One of my biggest complaints about George W. Bush is the lack of enforcement that leads to corporate shenanigans. As an investor I am way way pissed off at all the fraud that went on. This is the main reason I am anti-DLC, because I feel they are in the pocket of corporate big wigs who I feel take advantage of investors and the little guy. Now I learn that John Kerry voted for limiting the ability of investors to recover $ due to corporate fraud. This really pisses me off.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=cohn012304DAILY EXPRESS
Matter of Interest
by Jonathan Cohn
The issue is corporate accountability, a regular staple of Kerry's campaign rhetoric. "From Enron to WorldCom to the mutual fund scandals that have shaken the trust and savings of Americans, a widespread creed of greed on Wall Street has been met by a look-the-other way attitude in the Bush White House," Kerry said in another recent speech. "It's time our government sent a different message." Back in February, 2002, when former Enron CEO Ken Lay appeared before members of the U.S. Senate, Kerry was even more harsh: "Americans everywhere are shocked that you have no answer to explain how Enron executives escaped this sinking ship with their fortunes intact while thousands of everyday working Americans were left holding the bag, robbed of their retirement savings."
But Kerry shouldn't be shocked at all. Back in 1995, he backed a controversial measure that severely limited the ability of investors to sue companies engaged in fraudulent accounting practices--a legal change widely believed to have contributed to the accounting scandals of the last few years. The law, which consumer groups opposed vociferously precisely because they feared it would lead to white-collar crime, was part of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. Yet Kerry voted for it anyway, not once but twice--the second time overriding a veto by President Clinton.
The law in question is the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. At the time it came up for debate, the bill's supporters said it would curb frivolous lawsuits against companies whose stock prices had fallen but who had engaged in no wrongdoing. According to company executives, these "strike suits" had cost them millions in litigation expenses while making it impossible to communicate freely with potential investors (because they feared every statement might be used against them later in court). Strike suits frequently ensnared accountants and financial firms, which helps explain why they, too, backed the law. Partly because the volatile high-tech economy of the 1990s created such ample opportunity for strike suits, even some of the bill's harshest critics deemed its basic goals worthwhile.
But the question in 1995 was no so much whether to reform securities litigation as how, and critics complained loudly that this proposed law went too far. Particularly worrisome was a proposal requiring plaintiffs to show firm proof of wrongdoing before a case could go forward. (The old law had a much lower threshold for evidence, on the theory that it was frequently impossible to get hard evidence without going through the pre-trial discovery process.) The U.S. Public Interest Group argued that the measure amounted to a "license to lie for white-collar crooks"--a sentiment Clinton would later echo in his veto message. The measure, he said, would "close the courthouse doors" to investors who'd lost money thanks to unscrupulous companies and their accountants.
During the initial debate over the bill on the Senate floor, Kerry, a member of the committee with jurisdiction over banking, acknowledged the legislation's shortcomings. "My preference also would have been to include stronger investor recovery provisions," he said, noting that he had supported failed Democratic amendments that would have softened the bill's impact. But unlike 26 of his Democratic colleagues and a handful of Republicans (Arlen Specter and John McCain among them) for whom such problems were cause enough to oppose the bill, Kerry embraced it anyway. "On balance," he said, "this legislation should lead to the creation of a more favorable climate for investors and businesses." After Clinton vetoed the bill, Kerry voted to override the president--a motion that passed the Senate by one vote. It was the first time a Clinton veto failed, leaving the White House to say mere
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
