That’s what I read when his reaction to NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo continuing Elliot Spitzer’s prosecution of corporate crime. Reynolds says that what corporations should do to evade legal scrutiny is move from New York. They shouldn’t stop doing illegal and shady things, says Reynolds, nope — they should just move.
Why is it conservatives worship so feverishly at the altar of corporate money, to the extent where they condone crime?
Spitzer’s work cracking down on corporate crime (aka: doing his job) was overwhelmingly approved by the people of New York state, to the extent that he easily won the gubernatorial election.
That’s quite a stretch, don’t you think, Oliver?
He’s saying that if the State of New York starts harassing Corporations, they might leave the state. I didn’t see even a hint that corporations shouldn’t be punished for breaking the law.
And spare me the “Anyone with a brain” or “Anyone who can read” snarkola.
Just explain where you got the impression that “Reynolds says that what corporations should do to evade legal scrutiny is move from New York”.
He simply said that NYS should think about that effect if they want to start an anti – corporate campaign.
As someone who lives in NYS, I can assure you Spitzer wasn’t elected to make war on corporations.
“According to speeches on his website, Spitzer supports reducing property taxes, lowering the cost of health care; reducing energy costs and reforming workers’ compensation. He also proposes urban revitalization, small business incentives, health insurance for every child, reducing Medicaid fraud and abuse and reducing prescription drug costs.”
He ran against a virtual unknown, and won without breaking a sweat.
Jeebus, Oliver, you don’t know everything
That has long been the Republican free-market absolutist credo:
“Crime does not pay at your level.”
Is it an “anti-corporate campaign” to vigorously ensure that corporate actors obey the law?
I don’t know, Rheinhard…
But it’s kind of a reflex for me to reach for my wallet whenever the government launches an anti – “anything” campaign
To make a donation?
Harassing? Policing corporations is “harassing”? Maybe we ought to stop “harassing” all those criminals then.
Oliver, I know the difference between harassing and policing…
I used to work for the IRS…
As someone who lives in NYS, I can assure you Spitzer wasn’t elected to make war on corporations.
No, he was elected because he brought dishonest corporations to heel.
And, of course, Oliver is absolutely right about what Reynolds’s message is. As is obvious to anyone who can read and chooses to understand.
calling all toasters: I chose not to understand.
Riiiiiight
And I did that because?
You’re a riot.
There’s no other way to read a story that essentially frames itself as a warning to Wall Street that the state attorney general seems to be aggressively staffing his office with people who actually take their jobs seriously. There was no warning about undue harassment by the state. None. Or was Spitzer known for attacking businesses unfairly and unlawfully prosecuting unjustified cases? Of course, big business constantly uses the threat of packing up jobs and shipping them to a “friendlier” location to extort tax breaks and other incentives out of states and the fed, so why shouldn’t they take it to the next level and argue that they should be above the law, too? After all, they pay their fair share of taxes and…oh wait…
Besides, I always thought the wingnut credo on these sorts of things was:
“If you’ve done nothing wrong, then you have nothing to worry about.”
The odds are that at least a few corporations will be pursued and found innocent, yes?
If you suspect that you might be one of them, or simply just don’t want to be one, you can pull up stakes a lot more easily than in the past.
I’m sorry, but I’m calling this a warning to the state. You may not be familiar with the mass exodus that followed Mario Cuomo’s massive tax and fee increases — people in NYS vote with their feet.
And I did that because?
Because you want to argue a position that you know is ridiculous.
1.)Are you saying we should only prosecute cases when we know they are 100% guilty? Would you apply that same standard to all criminal cases, even beyond corporate? I doubt the state just prosecutes companies by randomly sticking their finger in the phone book. They undoubtedly have some sort of evidence trail that has to pass the smell test before they go after a particular target.
2.)Why would you worry about being targeted by the state if you keep a clean shop? Any examples of willfully malicious prosecution by the state?
3.)Tax and fee increases? Did I jump threads? I thought we were talking about strong enforcement of state laws concerning corporate crime, not tax rates. Unless you mean that you consider enforcing tax laws a form of tax hike on those businesses used to screwing the system, of course.
1.)Are you saying we should only prosecute cases when we know they are 100% guilty?
Civil cases only require a “preponderance of evidence” not the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”
But lawyers are still expensive. And AG’s that set up special departments for anything — organized crime, child abuse, or white collar crime, are going to make mistakes. See D.A. Nifong for details in that regard.
2.)Why would you worry about being targeted by the state if you keep a clean shop? Maybe not willfully malicious, but overzealous ADA’s who make mistakes, oh yeah.
3.)Tax and fee increases? Did I jump threads?
No you did not… I offered the example of business and taxpayer migration when the cost of doing business or being a consumer (sales tax) or a commuter (bridge tolls — now at $8.00 round trip) becomes excessive, people just move somewhere cheaper,if they can.
That’s what Glenn what was talking about.
seriously, toasters, where did you get an idea like that?
I read the article — I understand some of New York State politics I’ve lived here all my life.
And I spent 15 years in Federal law enforcement
I just might know what I’m talking about,eh?
[quote]I just might know what I’m talking about,eh?[/quote]
Did you spend the time as a district attorney or any attorney. Have you gone to school or studied corporate law?
Another question if a drug dealer was doing his business (illegal) but paid a lot of taxes should it be then argued that the law should leave him alone less he stop paying the taxes or move to another state?
Corporate crime can range from simple fraud to crimes that effect many around them. You seem to think that corporate crime really isn’t a crime. Sorry I don’t have time nor the will convince you.
[quote]And I did that because?[/quote] I would guess because you have already decided what is true and any information to the contrary of your opinion is a threat to your peace of mind. Living in a glass house frantically trying to block the stone that don’t fit into your preconceived
notions.
A warning would be something like “make sure when you pursue corporate criminals you follow the letter of the law and prosecute only those that have been proven to break the law or…”
Not make a statement about the pursuit of enforcing corporate crime with zeal.
[quote]I just might know what I’m talking about,eh?[/quote]
Did you spend the time as a district attorney or any attorney. Have you gone to school or studied corporate law?
Another question if a drug dealer was doing his business (illegal) but paid a lot of taxes should it be then argued that the law should leave him alone less he stop paying the taxes or move to another state?
Corporate crime can range from simple fraud to crimes that effect many around them. You seem to think that corporate crime really isn’t a crime. Sorry I don’t have time nor the will convince you.
[quote]And I did that because?[/quote] I would guess because you have already decided what is true and any information to the contrary of your opinion is a threat to your peace of mind. Living in a glass house frantically trying to block the stone that don’t fit into your preconceived
notions.
A warning would be something like “make sure when you pursue corporate criminals you follow the letter of the law and prosecute only those that have been proven to break the law or…”
Not make a statement about the pursuit of enforcing corporate crime with zeal.
[quote]I just might know what I’m talking about,eh?[/quote]
Did you spend the time as a district attorney or any attorney. Have you gone to school or studied corporate law?
Another question if a drug dealer was doing his business (illegal) but paid a lot of taxes should it be then argued that the law should leave him alone less he stop paying the taxes or move to another state?
Corporate crime can range from simple fraud to crimes that effect many around them. You seem to think that corporate crime really isn’t a crime. Sorry I don’t have time nor the will convince you.
[quote]And I did that because?[/quote] I would guess because you have already decided what is true and any information to the contrary of your opinion is a threat to your peace of mind. Living in a glass house frantically trying to block the stone that don’t fit into your preconceived
notions.
A warning would be something like “make sure when you pursue corporate criminals you follow the letter of the law and prosecute only those that have been proven to break the law or…”
Not make a statement about the pursuit of enforcing corporate crime with zeal.