launched this campaign to highlight publicly what makes the court’s decision in the Citizens United case so disturbing — the tremendous power it gives corporations over elections.
In a statement on its website, Murray Hill Inc. declared:
“Until now, corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”
Murray Hill Inc.’s “campaign” will underscore what CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan has said about the Supreme Court decision:
“We are moving to an age where we won’t have the senator from Arkansas or the congressman from North Carolina, but the senator from Wal-Mart and the congressman from Bank of America.”
Murray Hill Inc. is using humor to make a serious point. The firm says on its website that it is willing to spend “top dollar” in its campaign. Why? Because:
“It’s our democracy. We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”
Click here to view Murray Hill Inc.’s campaign video.
In this New York Times article, Randall Stross points out that many industrialized nations offer their taxpayers a return that contains all of the data collected by that nation’s tax authority. But the U.S. does not. Stross writes:
It’s a stunningly reasonable idea. When you prepare your return, why can’t you first download whatever data the Internal Revenue Service has received about you and, if your return is simple, learn what the I.R.S.’s calculation of your taxes would be?
Stross explains the corporate interests that stand in the way, and he uses California taxpayers as an example:
With little money to finance the project, and over the objections of the tax-preparation software lobby, [California] began a small pilot project to offer a pre-filled state tax return, called ReadyReturn, to a small sample of taxpayers with simple returns for the 2004 tax year. Invitations went out to about 52,000, and fewer than 12,000 ended up participating.
… Last year, about 60,000 returns came in through ReadyReturn from the two million taxpayers who were eligible. (Participants must have income only from wages and have just one employer, among other restrictions). An astonishing 99 percent of ReadyReturn participants said last year that they would use the program again.
On a comment page for last year’s users, one glowing testimonial follows the next: “Filing my taxes has never been easier! I love this service!”
In addition to simplifying the completion of returns by taxpayers, the ReadyReturn system saves California’s state budget a lot of money. It costs the state $2.59 to process a paper return, and only 34 cents to process a ReadyReturn. So what prevents more taxpayers from using ReadyReturn?
“Publicity remains one of the most formidable obstacles,” said John Chiang, the state’s controller. California has budgeted only $10,000 for getting word out. The meagerness of the funds allotted for the ReadyReturn program reflects the strength of its political opponents, Mr. Chiang said. The most vigorous opposition comes from companies that sell tax-preparation software, “principally, Intuit,” he added.
Intuit, which publishes TurboTax, does not dispute this description. “We’re a California company and actively participate in the political process,” said Julie Miller, a company spokeswoman. “Our position has consistently been that ReadyReturn duplicates what is already available.”
Intuit’s official position is that ReadyReturn duplicates the I.R.S.’s FreeFile initiative, which provides online links to private tax-preparation services that offer a free federal tax return to some low-income taxpayers. But there isn’t much duplication.
Although FreeFile provides free state-tax returns in some states, California isn’t one of them (even though one out of eight U.S. residents lives there). In addition, FreeFile does not provide taxpayers with the information that the government already has nor does it use I.R.S. software to perform tax calculations.
It’s shameful that software-selling companies are able to use their lobbying clout to limit California’s ability to make its residents aware that this program is available — a program that might save them the cost of buying TurboTax or some other software package.
Last week, a group of scientists warned that Mountain Top Mining (MTM) in parts of Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia is having a “pervasive and irreversible” effect on the environment and urged a ban on the practice. And last month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report highlighting the environmental damage of MTM. And, in more ways than one, it isn’t pretty.
The GAO’s findings include that regulators gave mining companies permission to dump 2.15 billion cubic yards of spoil, the rock and dirt left over from MTM operations, into nearly 1,500 different sites in Eastern Kentucky between 2000 and 2008. Regulators also gave permission for mining companies to dump 2.7 billion yards of waste at 500 sites in West Virginia. The report found that the number of mining permits issued from January 1990 through July 2008 grew from 378,000 to 778,000. The report gives credence to what activists and environmentalists have long been saying — that mountain-top mining is disastrous to the environment.
The coal mining industry has long had powerful friends on Capitol Hill. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the coal mining industry has contributed at least $22 million to members of Congress since 1990. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Republican minority leader, has long been a big supporter of the coal mining industry and the coal industry has been a big support of him, having donated more than $240,000 to the senator since 2005.
In 2000, when the Architect of the Capitol considered switching the plant’s fuel from coal to a cleaner and more efficient fuel source, both Sen. McConnell and Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), another coal-state senator, objected. This change wasn’t made until February 2009, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority leader Harry Reid sent a letter to the Architect of the Capitol urging that the plant be switched to natural gas by year’s end. But even Sen. Byrd is changing his position about the coal mining industry, which he recently called “rapacious” — he favors a middle ground between the status quo and an outright ban on MTM.
Another Kentucky politician with cozy ties to the coal mining industry is Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY). Rep. Rogers represents the 5th district, which is a portion of east Kentucky including more than 10,000 square miles of coal fields. Since 1989, the industry has been the largest contributor to Rep. Rogers with a total of $290,000. Rep. Rogers also voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act because, in his view, it takes “dead aim at coal.”
Rep, Nick Rahall (D-WV), another coal country lawmaker, is such an enthusiastic supporter of the coal mining industry that he even jumped out of a plane to prove it. Rep. Rahall’s jump was part of a coal industry sponsored event, the Friends of Coal Auto Fair. Rep. Rahall’s enthusiasm for the industry does not end there. Last summer he voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act, because of its potential effect on the coal industry. Since 1998, the coal mining industry has donated at least $90,000 to Rep. Rahall.
Perhaps it is not a coincidence that counties in both Reps. Rogers and Rahall’s districts have the highest concentration of open permits for surface mining and that mining activity has become more concentrated in fewer counties. So it’s no wonder with friends like these that the coal mining industry gets its way on Capitol Hill and with regulators.
Governments around the globe are reviewing corporate tax returns much more closely these days. At a time when public budgets are tighter than ever, the New York Times reports that government officials worry that multinationals may be gaming the system:
Companies like Microsoft and Google have long pushed their effective tax rates down by moving functions to lower-rate jurisdictions like Ireland, which has a low tax rate on royalty income — as low as zero — and a 12.5 percent corporate tax rate, against the 35 percent U.S. rate.
… A recent report from the charity Christian Aid, which is concerned with the impact on developing countries, estimated that governments lose $160 billion a year when companies working across borders misapply the rules.
Even the IRS is opening new offices abroad to ensure that the U.S. treasury is receiving all the tax dollars it is owed.
At CorporateCrackdown.org, we expose the unethical business practices of corporations that sacrifice the public good for private earnings – so we would be remiss in neglecting to remember the 25th anniversary this month of one of the most notorious and deadly examples of corporate malfeasance in history – the Bhopal Disaster.
On December 3, 1984, a Union Carbide manufacturing factory in Bhopal, India experienced a major leak of gaseous pesticide-chemicals. As the residents of Bhopal slept during the early morning hours, the deadly gas spread throughout the city – immediately killing an estimated 3,800 people and killing many thousands more over the next few years. The region continues to deal with the aftereffects of this disaster, coping with debilitating long-term health and environmental effects that have devastated the area.
Union Carbide’s immediate reaction was to disassociate itself with the disaster and claim limited liability. The corporation – which is now owned by Dow Chemical – shifted culpability to Indian subsidiaries and even attempted to blame a Sikh extremist group for sabotaging the facility – a claim which has been heavily disputed.
A settlement agreement was eventually reached in the Indian Supreme Court in which Union Carbide agreed to accept the intangible notion of “moral responsibility” and to pay only $470 million in compensation – averaging a dismal $2,200 per affected family.
The folks over at CorpWatch have written a detailed and moving account of the ongoing grassroots activist push in India for Dow Chemical to assume greater responsibility for cleanup and compensation. Dow has been active in promoting their humanitarian efforts in the region as a way to play into the (profitable) fad of “corporate social responsibility,” but their actions are hardly good enough to wash away 25 years of neglect.
The fight for true corporate responsibility in this matter is far from over. Read the CorpWatch article for more info and visit The Boston Globe’s “Big Picture” blog for a poignant photo essay about Bhopal.
We told you how Wall Street millionaires got the H1N1 vaccine before pregnant women and children, but USA Today reports it’s worse than we thought.
When swine flu vaccine was most scarce, local health officials gave thousands of doses to corporate clinics at Walt Disney World, Toyota, defense contractors, oil companies and cruise lines, according to a USA TODAY review of vaccine distribution data from three states.
And, it may be worse than that. States like California and New York have so far not released information to USA Today.
State health officials say they’re not playing favorites and are working to distribute the vaccine in a fair manner, but as CREW Executive Director Melanie Sloan says, “It’s all on the honor system.”
CREW has asked Health and Human Service (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to investigate why the Center for Disease Control (CDC) approved the distribution of the H1NI vaccine to Wall Street firms at a time when the vaccine is unavailable to most Americans. CREW also filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all records related to the agency’s policies, protocols, and practices for distributing the H1N1 vaccine. The CDC’s response left something to be desired.
In light of the USA Today story hopefully, the CDC will make a concerted effort to better understand and respond to the public’s legitimate concern about the distribution of the H1N1 vaccine.
Last week Comcast and NBC universal agreed to a $30-billion transaction that would give the cable company a controlling stake in the TV and entertainment company. Now the heavy lifting in Washington begins:
Comcast Chief Executive Officer Brian Roberts is likely to testify before Congress as the deal undergoes scrutiny in Washington [. . . The deal] is to be vetted by the Federal Communications Commission and either the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission.
According to The Hill, Comcast and NBC’s parent company, General Electric, spent a combined 27.6 million dollars in lobbying so far this year. More interesting than the sheer amount they are spending, is who they have hired to work the halls of power for them.
Comcast, the company expected to bear the brunt of the lobbying duties, employs former staffers of Senators on both sides of the aisle currently serving on the Commerce Committee, where hearings on the deal will likely be held. Their lobbyists also have worked for former Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), current Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), and House Commerce Committee Chairman emeritus John Dingell (D-MI).
Comcast also recently hired a former FCC staffer and assembled a stable of big name DC lobby shops including “Duberstein Group, DLA Piper, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Gray Loeffler, and Wexler & Walker Public Policy Associates” to help push the deal through.
World leaders, scientists and activists have gathered in Copenhagen this week to discuss global efforts to address the challenges posed by climate change. Hopes are high that these decision-makers will leave the conference with concrete ideas that will encourage substantive debate back in their respective countries.
Here in America, however, the public debate could be trumped by the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of the energy industry. These powerful oil, gas and mining companies have hired well-connected lobbyists to try to derail climate change legislation. According to a new CREW report, Smoke Screen: How Bush Insiders Distorted - And Still Influence - America's Debate Over Climate Change, many of these lobbyists are former Bush administration staffers and political appointees.
Some of these former Bush staffers once held important positions on key bodies such as the White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), where they deliberately distorted critical scientific reporting on global warming.
Now that these individuals have left their positions in government, CREW examined what impact these former officials have on the climate change debate today. As CREW discovered, at least 22 former Bush-era climate officials have moved into lobbying or government relations. Fourteen of them are registered lobbyists.
Here are three examples of the "Bush climate alumni" and where they are now:
Cooney and other former members of the Bush climate team continue to shape, influence and confuse the debate over global warming. Their "uniforms" may have changed, but they're still playing for the same team.
Read CREW's Smoke Screen for more information on Bush climate team members who have gone on to lobby or work in government relations.