FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Corporate Lawyer Speaks Out

by Russell Mokhiber And Robert Weissman

Look at the law in each of the fifty U.S. states.

All have a provision similar to that of Maine’s section 716: “The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders.”

These laws make it the legal duty of corporate directors and executives to maximize profits for shareholders.

Robert Hinkley would add a simply amendment: “… but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees.”

The provision would be enforced by those who suffer at the hands of corporation wrongdoing. And in the case of intentional wrongdoing, by criminal sanction.

For 20 years, Hinkley worked as a corporate securities law expert, many of them as a partner at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, one of the world’s largest corporate law firms.

He wants to spend the next few years campaigning for his amendment.

Now Robert, wouldn’t your little amendment, if it were enforced aggressively, for starters drive the internal combustion engine off the market?

“To the extent that auto companies can’t find a way to make the internal combustion engine work without emitting pollutants into the air, yes, it would,” he says. “I prefer to think that it would spur the auto industry to find a way to make money for its shareholders that doesn’t poison their air at the same time. It can be done.”

Hinkley wants zero pollution.

He would phase in his amendment over 10 or 15 years.

“We say — we are going to move from where we are today to no pollution in 10 or 15 years,” he says. “And we expect corporations to make progress all the way through.”

Isn’t your amendment way too broad, and vague — “Not at the expense of the environment, the dignity of employees, the public safety?” Your former colleagues at Skadden Arps are going to have a field day with this.

Not at all, he says.

The securities laws operate largely on the basis of companies being prohibited from making “false and misleading statements.”

“By not spelling this out in greater detail, companies are generally more cautious,” he says. “When it comes to the public interest, whether its the integrity of the securities markets or the environment, this is a good thing. I would expect the same results for my amendment.”

“The language of the amendment is quite clear,” he says. “It says we no longer want corporations to pollute, engage in unsustainable development, violate human rights, put dangerous products into the marketplace — or leave them there once their danger is understood — leave our communities in economic ruin by closing down plants and simply moving away, pay employees less than a living wage.”

“Like the Bill of Rights, the language of the code is such that it can change with the culture over time.”

Wait a second, Robert.

A corporation is not allowed to profit at the expense of “the dignity of employees”?

The Wall Street Journal editorial writers are going to have a field day. Some employee is going to say — you are making profits and that’s undignified.

“I think a court would tell that employee that maybe he should do something else with his life,” Hinkley responds. “There is an old maxim that the law does not deal with trivialities. I think that maxim would be applied in this case. Dignity is one of those words like pornography. In the words of the Supreme Court ‘I know it when I see it.’ An employee’s dignity is violated when she isn’t paid a living wage, when her right to bargain collectively is not recognized, when she is forced to work overtime against her will, and when she is forced to work in unsafe conditions. I am sure there are others. The amendment will give employees a different status in the corporation from the one they now have. In addition to being the ‘company’s most important assets,’ they will have to start being treated that way.”

But Robert, if you pass this law in Maine, then every major corporation will move to Delaware.

“I once sat next to a republican Delaware legislator at a dinner in New York and he said to me — ‘Bob, that’s a great idea. You get it passed in the other 49 states and I’ll get it done in Delaware.'”

Hinkley says that in Maine, there are about 40,000 corporations on the books — “39,950 of them are small local corporations which don’t pollute the environment, which don’t violate human rights, which don’t endanger the public safety, which treat all five to 10 of their employees with dignity.”

“They are good corporate citizens,” he says. “It is the big corporations that create the problem. That is where the system takes over. The local guy in downtown Ellsworth, Maine has to walk through the town everyday. If he messes with the public interest, the local people will not do business with his company and he will be out of business. It is the large public corporations that are creating the problem. If this law is passed, will these other 50 companies pack up and leave Maine? I don’t think so. They will see it is the trend.”

Hinkley says that his former colleagues would for the most part be opposed to his amendment.

“Corporate lawyers are a peculiar lot,” he explains. “We make our living by representing clients that are dedicated solely to the pursuit of their own interests. You have to be careful when you are talking to a group of people whose job it is to speak for someone else. Usually they are responding to only what they see to be in their clients’ interests, not what is in the public’s interest.”

But he cites a Business Week/Harris poll which finds that 95 percent of Americans agree with him.

In that poll, 1,100 Americans were asked — which statement do you agree with more strongly?

The first is — corporations should only be concerned with maximizing profits for shareholders, and if they do, everything will be right with the American economy.

The second is — in addition to being concerned about shareholders, corporations should be concerned about their employees, the communities in which they operate, and sometimes they should sacrifice the interests of shareholders for the benefit of employees and the communities in which they operate.

Ninety-five percent choose the second.

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. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1999.

(c) Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Weekend Edition
July 01, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
Hillary: Ordinarily Awful or Uncommonly Awful?
Rob Urie
Liberal Pragmatism and the End of Political Possibility
Pam Martens
Clinton Says Wall Street Banks Aren’t the Threat, But Her Platform Writers Think They are
Jason Hirthler
Washington’s Not-So-Invisible Hand: It’s Not Economics, It’s Empire
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh
Marx on Financial Bubbles: Much Keener Insights Than Contemporary Economists
Pete Dolack
Brexit Will Only Count if Everybody Leaves the EU
Evan Jones
Ancillary Lessons from Brexit
Aidan O'Brien
Brexit: the English and Welsh Enlightenment
Jeremy R. Hammond
How Turkey’s Reconciliation Deal with Israel Harms the Palestinians
Margaret Kimberley
Beneficial Chaos: the Good News About Brexit
Phyllis Bennis
From Paris to Istanbul, More ‘War on Terror’ Means More Terrorist Attacks
Ishmael Reed
OJ and Jeffrey Toobin: Black Bogeyman Auctioneer
Ron Jacobs
Let There Be Rock
Ajamu Baraka
Paris, Orlando and Turkey: Displacing the Narrative of Western Innocence
Robert Fantina
The First Amendment, BDS and Third-Party Candidates
David Rosen
Whatever Happened to Utopia?
Andre Vltchek
Brexit – Let the UK Screw Itself!
Jonathan Latham
107 Nobel Laureate Attack on Greenpeace Traced Back to Biotech PR Operators
Steve Horn
Fracked Gas LNG Exports Were Centerpiece In Promotion of Panama Canal Expansion, Documents Reveal
Robert Koehler
The Right to Bear Courage
Colin Todhunter
Pro-GMO Spin Masquerading as Science Courtesy of “Shameful White Men of Privilege”
Binoy Kampmark
Who is Special Now? The Mythology Behind the US-British Relationship
Mark B. Baldwin
Russia to the Grexit?
Andrew Wimmer
Killer Grief
Manuel E. Yepe
Sanders, Socialism and the New Times
Franklin Lamb
ISIS is Gone, But Its Barbarity Still Haunts Palmyra
Mark Weisbrot
A Policy of Non-Intervention in Venezuela Would be a Welcome Change
Matthew Stevenson
Larry Cameron Explains Brexit
Cesar Chelala
How Tobacco Became the Opium War of the 21st Century
Joseph Natoli
How We Reached the Point Where We Can’t Hear Each Other
Andrew Stewart
Skip “Hamilton” and Read Gore Vidal’s “Burr”
Christopher Brauchli
Educating Kansas
George Wuerthner
Ranching and the Future of the Sage Grouse
Thomas Knapp
Yes, a GOP Delegate Revolt is Possible
Gilbert Mercier
Democracy Is Dead
Andy Piascik
The Hills of Connecticut: Where Theatre and Life Became One
Charles R. Larson
Mychal Denzel Smith’s “Invisible Man, Got the Whole World Watching: a Young Black Man’s Education”
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Four Morning Ducks
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail