The mainstream view among citizen activists is that the most effective
>means of dealing with corporate crime and violence is through regulation,
>litigation, legislation, and law enforcement.
>
>But a breakaway group of activists want to move directly to a sanction
>that will get the attention of every big corporation in America --
>revocation of the charters of the most egregious of corporate wrongdoers.
>
>Throughout the nation's history, the states have had the authority
to give
>birth to a corporation, by granting a corporate charter, and to impose
the
>death penalty on a corporate wrongdoer by revoking its charter.
>
>Earlier today, a coalition of more than 30 public interest organizations
>called on the Attorney General of California to revoke the charter
of
>Union Oil of California (Unocal).
>
>Why Unocal?
>
>The 127-page petition argued that Unocal was a recidivist corporation,
>engaged in corporate law-breaking, was responsible for the 1969 oil
>blowout in the Santa Barbara Channel and numerous other acts of pollution,
>committed hundreds of OSHA violations, treated workers unfairly, is
>complicit in human rights violations -- in Afghanistan and Burma,
and has
>"usurped political power."
>
>Arguing that the state of California routinely puts out of business
>hundreds of unruly accountants, lawyers, and doctors every year, the
>coalition called upon California AG Dan Lungren, who is running for
>Governor, to revoke Unocal's charter.
>
>"We're letting the people of California in on a well-kept secret,"
said
>Loyola Law School Professor Robert Benson, who drafted the petition.
"The
>people mistakenly assume that we have to try to control these giant
>corporate repeat offenders one toxic spill at a time, one layoff at
a
>time, one human rights violation at a time. But the law has always
allowed
>the attorney general to go to court to simply dissolve a corporation
for
>wrongdoing and sell its assets to others who will operate in the public
>interest."
>
>If this authority exists, why is that only once this century -- in
1976
>when a conservative Republican AG asked a court to dissolve a private
>water company for allegedly delivering impure water to its customers
--
>has the Attorney General sought to revoke a corporate charter in
>California?
>
>"California attorneys general haven't often done it because they've
become
>soft on corporate crime," Benson answers. "Baseball players and convicted
>individuals in California get only three strikes. Why should big
>corporations get endless strikes?"
>
>Benson argues that a single act of unlawfulness is enough to trigger
>charter revocation proceedings, although he admits that if an Attorney
>General acts against a major company, it will be for a pattern of
>wrongdoing, not for an isolated act of wrongdoing.
>
>But Unocal's Barry Lane argues that if it is true that one bad act
can
>trigger revocation, then "any company that has ever been found guilty
of
>anything," would face charter revocation proceedings and "the AG would
be
>running every company in the state."
>
>So, which is Unocal -- a sometimes criminal, or a corporate recidivist?
>
>"We have committed misdemeanors in the past," Lane admits, "but then
so
>have many companies. We have operated here for 100 years. Yes we have
made
>some mistakes, but we have always taken responsibility for those mistakes
>and worked to correct them."
>
>And the company has a friend in the Attorney General. Lungren who
is on
>the cover of the current issue of William Buckley's National Review,
under
>the headline "Great Right Hope."
>
>In other words, the chances are slim to none that Lungren will move
>against his pals in the oil industry. So, why file the petition?
>
>"We are not politically naive," Benson answers. "We don't think that
this
>is going to get so far along the road that Unocal will actually be
broken
>up anytime soon, although it should be. Much more likely, we think
the
>Attorney General will deny the petition, and then we will use this
as a
>tool to put pressure on the political process."
>
>If an Attorney General were independent enough to file such a petition,
a
>judge could appoint a receiver, so that the assets do not flee the
>jurisdiction. Then if the judge has the guts to strip the company
of its
>charter, he has the authority to make "such orders and decrees and
issue
>such injunctions in the case as justice and equity and require."
>
>If Benson were the judge, he'd transform the company into a renewable
>energy company, which would create more jobs and inflict less damage
to
>the environment.
>
>But Benson is not the judge and he admits that Unocal will not lose
its
>charter anytime soon. The petition was filed to spur change in our
>stagnant legal and political culture, so that, as Benson says, "someday
in
>the future we will dissolve Unocal and other giant corporate repeat
>offenders."
>
>Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate
Crime
>Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
>Multinational Monitor.
>
>(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
>
>Focus on the Corporation is a weekly column written by Russell Mokhiber
>and Robert Weissman. Please feel free to forward the column to friends
or
>repost the column on other lists. If you would like to post the column
on
>a web site or publish it in print format, we ask that you first contact
us
>(russell@essential.org or rob@essential.org).
>
>Focus on the Corporation is distributed to individuals on the listserve
>corp-focus@essential.org. To subscribe to corp-focus, send an e-mail
>message to listproc@essential.org with the following all in one line:
>
>subscribe corp-focus <your name> (no period).
>
>Focus on the Corporation columns are posted on the Multinational Monitor
>web site <www.essential.org/monitor>.
>
>Postings on corp-focus are limited to the columns. If you would like
to
>comment on the columns, send a message to russell@essential.org or
>rob@essential.org.
>
>
>
>
>
>
