As to settling the case, the right kind of trial lawyer will tell you from experience that no case is so good that a jury can’t find against you and that a settlement means that you get the money right then and there instead of spending years chasing it.
Thank you, Dan and Elliott. I wonder if we might see regulation on how the word “News” is used for media companies. Willful lying should put the name and license at risk for any TV or cable station IMHO.
The Republican Attorney Generals Association sponsors have returned to the fold after cutting off funding when these AGs were filing in support if the big lie. At the RAGA conference in New Orleans, there was little sign of such chaos. And those corporations that expressed such outrage? While some companies, like Microsoft and Coke, are still staying away, Comcast is more typical. The company resumed giving barely a month after condemning RAGA, and has since contributed close to half a million dollars. Many others are back in the fold as well, including Amazon, Walmart, Visa, Capital One, MasterCard, Intuit, Walgreens, General Motors, Altria, Home Depot and JPMorgan Chase’s PAC. Even the University of Phoenix, having pulled its donation, is filling RAGA’s coffers once again.
Fox is still the best place for political truth. And it’s the most watched cable news so this won’t hurt them at all. In my opinion- Dominion got lucky.
Legacy media in general is going the way of the dinosaurs. The one-way "conversation" was never much more than a propaganda tool.
Today people who are involved in a story can quickly challenge the half-truths propagated on television and papers. There is no going back. People will not accept a one-way conversation when the means exists to talk back.
It's really pointless to continue arguing over which network is correct. None of them can withstand scrutiny and their days are numbered.
It would serve Dan well if he would learn the next step. That being to actually respond to both positive and negative feedback in the comments. Anything less and he appears to be a preacher on a pedestal unwilling to acknowledge the wants and needs of the flock below.
Elon Musk is correct to envision the future possibility of a true public forum. The true conversation is being practiced by the more advanced writers in Substack. Matt Taibi is one at the cutting edge of the public square concept.
Regardless of your political persuasion, it would be worthwhile to take a look into Matt's forum, if only to witness the concept. The potential for a better society lies in honest debate among all stakeholders. We have the means today.
Legacy media in general is going the way of the dinosaurs. The one-way "conversation" was never much more than a propaganda tool.
Today people who are involved in a story can quickly challenge the half-truths propagated on television and papers. There is no going back. People will not accept a one-way conversation when the means exists to talk back.
It's really pointless to continue arguing over which network is correct. None of them can withstand scrutiny and their days are numbered.
It would serve Dan well if he would learn the next step. That being to actually respond to both positive and negative feedback in the comments. Anything less and he appears to be a preacher on a pedestal unwilling to acknowledge the wants and needs of the flock below.
Elin Musk is correct to envisiin the future possibility of a true public forum. The true conversation is being practiced by the more advanced writers in Substack. Matt Taibi is one at the cutting edge of the public square concept.
Regardless of your political persuasion, it would be worthwhile to take a look into Matt's forum, if only to witness the concept. The potential for a better society lies in honest debate among all stakeholders. We have the means today.
It's unfortunate that Liar One didn't get indicted for the direct damage he did to the nation by virtue of his intentional Niagara of covid mendacity. Fox would have been a co-defendant , with no lawyer/client protection.
Time Magazine has an excellent article related to “What’s Next for Fox.” The picture they paint re: continued fall out from the Dominion victory is very bad news for Fox. Made me feel a lot better.
Very little has been written about the people who make FOX possible - its rabid viewers. While FOX is clearly a propaganda, not a news station, it would not exist without the millions of viewers who do not value truth. That's what makes the United States exceptional...along with its disregard of victims of mass murders as well as those who ring the wrong door bell, drive into the wrong driveway or own a ball that rolls onto a neighbor's property. The FOX viewers are trapped in monolithic silo that keeps out any truth that contradicts its beliefs. Perhaps one of the most successful propagandists in world history put it best: “The essence of propaganda consists of winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”
Out of curiosity, I turned from MSNBC to Faux the night of the settlement to see what tuckered out swanson-dinner would have to say about what happened. Surprise, surprise: his headline story was some trivial tidbit slamming liberals. (I will say that, for the first time that I've seen him -- which isn't often -- he seemed flustered!)
For me, the most instructive lesson regarding Dominion came from China.
China has more billionaires than any country in the world (there are 969 billionaires in China and 691 billionaires in the United States).
Xi’s anti-corruption campaign has been popular with the Chinese public, with many people appalled by the accruement of riches that increasingly accompanied political office. In the decade after Xi took office, 91% of officials convicted of corruption were in the richest 1% of China’s urban population. Were it not for their ill-gotten gains, only 6% would have been in that elite segment.
4 days before the Dominion/FoxNews settlement, Fu Xiaodong, a former senior official at China Development Bank, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for accepting 4.3m yuan (about $626,000 USD) in bribes during his tenure between 2007 and 2020.
Days earlier, the former director of the supreme people’s court enforcement bureau was sentenced to 12 years in prison for accepting bribes worth 22.74m yuan (about $3.3-Million USD).
FoxNews is the poster-child. American corporations respect no flag, they do not pledge allegiance to any country, and they do not honor any creed. Western corporations are worlds unto themselves. In fact, it would be fair to say that western corporations are more like sovereign countries (than companies). Corporations build and maintain power by pitting citizens against their governments and pitting governments against their people (and pitting citizens against citizens). The more division corporations can create, the more powerful they become (and the weaker nations become). In turn, American politicians serve, answer to, and worship corporations – not citizens.
China will not tolerate this behaviour from corporations or billionaires. In China, citizenship means something. In China, a Chinese company means something. Chinese corporations are not allowed to forget that their license – and their financial, legal, diplomatic and military protections – come from the Chinese state and the collective efforts of its people.
Do NOT mistake me, I am NOT advocating for communism. I am merely pointing out, that the Chinese people are not being asked to fight and die in wars, to protect the “interests of corporations.” If the Chinese ever do go to war, it will be to protect their county – not billionaires.
Again, I am NOT cheering communism. I am merely asking who is protecting you and me from corporations (like FoxNews)? Judging by the Dominion settlement, and corruption in the Supreme Court the answer is no one. Instead, American billionaires and corporations (like FoxNews) are preparing the American people to fight a war with China – that outnumbers us by 1.1-Billion people.
Anyone interested in reading more? Start here, at The Guardian.
Unsafe at the top: China’s anti-graft drive targets billionaires and bankers
Xi Jinping’s popular anti-corruption purges show trend to prosecute ‘tigers’ over lower-ranking ‘flies’
China is not a model for good behavior. Russia controls its wealthy by providing corrupt paths to great wealth & dangling allegations of “tax fraud” over their heads. No thanks to them also.
It isn’t the ‘communism’. it is the despotism and legal subterfuge. These high profile cases often correspond to major political events like the run up to the Chinese congress sessions which only occur every 5 years. Their Constitutions (Russia’s mimicked ours) and ‘rights’ are worthless for those at the top or below. Their laws are a tool for control and/or elimination.
If China’s approach was effective its persistent corruption would be greatly diminished if not extinguished. (Penalties can include the death sentence or a “suspended” death sentence which includes the possibility of being commuted to “life” for 2 yrs of good behavior).
Despots often allow these things to happen until the person becomes expendable or the gov’t needs to distract the public. As the article hints - people with money have the means to be more independent and not be sufficiently loyal to the party. They may be corrupt but they are a political threat.
==Xi is personally mistrustful of financiers and their loyalty to the party.==
Singapore may be more in line with what you are proposing. It is among the countries rated lowest for corruption. Less draconian punishments and compared to China more democratic with a better rating for human rights. Not where I would choose to live, but to each his own I suppose.
Ann Sharon, you've made a distinction without a difference. While it is rarely mentioned in American history classes, abolishing corporations in the Constitution was one of America's founding fathers most agreed upon items. Unfortunately, they could not figure out how to finance the new government or establish a financial/banking system. If memory serves, Alexander Hamilton single-handedly put their fears to rest, by convincing them that corporations were a short-term necessity, that could be abolished once the government was firmly established. Nonetheless, to prevent corporations from "unionizing" against the American people, or their government, the founding fathers placed strict limitations on corporations, including:
(1) To ensure corporations did their job, then disbanded, they had to re-apply for a new charter every year. This was intended to give government power over corporations. (2) Corporations could only be formed for “public” projects too big for local or state governments to fund or manage alone (such as roads and ports necessary for interstate commerce). (3) Corporations could not conduct business across state lines or with foreign countries or businesses. If a public project crossed state or national lines, the state or federal government would conduct negotiations and terms – not corporations.
As soon as the ink was dry on the new constitution, ambitious white men went to work expanding corporate power. Just like European corporations, American corporations built and maintained power by pitting citizens against their government and pitting government against their people and pitting citizens against citizens. The more division corporations could create, the more powerful they became (and the weaker the nation and its citizens became). In turn, American politicians soon learned their own path to wealth, was in serving corporations – not citizens.
Again, I am not championing China or communism. I am merely pointing out, that American corporations have acquired the legal status of Gods.
Singapore's success was in establishing the well being of its people as its highest governing priority, thereby subjecting corporations to the same priority. A corporation that sacrifices or squanders the well being of the Singaporean people is quickly out of business.
Actually, there is a large distinction between corporations being the tenacles of a despotic government and our system, as flawed as it is. I believe China is a large red herring in your discussion of corporate corruption. Singapore holds compliance and conformity in high regard. “Nation” is the first of its social principles. My point being these nations and the way they operate are quite different from ours. I’m not seeing a solution for what ails our system to facilitate an American transformation in them.
I would not have imagined from your comment that you had in mind the type of charges and corporations we inherited from the British, some of which operated like a governing constitution. Yes, quite early corporations wanted greater status. I believe Hamiltons Bank of the United States after winding up in a dispute with Jefferson’ Bank of Georgia that wound up in court being if not the first, one of the first cases where a corporation wanted the status of a person in a tax dispute shortly after 1800.
A major weakness in temporary corporations was the increasing need for greater financial capital and more certainty for investors when the Industrial Revolution took hold. They got a very big boost when railroads hijacked the 14th Amendment arguing corporations deserved ‘equal rights’ despite the intent of the Amendment being to protect former slaves. Then the power of ‘personhood’ grew as time passed including political speech & money equalling speech.
The big problem now is how to claw that power back without creating chaos. To address the current topic, Congress could expand FCC authority to cable & satellite TV. But of course the current House would disapprove.
Ann Sharon, you make a good argument. However, I do see a solution in the Chinese approach to corruption, which is prison. If corporate officers and boards faced prison, they would behave very differently.
One problem with corporations is their inhuman lifespan. In essence they are immortal. Once we recognize a corporation, we've created a G-d. Be it corporations, dictators, or Supreme Court Justices, ignoring the human lifespan is a mistake.
Maybe we can agree corporations are treated like social institutions but without the accountability. Religious organizations, governments, schools and so on don’t have an expiration date.
And that they have weaker and weaker accountability... especially as we rely on them without knowing who they really are.
Over all I think you and I can agree that true accountability is missing. This allows the large corporations to further upset the balance of power in their favor.
Corporations need accountability but are now entwined in every aspect of our lives, all the social institutions. These institutions have always continued beyond our lifespan. It is worth considering that in almost all of what became our colonies, the ‘systems’ were predominantly exclusive. The government and religion were intertwined. It/they decided which religion was acceptable. The Puritans were all in for that despite their much touted desire for ‘religious freedom.’
Long ago corporations had evolved to a sort of 3rd entity, not government or ‘people.’ But able to make contracts and conduct business & had a specific purpose. Now they are ‘people’ and need no specific market sector or purpose. Even not-for-profits establish for-profits and vice versa. We could change that
.
In theory the ‘corporate veil’ can be ‘pierced’ for illegal behavior to hold individuals accountable. It is difficult which typically leads to only the corporate entity being fined &/or some sort of sanctions. We could change that.
The public is fickle. Rick Scott is an example. He operated HCA/Columbia. Oversaw massive growth - but it was a legally corrupt business model. Moved the HQ to TN (from KY).
He bailed/was pushed out when the board realized the feds were looking at them. At the time, the resulting fine was the largest ever & they received sanctions, had to make admissions, submit to monitoring. Scott? Moved on to FL where he was elected governor and now sits in the U.S. Senate.
I’ve read the prosecutor later said it is his greatest regret that he did not ignore the cost, the obstacles and try to hold those who ran the company personally responsible - because not doing so didn’t deter others. Fear of fallout from failure in such a case and the resources needed are a deterrent. We could change that.
Will enough of the public care when the next shiny thing comes to market? People still argue they must be on twitter to hold Elon accountable. Seriously, a capricious billionaire will be ‘held to account’ by using his product? I think the people are confused and that lets corporations win.
Thank you for this! I agree with you 100%
As to settling the case, the right kind of trial lawyer will tell you from experience that no case is so good that a jury can’t find against you and that a settlement means that you get the money right then and there instead of spending years chasing it.
Thank you, Dan and Elliott. I wonder if we might see regulation on how the word “News” is used for media companies. Willful lying should put the name and license at risk for any TV or cable station IMHO.
The Republican Attorney Generals Association sponsors have returned to the fold after cutting off funding when these AGs were filing in support if the big lie. At the RAGA conference in New Orleans, there was little sign of such chaos. And those corporations that expressed such outrage? While some companies, like Microsoft and Coke, are still staying away, Comcast is more typical. The company resumed giving barely a month after condemning RAGA, and has since contributed close to half a million dollars. Many others are back in the fold as well, including Amazon, Walmart, Visa, Capital One, MasterCard, Intuit, Walgreens, General Motors, Altria, Home Depot and JPMorgan Chase’s PAC. Even the University of Phoenix, having pulled its donation, is filling RAGA’s coffers once again.
See also....
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/rupert-murdoch-fox-news-empire-knowingly-lied-dominion-voting-defamation-case-crikey-news-australia
For the skeptics who think Dominion accomplished nothing of value: Tucker is not longer a Fox employee.
https://press.foxnews.com/2023/04/fox-news-media-and-tucker-carlson-part-ways#:~:text=NEW%20YORK%20—%20April%2024%2C%202023,was%20Friday%20April%2021st
Fox is still the best place for political truth. And it’s the most watched cable news so this won’t hurt them at all. In my opinion- Dominion got lucky.
“the network and its hosts claim not to care what the establishment thinks” ...
If anyone is “establishment”, it’s these people themselves.
Legacy media in general is going the way of the dinosaurs. The one-way "conversation" was never much more than a propaganda tool.
Today people who are involved in a story can quickly challenge the half-truths propagated on television and papers. There is no going back. People will not accept a one-way conversation when the means exists to talk back.
It's really pointless to continue arguing over which network is correct. None of them can withstand scrutiny and their days are numbered.
It would serve Dan well if he would learn the next step. That being to actually respond to both positive and negative feedback in the comments. Anything less and he appears to be a preacher on a pedestal unwilling to acknowledge the wants and needs of the flock below.
Elon Musk is correct to envision the future possibility of a true public forum. The true conversation is being practiced by the more advanced writers in Substack. Matt Taibi is one at the cutting edge of the public square concept.
Regardless of your political persuasion, it would be worthwhile to take a look into Matt's forum, if only to witness the concept. The potential for a better society lies in honest debate among all stakeholders. We have the means today.
Legacy media in general is going the way of the dinosaurs. The one-way "conversation" was never much more than a propaganda tool.
Today people who are involved in a story can quickly challenge the half-truths propagated on television and papers. There is no going back. People will not accept a one-way conversation when the means exists to talk back.
It's really pointless to continue arguing over which network is correct. None of them can withstand scrutiny and their days are numbered.
It would serve Dan well if he would learn the next step. That being to actually respond to both positive and negative feedback in the comments. Anything less and he appears to be a preacher on a pedestal unwilling to acknowledge the wants and needs of the flock below.
Elin Musk is correct to envisiin the future possibility of a true public forum. The true conversation is being practiced by the more advanced writers in Substack. Matt Taibi is one at the cutting edge of the public square concept.
Regardless of your political persuasion, it would be worthwhile to take a look into Matt's forum, if only to witness the concept. The potential for a better society lies in honest debate among all stakeholders. We have the means today.
It's unfortunate that Liar One didn't get indicted for the direct damage he did to the nation by virtue of his intentional Niagara of covid mendacity. Fox would have been a co-defendant , with no lawyer/client protection.
Time Magazine has an excellent article related to “What’s Next for Fox.” The picture they paint re: continued fall out from the Dominion victory is very bad news for Fox. Made me feel a lot better.
Very little has been written about the people who make FOX possible - its rabid viewers. While FOX is clearly a propaganda, not a news station, it would not exist without the millions of viewers who do not value truth. That's what makes the United States exceptional...along with its disregard of victims of mass murders as well as those who ring the wrong door bell, drive into the wrong driveway or own a ball that rolls onto a neighbor's property. The FOX viewers are trapped in monolithic silo that keeps out any truth that contradicts its beliefs. Perhaps one of the most successful propagandists in world history put it best: “The essence of propaganda consists of winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”
FOX Never.Ever.Worth.Seeing.
Out of curiosity, I turned from MSNBC to Faux the night of the settlement to see what tuckered out swanson-dinner would have to say about what happened. Surprise, surprise: his headline story was some trivial tidbit slamming liberals. (I will say that, for the first time that I've seen him -- which isn't often -- he seemed flustered!)
For me, the most instructive lesson regarding Dominion came from China.
China has more billionaires than any country in the world (there are 969 billionaires in China and 691 billionaires in the United States).
Xi’s anti-corruption campaign has been popular with the Chinese public, with many people appalled by the accruement of riches that increasingly accompanied political office. In the decade after Xi took office, 91% of officials convicted of corruption were in the richest 1% of China’s urban population. Were it not for their ill-gotten gains, only 6% would have been in that elite segment.
4 days before the Dominion/FoxNews settlement, Fu Xiaodong, a former senior official at China Development Bank, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for accepting 4.3m yuan (about $626,000 USD) in bribes during his tenure between 2007 and 2020.
Days earlier, the former director of the supreme people’s court enforcement bureau was sentenced to 12 years in prison for accepting bribes worth 22.74m yuan (about $3.3-Million USD).
FoxNews is the poster-child. American corporations respect no flag, they do not pledge allegiance to any country, and they do not honor any creed. Western corporations are worlds unto themselves. In fact, it would be fair to say that western corporations are more like sovereign countries (than companies). Corporations build and maintain power by pitting citizens against their governments and pitting governments against their people (and pitting citizens against citizens). The more division corporations can create, the more powerful they become (and the weaker nations become). In turn, American politicians serve, answer to, and worship corporations – not citizens.
China will not tolerate this behaviour from corporations or billionaires. In China, citizenship means something. In China, a Chinese company means something. Chinese corporations are not allowed to forget that their license – and their financial, legal, diplomatic and military protections – come from the Chinese state and the collective efforts of its people.
Do NOT mistake me, I am NOT advocating for communism. I am merely pointing out, that the Chinese people are not being asked to fight and die in wars, to protect the “interests of corporations.” If the Chinese ever do go to war, it will be to protect their county – not billionaires.
Again, I am NOT cheering communism. I am merely asking who is protecting you and me from corporations (like FoxNews)? Judging by the Dominion settlement, and corruption in the Supreme Court the answer is no one. Instead, American billionaires and corporations (like FoxNews) are preparing the American people to fight a war with China – that outnumbers us by 1.1-Billion people.
Anyone interested in reading more? Start here, at The Guardian.
Unsafe at the top: China’s anti-graft drive targets billionaires and bankers
Xi Jinping’s popular anti-corruption purges show trend to prosecute ‘tigers’ over lower-ranking ‘flies’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/19/unsafe-at-the-top-chinas-anti-graft-drive-targets-billionaires-and-bankers
No thank you.
China is not a model for good behavior. Russia controls its wealthy by providing corrupt paths to great wealth & dangling allegations of “tax fraud” over their heads. No thanks to them also.
It isn’t the ‘communism’. it is the despotism and legal subterfuge. These high profile cases often correspond to major political events like the run up to the Chinese congress sessions which only occur every 5 years. Their Constitutions (Russia’s mimicked ours) and ‘rights’ are worthless for those at the top or below. Their laws are a tool for control and/or elimination.
If China’s approach was effective its persistent corruption would be greatly diminished if not extinguished. (Penalties can include the death sentence or a “suspended” death sentence which includes the possibility of being commuted to “life” for 2 yrs of good behavior).
Despots often allow these things to happen until the person becomes expendable or the gov’t needs to distract the public. As the article hints - people with money have the means to be more independent and not be sufficiently loyal to the party. They may be corrupt but they are a political threat.
==Xi is personally mistrustful of financiers and their loyalty to the party.==
Singapore may be more in line with what you are proposing. It is among the countries rated lowest for corruption. Less draconian punishments and compared to China more democratic with a better rating for human rights. Not where I would choose to live, but to each his own I suppose.
Ann Sharon, you've made a distinction without a difference. While it is rarely mentioned in American history classes, abolishing corporations in the Constitution was one of America's founding fathers most agreed upon items. Unfortunately, they could not figure out how to finance the new government or establish a financial/banking system. If memory serves, Alexander Hamilton single-handedly put their fears to rest, by convincing them that corporations were a short-term necessity, that could be abolished once the government was firmly established. Nonetheless, to prevent corporations from "unionizing" against the American people, or their government, the founding fathers placed strict limitations on corporations, including:
(1) To ensure corporations did their job, then disbanded, they had to re-apply for a new charter every year. This was intended to give government power over corporations. (2) Corporations could only be formed for “public” projects too big for local or state governments to fund or manage alone (such as roads and ports necessary for interstate commerce). (3) Corporations could not conduct business across state lines or with foreign countries or businesses. If a public project crossed state or national lines, the state or federal government would conduct negotiations and terms – not corporations.
As soon as the ink was dry on the new constitution, ambitious white men went to work expanding corporate power. Just like European corporations, American corporations built and maintained power by pitting citizens against their government and pitting government against their people and pitting citizens against citizens. The more division corporations could create, the more powerful they became (and the weaker the nation and its citizens became). In turn, American politicians soon learned their own path to wealth, was in serving corporations – not citizens.
Again, I am not championing China or communism. I am merely pointing out, that American corporations have acquired the legal status of Gods.
Singapore's success was in establishing the well being of its people as its highest governing priority, thereby subjecting corporations to the same priority. A corporation that sacrifices or squanders the well being of the Singaporean people is quickly out of business.
Actually, there is a large distinction between corporations being the tenacles of a despotic government and our system, as flawed as it is. I believe China is a large red herring in your discussion of corporate corruption. Singapore holds compliance and conformity in high regard. “Nation” is the first of its social principles. My point being these nations and the way they operate are quite different from ours. I’m not seeing a solution for what ails our system to facilitate an American transformation in them.
I would not have imagined from your comment that you had in mind the type of charges and corporations we inherited from the British, some of which operated like a governing constitution. Yes, quite early corporations wanted greater status. I believe Hamiltons Bank of the United States after winding up in a dispute with Jefferson’ Bank of Georgia that wound up in court being if not the first, one of the first cases where a corporation wanted the status of a person in a tax dispute shortly after 1800.
A major weakness in temporary corporations was the increasing need for greater financial capital and more certainty for investors when the Industrial Revolution took hold. They got a very big boost when railroads hijacked the 14th Amendment arguing corporations deserved ‘equal rights’ despite the intent of the Amendment being to protect former slaves. Then the power of ‘personhood’ grew as time passed including political speech & money equalling speech.
The big problem now is how to claw that power back without creating chaos. To address the current topic, Congress could expand FCC authority to cable & satellite TV. But of course the current House would disapprove.
Ann Sharon, you make a good argument. However, I do see a solution in the Chinese approach to corruption, which is prison. If corporate officers and boards faced prison, they would behave very differently.
One problem with corporations is their inhuman lifespan. In essence they are immortal. Once we recognize a corporation, we've created a G-d. Be it corporations, dictators, or Supreme Court Justices, ignoring the human lifespan is a mistake.
Maybe we can agree corporations are treated like social institutions but without the accountability. Religious organizations, governments, schools and so on don’t have an expiration date.
Oops.
And that they have weaker and weaker accountability... especially as we rely on them without knowing who they really are.
Over all I think you and I can agree that true accountability is missing. This allows the large corporations to further upset the balance of power in their favor.
Corporations need accountability but are now entwined in every aspect of our lives, all the social institutions. These institutions have always continued beyond our lifespan. It is worth considering that in almost all of what became our colonies, the ‘systems’ were predominantly exclusive. The government and religion were intertwined. It/they decided which religion was acceptable. The Puritans were all in for that despite their much touted desire for ‘religious freedom.’
Long ago corporations had evolved to a sort of 3rd entity, not government or ‘people.’ But able to make contracts and conduct business & had a specific purpose. Now they are ‘people’ and need no specific market sector or purpose. Even not-for-profits establish for-profits and vice versa. We could change that
.
In theory the ‘corporate veil’ can be ‘pierced’ for illegal behavior to hold individuals accountable. It is difficult which typically leads to only the corporate entity being fined &/or some sort of sanctions. We could change that.
The public is fickle. Rick Scott is an example. He operated HCA/Columbia. Oversaw massive growth - but it was a legally corrupt business model. Moved the HQ to TN (from KY).
He bailed/was pushed out when the board realized the feds were looking at them. At the time, the resulting fine was the largest ever & they received sanctions, had to make admissions, submit to monitoring. Scott? Moved on to FL where he was elected governor and now sits in the U.S. Senate.
I’ve read the prosecutor later said it is his greatest regret that he did not ignore the cost, the obstacles and try to hold those who ran the company personally responsible - because not doing so didn’t deter others. Fear of fallout from failure in such a case and the resources needed are a deterrent. We could change that.
Will enough of the public care when the next shiny thing comes to market? People still argue they must be on twitter to hold Elon accountable. Seriously, a capricious billionaire will be ‘held to account’ by using his product? I think the people are confused and that lets corporations win.