But Soros?

In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world's largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.



I wonder if the Koch brothers could be indicted/convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Weaver95: In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world's largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.



I wonder if the Koch brothers could be indicted/convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Could? Probably. Will? No way, they're too rich.

RICO

Bucky Katt: RICO

I dunno if it's a RICO case or not...but I do know that if the fedgov finds out that a US run corporation is being a corrupt dickhole in another country, then we can charge them in the US for being corrupt dickholes.

Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales
By Asjylyn Loder and David Evans - Oct 3, 2011 12:28 PM CT

They're still bastards, though...

Weaver95: Bucky Katt: RICO

I dunno if it's a RICO case or not...but I do know that if the fedgov finds out that a US run corporation is being a corrupt dickhole in another country, then we can charge them in the US for being corrupt dickholes.

we can, sure. but I doubt that'll happen once the check clears.

Weaver95: Bucky Katt: RICO

I dunno if it's a RICO case or not...but I do know that if the fedgov finds out that a US run corporation is being a corrupt dickhole in another country, then we can charge them in the US for being corrupt dickholes.

Can you imagine the Obama Administration ringing charges against Koch? Fox News and every Republican in elected office, all the way down to Butte dog catcher will riot over the Kenyan using political prosecutions to attack his enemies.

And, after all, being able to bribe foreigners to turn a bigger profit really shouldn't be against the law. It violates our freedoms and stuff. So it's not a "real" law, you know. It's interfering with the Job Creators and Jesus.

Weaver95: In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world's largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.



I wonder if the Koch brothers could be indicted/convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

They own far too many congresscritters, and if you hadn't noticed, the Obama administration will offer most large corporations oral sex for a small fee. Which is pretty much the status quo these days.

Bucky Katt: RICO

I always thought that RICO should have been used on the child raping priests.

What kind of a country do we live in where government regulations prevent two men from running a hundred billion dollar conglomerate?

I guess their ownership of those refineries in Corpus Cristi explain why the Republicans are threatening to turn our economy to cinders to get the Keystone pipeline approved and terminate in Corpus Cristi.

Paris1127: Koch Brothers Flout Law Getting Richer With Secret Iran Sales
By Asjylyn Loder and David Evans - Oct 3, 2011 12:28 PM CT

They're still bastards, though...

I remember reading this and thinking that absolutely nothing would happen to them. It's just nice to be informed just how totally f*cked up this planet is. Then I get to see one of these f*cking pricks have their name plastered on PBS as a sponsor and how people would think "Wow, what a swell guy!"

The world needs an enema.

/oblig

Bypassing sanctions to do business with a rogue nation that supports terrorism against America = free market capitalism
Using your hedge fund to blow up the British pound = socialism

Life imitates Arrested Development.

What they fail to mention is how many of the new regulations are at the behest of the industries in question. Much of the legislation glut that we've seen for the last twenty plus years has been working in concert with industry to limit scope and increasingly define issues. That minute definition and tight scope allows companies to skirt the said intent of legislation, while then claiming to be in compliance of said laws.

"We can X amount of rat poop in every pound of product. We have Y amount. Y is
Beyond that, are regulations that create a playing field that discourages real competition in markets, by hampering smaller companies from doing what large companies already have the infrastructure for. It inhibits competition, and yes, it i>does have a chilling effect on business, but that is by design, and it's done by the request of larger players who want to keep the yammering masses from their doors, with their better mousetraps. Extension of copyright and further defining intellectual property law is another large section of the regulatory bloat that we see.

It's not by accident. It is at the behest of those industries, and the Koch brothers are behind more than a few of these initiatives to keep players out, and to keep regulators from looking too closely at their own businesses which are constantly eating up their competition, simply to get rid of potential rivals. It is "the cost of doing business" to eat these firms, and then crap them out. Much like banks who are sitting on a crap ton of properties that they have no intention of selling, and all the while complaining about their own "toxic" and "undervalued" assets that they can then claim a terrible market on, as opposed to turning those properties over for cheaper sales, and the opportunity to make real dollars on--as opposed to crying to the government for another subsidy.

The game is being rigged, and the folks who are complaining the loudest about the regulatory environment are EXACTLY the folks who are writing the regulations for their Congresscritters. It's called having your cake and eating it too, because if they get rid of the Congresscritters who support efforts that would undermine this merging of corporate and government interest, then they have more folks in their pockets, and we all have less of a say in our own governance.

That's the point. The problem is, the rubes haven't figured it out yet, and they are cheering the same folks on who are bloating our regulatory code with junk, and calling it "FREEEEEEEDOM!"

hubiestubert: What they fail to mention is how many of the new regulations are at the behest of the industries in question. Much of the legislation glut that we've seen for the last twenty plus years has been working in concert with industry to limit scope and increasingly define issues. That minute definition and tight scope allows companies to skirt the said intent of legislation, while then claiming to be in compliance of said laws.

"We can X amount of rat poop in every pound of product. We have Y amount. Y is
Beyond that, are regulations that create a playing field that discourages real competition in markets, by hampering smaller companies from doing what large companies already have the infrastructure for. It inhibits competition, and yes, it i>does have a chilling effect on business, but that is by design, and it's done by the request of larger players who want to keep the yammering masses from their doors, with their better mousetraps. Extension of copyright and further defining intellectual property law is another large section of the regulatory bloat that we see.

It's not by accident. It is at the behest of those industries, and the Koch brothers are behind more than a few of these initiatives to keep players out, and to keep regulators from looking too closely at their own businesses which are constantly eating up their competition, simply to get rid of potential rivals. It is "the cost of doing business" to eat these firms, and then crap them out. Much like banks who are sitting on a crap ton of properties that they have no intention of selling, and all the while complaining about their own "toxic" and "undervalued" assets that they can then claim a terrible market on, as opposed to turning those properties over for cheaper sales, and the opportunity to make real dollars on--as opposed to crying to the government for another subsidy.

The game is being rigged, and the folks who are complaining the loudest about the regulatory environment are EXACTLY the folks wh ...

And yet, you still say you're a Republican?

hubiestubert: That's the point. The problem is, the rubes haven't figured it out yet, and they are cheering the same folks on who are bloating our regulatory code with junk, and calling it "FREEEEEEEDOM!"

Don't forget, in the last 120 years nearly every significant law passed has been because of:

a) Someone died
b) Something is morally reprehensible


America started out as a libertarian paradise with few laws governing anything, and has been modified every time someone is killed because a business didn't act as the benevolent saints current libertarians promise they will become if we just backed off a bit.

It's like a convicted murderer asking for a second chance to have a regular life. Sorry bro, you had your chance and blew it.

propasaurus: Oddly enough, there are folks IN the party that are not corporatist shills, and who recognize the dangers of the merging of business and government interests. Republican still means to some of us by and for the defense and promotion of the republic--not the moneyed interests who like to use the party as a shield to hide their own agenda. I am as disgusted by the Romney and his ilk, as to be fair, EVERYONE should be, because his path is far and away from the promotion of the republic or its people.

I AM for less legislation and regulation. By less, I mean less cryptically and narrow focused laws that allow companies to stymy fair competition. By less, I mean less definition that allows folks to skirt the intent of laws entirely. We need a fair tax code--and at this point, that means that we need to actually enforce it as opposed to simply going after the lowest hanging fruit, which is to say lower income and middle income citizens, and pretty much ignoring the difficult cases, which is to say the wealthiest companies and citizens.

The merging of corporate and government interests is EXACTLY what Eisenhower warned the party about. It is EXACTLY what Roosevelt left the party about. It is even what Lincoln worried about. This is not a new phenomena, and corporate interests were very tightly bound by the Founders--the taste of the East India Trading Company was thick in their mouths after the Revolution. We fought that war in part because of the collusion of state and corporate interests at the cost of the citizen.

This isn't a trend that is entirely Republican or Democrat, but a subspecies within our government of folks who profit mightily and have few scruples about who they serve, so long as they get paid. This isn't new, it isn't confined to any one party, but a result of skirting laws on the books designed to limit access to our representatives, and if we truly want a more responsive government, and a better government that represents the American people, and not just the "free speech of the dollar" then we NEED substantive campaign finance reform. We NEED to elect better folks--that goes for both sides. Right now? My own party is deep in denial about how badly many are in the pocket of interests that do not have the good of the people nor the republic in mind.

And to be fair, the only way to change that is to do so from within.

There is a common misbelief that by belonging to a party, that obligates you to vote for whoever the candidate is on the ticket. That is a false belief, but one that folks seem happy to promote. It prevents substantive discussion of issues by turning things into a My Side/Your Side sort of argument. That narrowing of the discussion does no one any good. What being a member of the party does is allow you to help select folks to put onto that ticket. And to be fair, for too long, the American people have considered their voting to be a sort of straight ticket affair. And that is part of what is wrong with the nation at the moment.

It's not about sides. It's about putting the best people into the job. We need to look at the people. Be that the citizenry as a whole, be that the individual lawmakers, be that the individuals in the bureaucracy. We need to hold individuals accountable. We need to hold ourselves accountable for when we put "interests" ahead of people. Period.

Cubansaltyballs: hubiestubert: That's the point. The problem is, the rubes haven't figured it out yet, and they are cheering the same folks on who are bloating our regulatory code with junk, and calling it "FREEEEEEEDOM!"

Don't forget, in the last 120 years nearly every significant law passed has been because of:

a) Someone died
b) Something is morally reprehensible

Marijuana.

The Onion is prophetic: Marijuana.

Ooops, left out an option:

c) Bribes

Old news is old.

Wait, teabaggers support terrorism against Iran in the name of their own self-righteousness? Color me brown.

Sleeping Monkey: Wait, teabaggers support terrorism against Iran in the name of their own self-righteousness? Color me brown.

That's a stopping and a checking of papers in Phoenix...

wejash: Can you imagine the Obama Administration ringing charges against Koch? Fox News and every Republican in elected office, all the way down to Butte dog catcher will riot over the Kenyan using political prosecutions to attack his enemies.

It's a start.

Where are all the FARK "conservatives?" These poor 0.000001%ers need to be defended from these egregious attacks by the FARK libtard Class Warriors!!1!

LockeOak: hubiestubert: There is a common misbelief that by belonging to a party, that obligates you to vote for whoever the candidate is on the ticket.

Whatever could have given people that impression? Link (new window)

Kondik points out that the oath, however, is not enforceable from a legal standpoint, since voters are guaranteed the right to a private ballot.

Which is why this is pretarded. And is a further symptom of the illness within my own party. It is about appearing to do something, as actually doing something useful.

Lionel Mandrake: Where are all the FARK "conservatives?" These poor 0.000001%ers need to be defended from these egregious attacks by the FARK libtard Class Warriors!!1!

I think our local shills took the week off.

Koch suckers.

Weaver95: Lionel Mandrake: Where are all the FARK "conservatives?" These poor 0.000001%ers need to be defended from these egregious attacks by the FARK libtard Class Warriors!!1!

I think our local shills took the week off.

Folks got vacation time accrued. Hard being a keyboard commando. Takes time to rest, recharge, and go through the new PR statements...

MegaCorp loves you.

You will love MegaCorp.

They're like Dr. Evil evil.

hubiestubert: Weaver95: Lionel Mandrake: Where are all the FARK "conservatives?" These poor 0.000001%ers need to be defended from these egregious attacks by the FARK libtard Class Warriors!!1!

I think our local shills took the week off.

Folks got vacation time accrued. Hard being a keyboard commando. Takes time to rest, recharge, and go through the new PR statements...

2012 is going to be a rough year for the GOP 101 chairborne. Obama has a solid record and the Republicans don't have a viable candidate. OWS took off and actually got their message out to middle america and it looks like more people woke up and paid attention. oh, and of course the Republicans are facing backlashes at the state level.

so our local shills probably need the rest break. they're gonna come back next week fully charged up and come out ROARING!

Weaver95: It's sort of sad. Watching folks who don't believe a word of what they type, swing for the fences again and again. Don't get me wrong, I understand the mentality a bit--I AM a Cubs and Red Sox fan after all--but this race is going to take a strong stomach to keep cheering for a field that is...bad.

We have Crazy well represented. Stoopid and Crazy fairly represented. Schrodinger's Candidate waving affably, and Newt securing the Douchebag niche. One of the candidates has dropped out to take up the Libertarian banner, and my own favorite can't seem to get press thanks to the press that Ron Paul stirs up for having a record that is not doing him any favors, save with his most rabid of supporters. I don't think that Roemer will get very far, but I'm going to put my vote to him, because he is the one guy in the field that I think might actually do a decent job.

The rest of the field are non-starters, with the possible exception of Huntsman, and there is a lot on his platform and past that is troublesome to say the least.

St_Francis_P: Weaver95: In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world's largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.



I wonder if the Koch brothers could be indicted/convicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act?

Could? Probably. Will? No way, they're too rich.

*Whistles nonchalantly* I have to be somewhat careful in commenting on this as something I did this summer that could in some way relate to this might be covered under an indirect seal of AC privilege, but I think it's public knowledge that the DOJ has been examining a few things KII has done recently

hubiestubert:
The rest of the field are non-starters, with the possible exception of Huntsman, and there is a lot on his platform and past that is troublesome to say the least.

I think the GOP insiders already decided to give Romney the nomination. i'm sure a fair bit of horse trading went on between factions to make sure Romney gets the lead (and Romney might get stuck with a douchebag as second chair) but the GOP elite have to think in practical terms. And the only guy on the ticket who's got a shot at Obama is Romney.

though I should point out that this tactic FTA is hardly unique to Koch:

Internal company documents show that the company made those sales {to Iran} through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban.

After all its the same way DICK CHENEY did it when he was head of Halliburton (and yet not a single member of our "liberal media" had the stones to ask him about it when he was beating the war drums against Iran)

Weaver95: hubiestubert:
The rest of the field are non-starters, with the possible exception of Huntsman, and there is a lot on his platform and past that is troublesome to say the least.

I think the GOP insiders already decided to give Romney the nomination. i'm sure a fair bit of horse trading went on between factions to make sure Romney gets the lead (and Romney might get stuck with a douchebag as second chair) but the GOP elite have to think in practical terms. And the only guy on the ticket who's got a shot at Obama is Romney.

He is the choice for those who have money and want more of ours in their pocket. He is also inconsistent, a pandering asshat, whose popularity comes from the amount of cash that he swings to folks. He is very much a non-starter for me. I had to deal with him when I was in the UMaine system, before he headed to Utah, and then again as Governor. He is intellectually and ethically flexible in such a way that the only way you can trust him, is to know that he will try damn hard to put as many tax dollars into plans that will enrich his supporters. If folks liked the raid on the Treasury that GW pulled, then they're going to love a Romney Presidency, but the rest of the country, maybe not so much.

Romney's biggest hurdle is going to be that he has a whole health plan in place in Massachusetts that was the model for the one that we are putting into place. It's not a great plan, it's a give away to the insurance industry and cements the middlemen into the system, which is why he was so much for it, but he cannot attack the President on that piece of policy without highlighting his own history of support.

Romney is the guy that is touted as being the only one with a shot by folks who want a malleable and ethically flexible man in the White House that they can pull strings on, but who is bright enough to not be seen reading a gottverdammt script--which is part of Perry's problem. He is not the best in the field, he is not the strongest, he is just the one with a huge war chest, and a lot of writers who are willing to put him forward again and again, because they are being paid to.

That isn't the same as being the only one with a shot. It's just that he's the only one that's going to be allowed a shot.