Skip to main content

Pfizer fines highlight the danger of corporate statism

OK so the Obama administration went after Pfizer over Bextra, and here's the deal:

Pfizer (PFE) will pay a record $2.3 billion fine and plead guilty to one felony count to settle federal criminal and civil charges that it illegally promoted its Bextra painkiller and other drugs. The fine had been first reported back in January, but Justice Dept. officials disclosed details of the settlement on Sept. 2 in a splashy news conference that served as a pointed warning to other drug companies that it plans to come down hard on the industry for fraudulent marketing.


First off, let's be clear: Pfizer admits, by the guilty plea, to have engaged in fraud to promote Bextra and three other drugs.

But if I plead guilty to a felony--even a nonviolent one--I can reasonably expect to have to do some jail time [Hello, Martha Stewart!].

How do you send a corporation to jail? The stockholders are indemnified against personal liability for the misdeeds of the corporation, and it is the corporation itself that has been found guilty, not any specific individual on the Board of Directors or the CEO.

It is amazing that we could actually prosecute CIA interrogators under certain conditions, but nobody at Pfizer can be held personally accountable for his or her actions because it is the corporation, not the individuals, who are guilty.

In a very real sense, mega-corporations have not only become too big to (allow to) fail, but too big to prosecute as well.

So here's my solution--my initial short-term solution: allow class-action lawsuits to challenge for the revocation of the corporate charter of any corporation either found guilty of a felony or fined in excess of 25% of the previous year's net profits [both would occur in this case]. Do not allow the State, or any State government to bring such a suit, but leave it to the civil courts.

Yes, I am aware this would require changing a number of laws. And yes I am also aware that there would be (at least) the following consequences:

1) Corporations would use their billions to fight on into prolonged court battles if the stakes could conceivably be their very existence. No shit: that's what anybody faced with a serious felony charge faces.

2) Corporations facing challenges to their charters would obviously have a much larger pool of money to use in defending themselves than any challenger. [Think about the tobacco companies and the dying smokers who went to court against the.] But the mere act of challenging a corporate charter would, I think (a) cause investors to think twice about this corporation as an investment, and (b) begin to chip away at the legal fiction of corporate personhood, which is what has allowed this particular government-created and government-chartered business organization to get completely out of hand.

Is this a Libertarian solution? I think so. It reduces the liability protections of those in corporate America who engage in force or fraud and it leaves the actual attack on the charters to private individuals, not the State.

Comments

Nancy Willing said…
Bless you, Steve. I am no lawyer but I would like to think that you have thought this through and it is possible.

For a while now I have been saying that the biggest single enemy of the future of life as we know it is the position that even the ACLU has embraced: corporation as person; money as speech.
Miko said…
I'd say that this would be enormously beneficial as a short-term solution. The second critereon (fines in excess of 25% profits) might be problematic, as some firms, especially new firms, have years in which they run a net loss, in which case they could be brought down by, say, a parking ticket. The danger then becomes large corporations using this to proactively destroy potential rivals, as any condition defined in terms of percentages is going to work in favor of a larger firm. I'd be tempted to go with only the first critereon (felony charges) as it seems likely to spawn fewer unintended consequences.

There's also the perennial issue of justice: that even if the state were not to *bring* the suit, it would still be *tried* in a state court. Short term, I see no solution to this.
Delaware Watch said…
Interesting idea, Steve.

I also wish there were some way of keeping rap sheets on corporations and advertising them--say, making it a requirement that notice of their conviction be part of all their advertising.

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba