Dems and ReTHUGs aren't about to bite the hands that feed their wallets. Oh ya, and Frist!!!!!!

Emboldened by the victory, business groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable and Hackett's group launched a drive in Congress to force the Justice Department to scale back its tactics. They've been aided by the American Bar Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, which sees the issue as one of preserving the rights of accused individuals.

There's that pinko ACLU again, who refuse to stand up for any conservative causes and only defend Commies such as the US Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roun... oh wait...

It would also prohibit federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, from demanding that companies fire or cut off legal support for employees under investigation.

Dont get me wrong, I think (large)corporations are a threat to our freedoms here in America but I dont think the Federal govt should be able to tell a corporation to fire someone, or withold legal support...
just because the person is under investigation!!!!

what about innocent till proven guilty?

Welcome back to the new and improved middle ages. Don't annoy the rich folks. Shut up, keep your head down and do your work and at the end of every week you'll get a shiny penny!
Oh and if one of the lords happens to step out of line don't worry about it. I'm sure they'll work something about with their peers.

When I first seen that photo I thought they finally caught up with Holy Joe. No such luck I guess.

So Logan Murphy,

How do "employees under investigation"

become "white collar criminals"

where is the due process?

and I'm curious... did you write to congress?

If so....post your letter!

Whoda thunk?

My message, do as my friends an I have done, Donate and become a card carrying member of the ACLU. Surely everyone in this blog-site can afford to donate $50 a year to the only group standing up for the rights of the citizenry of American.

I despise big corporations. I think their influence is way out of control. I reject the theory of a corporation having citizens rights. But some of what this bill asks for is too much.

When RICO was being debated, I remember distinctly the bobblehead from DOJ assuring the press that it would NEVER be used for anything but major organized crime figures. It is now routinely used to confiscate rustbucket pickups and rickety trailers from crankheads' grandmothers. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where the old "slippery slope" can lead.

moondancer @ 16:

I despise big corporations. I think their influence is way out of control. I reject the theory of a corporation having citizens rights. But some of what this bill asks for is too much.

When RICO was being debated, I remember distinctly the bobblehead from DOJ assuring the press that it would NEVER be used for anything but major organized crime figures. It is now routinely used to confiscate rustbucket pickups and rickety trailers from crankheads' grandmothers. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where the old "slippery slope" can lead.

Yes, we have already slid to almost the bottom of the slippery slope during the bush (lower case intended) reign. The government who uses fear on it's own citizens is certain to take the evil route.

Hmmm....yes. What DON'T we all incorporate? How much would it cost? Can we fund a drive to collect the monies to incorporate the poor? Or, we could all incorporate as churches. AND be exempt from taxes...my religious beliefs are every bit as legitimate as anyone elses! But they wouldn't even let me apply for a minister's license here where I live without a another preacher to sign for me!?! Isn't that a gov. established religion when only THEY can say wheter a religion is legitimate???

Lawyer-client discussions should remain confidential. Talk about a slippery slope. Set that precedent, and next thing you know, lawyer-client discussions may not be sacrosanct for the rest of us either.

Nor should we be demanding that someone under investigation be fired or have legal support cut off. Even if we don't actually believe it full-heartedly, we need to operate for the sake of the justice system under the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

However, it's just common sense that corporations shouldn't be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. As Right on! above says: "Corporations are not people, but if the laws of the land are giving them the same “rights” as the people, then the CEO and upper management must be responsible for how the corporation conducts itself." AFAIC, they never should have been granted the rights of personhood to begin with, particularly corporations with offshore headquarters.

The fallacy is believing that corporations are not people.

Corporations have all the rights that people have, and more.

These entities have been fighting for "equal rights" for decades, and under this regime, they are more human than us.

Why do you think republicans called themselves "compassionate conservatives?" Their compassion for corporate welfare is so strong, touching, and tender. They adore each other.

Straight Shooter @ 22:

Lawyer-client discussions should remain confidential. Talk about a slippery slope. Set that precedent, and next thing you know, lawyer-client discussions may not be sacrosanct for the rest of us either.

Nor should we be demanding that someone under investigation be fired or have legal support cut off. Even if we don't actually believe it full-heartedly, we need to operate for the sake of the justice system under the premise that someone is innocent until proven guilty.

However, it's just common sense that corporations shouldn't be allowed to have their cake and eat it, too. As Right on! above says: "Corporations are not people, but if the laws of the land are giving them the same “rights” as the people, then the CEO and upper management must be responsible for how the corporation conducts itself." AFAIC, they never should have been granted the rights of personhood to begin with, particularly corporations with offshore headquarters.

Tell that to all the towns who tried to zone out Wal-mart or a developer. They can be unanimous in their desire and lose to the "rights" of the corporation. I see it as I have rights but big business has super-rights. This bothers me a lot, but solutions have to be well thought out.

I have a solution!

DISSOLVE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!

If these people were personally accountable as business owners, the would think twice about committing crimes or becoming so big that the money and the "shareholder's profit" become the only driving and governing mechanism.

Being composed almost entirely of white collar criminals itself, I'm not hopeful tha Congress is going to do the right thing.

Chris from Ohio @ 19:

Yeah the "be polite" thing is getting old. It's time to start getting tough with these people. Either do the right thing or there will be consequences. I think we are in this mess because we've been polite for too long.

Right on! Being polite hasn't gotten all of those court ordered emails that were deleted, has only encouraged Harriet Miers and others to ignore subpoenas, and didn't help during the 2000 and 2004 election controversies.

Being polite after the law is written and waiting for a vote, is no match for being generous with campaign donations in order to help write the law in the first place.

equilibrio @ 32:

Chris from Ohio @ 19:

Yeah the "be polite" thing is getting old. It's time to start getting tough with these people. Either do the right thing or there will be consequences. I think we are in this mess because we've been polite for too long.

Right on! Being polite hasn't gotten all of those court ordered emails that were deleted, has only encouraged Harriet Miers and others to ignore subpoenas, and didn't help during the 2000 and 2004 election controversies.

Being polite after the law is written and waiting for a vote, is no match for being generous with campaign donations in order to help write the law in the first place.

Our forefathers used violence to right the wrongs of their oppressors. Are you suggesting violence now?

Where will the next 'Boston Tea Party' take place? A Wal-Mart?

Careful what you say. THIS is why THEY 'own' the telco companies and monitor emails and creditcards and our travel... They are afraid of 'We The People'...

This would expalin why trash like Rush Limbaugh is still free to "apply their trade."

Robbin @ 35:

Actually, I'm all for attorney-client privilege and the right of defendants to legal counsel, regardless of who's paying for it. And I certainly don't think anyone should be forced out of their job by the government merely for being under investigation. Due process is a good thing, and government power should be limited. Haven't we learned at least that much from seven years of BushCo?

We could socialize everything.

What this shows is that there isn't a perfect form of government. Sooner or later, all fall due to the biggest problem of all: Humans. Greed, pride, insanity, delusions, jealousy, hatred, hubris, racism, etc... All bring down governments sooner or later...

Maybe 'survival of the fittest' works so well because it's the strong that survive...

I read a comment about why religion as the basis for America is so paramount (and partly why this thread is so interesting) because if there wasn't a 'supreme being' to fear, all hell would break out. There would be pandemonium through the land. Uh, there already is, and some of it is perpetrated by the very 'prophets' of the 'religions' that are to make humans so obedient. It's hardly worth it if the very custodians of the 'fear my god' group don't themselves fear the god that they want us all to fear...
Bush doesn't fear the 'rule of law' because he thinks he IS the law... Politican toadies remind him of that every day...

Annette @ 23:

I'm all for attorney-client privilege...no matter who is the defendant. Isn't that what we are fighting for those in Gitmo?

Yeah, I have to echo the sentiments of those struggling to support C&L on this one. It just seems brazenly hypocritical. Consider this -- Let's take the quoted paragraphs, but substitute some words, and then see what we think. Please consider this very carefully:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

U.S. businesses, with the help of civil libertarians, are on the verge of outmaneuvering federal prosecutors and persuading Congress to limit the government’s power to pursue TERRORISTS.

Lawmakers are considering a measure that would, among other things, bar the government from demanding that TERROR SUSPECTS reveal confidential talks with their lawyers in order to win leniency in plea deals. It would also prohibit federal agencies, including the HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT, from demanding that MUSLIM GROUPS fire or cut off legal support for TERROR SUSPECTS under investigation.

“Pre-9/11, U.S. attorneys never brought these cases, and after this bill is passed, they will quit bringing them again,” says MICHAEL CHERTOFF, HOMELAND SECURITY chief. “This is a very clear message from Congress: Don’t touch TERRORISTS.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How would C&L react to that article?

Now, all that being said..........

Curtilingus @ 28:

I have a solution!

DISSOLVE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD!

If these people were personally accountable as business owners, the would think twice about committing crimes or becoming so big that the money and the "shareholder's profit" become the only driving and governing mechanism.

Yep! I'm totally on board with that! Corporate personhood is indeed pernicious!

Although I respect Lynn Turner's professional credentials, I respectfully disagree with the assesessment that Congress is saying "Don't touch" white collar criminals. Yes, some conversations may not be admissable, but this in no way says White Collar Crime is legal.

OK, so (like others here) naschkatze especially, I have thought about it a little.

...and have come to the conclusion...

That there must be some legal distinction between Corporate board members (decision makers/big investors)

...and the (average) 40 hr workweek wage earner who worked for enron.

and after looking into corporate privelege...I may have to flip flop on this one!

Is the ACLU working for the average office worker...

...or are they trying to turn corporate entities (Ken Lay ect...ect..) into actual citzens who have constitutional rights??

I think the ACLU is working for the enemy on this one!!!

I wish that the quaint little town built on a swamp, would just dry up and blow away...

Libertarians have their faults, for sure, but they do not advocate fraud. I think the root problem here is that corporations have been granted personhood and the "rights" that follow from that. I do not think a corporation should be entitled to privacy rights, for one. We have given the corporations so much power while busting unions that counter balance them. Enron only went bust because they were defrauding the shareholders. They also defauded California in the electricity market to the tune of like 36 Billion, at least. They ran the electricity market from inside their headquarters and encouraged producers to take plants offline to create an artificial shortage. It is just obscene. The whole company was in on it. Fuck each and every one of them.

What I want to know is what steps are necessary to PROTECT whistleblowers. It seems these steps are intended to punish them. Corporate legal discussions should be public. Individual legal discussion should be private. Employees should not be dismissed if they are merely being investigated, unless there is serious danger of the destruction of evidence. In the electronic age it should be relatively easy to secure evidence against tampering.

Sorry for the repetition. I seem to be having problems lately posting on C&L.

cubiclegrrl @ 51:

freeman and FreeDUMB: With all due respect, that's your take on libertarianism. But there's this little difference between what you think it should be and what the "practicing libertarians" I've known (mostly worked for) actually DO. It's like listening to someone defend their faith as a religion of peace while the car-bombs are going off. Maybe I've had bad luck, but when your Ayn Rand-quoting ex-boss is wearing out a path ferrying his profits to Bermuda to shelter them from the IRS...well, it just left a bad taste in my mouth.

The Libertarian Party in the United States gives overall libertarian thought a very bad name. Indeed, the Libertarian Party seems largely devoted to anarcho-capitalist orthodoxy. Around the world, "libertarian" does not necessarily mean what Americans associate with the Libertarian Party, and certainly, not all American libertarians (capital-L or otherwise) are Ayn Rand Objectivists.

And even in America, there is a left wing libertarianism. If interested, check out:

The Democratic Freedom Caucus

Saving Communities

The Progress Report

Perhaps we need a new term besides libertarian, since it carries right-wing connotations in the U.S. My own term is Libeqrat (pronounced Lib-uh-CRAT), which is just a silly portmanteau of LIBerty, EQuality and RATionality. Feel free to click my name, or head over to my little CLEaR Alliance page. :)

That being said, I think that the ACLU is on the right side of this one. Much as I'd looooove to see the fat b@$+@rds go down, eliminating attorney-client privilege is not worth it. In the long term, doing away with the fiction of corporations being "people" is, I think, the right way to go. But one battle at a time...

Yep. :)

Your assertions are knee jerk and dumb. This is about stopping the bush justice department from stripping criminal defendants from basic civil rights -- the attorney client privilege, and the right to counsel. If you worked for a company, and spoke to company lawyers, you might expect that those communications were privileged. But the government takes the position that the company must waive the privilege and turn over all of its lawyers files whenever an employee is under investigation.

In addition, many corporations are required, under employment contracts or their internal governance documents, to provide lawyers, at the corporation's cost, to employees who are forced to defend themselves against government prosecutions and investigations. The bush doj hates this because it makes for a fair fight -- instead of crushing an individual with the vast resources and might of the federal government, they are forced to face good lawyers whose fees are paid by the government. They don't like the level playing field because it forces them to actually prove their case (and in the Lay and Skilling cases, they did so), so they are trying to change the rules by threatening companies that pay their employees legal fees.

So you are in favor of the government stripping people (not corporations) of their right to have counsel paid for by their employers and to invoke the attorney client privilege. I'm not.

Great news for Kenny Boy if they pass a bill that will not prosecute White Collar Criminals
Kenny can come back from his fake death and be a free man to start a new company to steal money again. Look for the Appeals from Jack Abramoff and others. This clears the way for all the GOP criminals and those Dems too. If only this had been done before convicted felon Scooter Libby was found guilty he might be the Attorney General right now. If the case goes to the Supreme Court we know Clarence Thomas will make sure it's passed. He is a boy that does what he's told and gets paid for it.

Ken Lay is alive and well and living in Dubai (sp)......think about it.

Ok. I've had a look at the above posts, and I agree with many. Let's just say, there is our ideological viewpoint, that laws would be followed, and there is attorney-client privelage. Cool. I'm all for that.

Now let's look at the Bush administration, that does whatever it damn well pleases. We know the outcome is to make corporations immune to any and all prosecution, by small steps. Close the "loop-holes" slowly, by measures.

It's like they how want to tilt the Supreme court to the far right. These people have a long-term agenda, and will wait generations to get what they want. That's why they are educating future generations at places like Liberty University. They're moving ahead slowly, but SURELY! Just watch if you don't believe me.

Contact my representative and Senators?!?! My "representative" is Trent Franks (ex Halliburton employee and Chairman of AZ Focus on the Family), Jon Kyl and St McCain! Lot of good THAT will do!

Lawmakers are considering a measure that would, among other things, bar the government from demanding that companies reveal confidential talks with their lawyers in order to win leniency in plea deals.

It would also prohibit federal agencies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, from demanding that companies fire or cut off legal support for employees under investigation

Apologies ... I'm late to this thread. But why is either of these things bad?? I'm missing something, or reading something wrong.

Is it this blogs position that the government be allowed to to do those things in bold? Surely not. Someone help, please.

Just a note: it would be helpful to put the bill name & number front and center instead of behind a fold...