Hillary Clinton: Take away executives' bonuses when their companies break the rules

[onehandle]

[img][/img]

Hillary Clinton wants executives to forfeit bonus money when their companies are fined for misconduct. The frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination unveiled the proposal in a Facebook Q&A session Monday.

"Too often it seems like the people responsible get off with limited consequences (or none at all). Even when they’ve already pocketed the gains," Clinton said. "That's wrong and it has to change."

She laid out a three-part plan to do that.

1) Appoint and empower tough, independent-minded regulators and give them the resources they need to do their jobs.

2) Make sure that good people have real incentives to come forward and report illegal activity by raising the whistleblower caps so they're actually effective.

3) Make sure that when corporations pay fines to the government for wrongdoing, those fines cut into the bonuses of the executives who should have been accountable or should have caught the problem.


http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9006557/hillary-clinton-executive-bonuses

[yourout]

1. How about we put them in jail just like the rest of us would be treated.

[Sancho]

30. Because it would not do any good to put execs in jail, been there, done that!

Enron's Jeffrey Skilling sees jail sentence reduced to 14 years
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/21/enron-jeff-skilling-sentence-reduced

Hundreds of Wall Street Execs Went to Prison During the Last Fraud-Fueled Bank Crisis
http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-wall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/

You can put CEO's in jail by the dozens and another steps in their place - as long as there is money.
Hillary's plan is excellent - if the COMPANY pays a fine, then the EMPLOYEES lose money. No one would have to worry about a criminal conviction and see one crook replace another. The incentive to break the rules, INCLUDING OVERSEAS transactions where all the money was hidden, would be irrelevant. If you were caught, your company employees lose the paycheck.

It makes sense.

[PoliticAverse]

41. Enron went bankrupt. There were no executive bonuses to seize.

Your argument that there isn't any point to jailing someone because "someone else will take their place"
could equally apply to any theft crime - that isn't an argument to stop prosecuting crime.

I urge everyone to actually read the interview at the link you posted:
http://billmoyers.com/2013/09/17/hundreds-of-wall-street-execs-went-to-prison-during-the-last-fraud-fueled-bank-crisis/

So when the regulators ceased making criminal referrals — which had nothing to do with an end of crime, obviously; it just had to do with a refusal to be involved in the prosecutorial effort anymore — they doomed us to a disaster where we would not succeed.

[Sancho]

43. No, it's expensive - and doesn't remove the systemic problem when you jail CEO's

It's been fairly easy to prove companies violated regulations so they have to pay fines. Almost every major company has paid a fine while also giving bonuses and paying dividends. It's quite difficult to prove which company executive should go to jail for crimes.

If the regulations required that a company paying fines had to withhold bonuses - then it would touch the violators immediately and might be easier to prosecute. Likely more effective.

Enron went bankrupt, but some of the top officers took piles of money, some left the US, and many were never punished in any way.

[jberryhill]

42. Both - individual fines and prison

Prison hasn't stopped rapists either, but it gets them off the streets.

[safeinOhio]

2. Throw in

jail time for breaking laws, for the rich and powerful

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. Why isn't she talking about BLM?

[Evergreen Emerald]

11. She has been --you must have been gone yesterday from DU

You missed all the posts about it. And, if you look at her economic plan, you will see that it addresses much of what BLM is suggesting.

[cherokeeprogressive]

13. Her answer to BLM's concerns are found in speeches about economic policy?

Interesting.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. Oops, you misunderstood.

I used "And,..."

1. She was asked questions about BLM yesterday --it was all over DU
2. AND.. her economic plan addresses much of the concerns BLM voiced.

[JaneyVee]

18. No, this is about corporate wrong doing.

[NCTraveler]

22. While some people at du have difficulty taking about more than one issue at a time.

Hillary doesn't. And yes, many of BLM's concerns were addressed in her speech about economic policy. You seem not to care about the facts, just feigning shock. Your inability to comprehend BLM's issues are in large part economic is shocking.

"Her answer to BLM's concerns are found in speeches about economic policy?"

She talked about economic policy and also addressed BLM directly. Neither of which can you actually make an argument against, as is shown by the sputtering. Lets see. An op is started about a position Hillary holds on economics and you want to derail it. Transparent.

[Scuba]

4. "... break the rules." Kinda like using a proper noun in Scrabble, ya know?

Fraud should result in jail sentences, not just keeping your job but not your bonus. What a bonehead.

[PoliticAverse]

5. "Appoint and empower tough, independent-minded regulators" - no more regulators from the industry

they regulate?

"Make sure that when corporations pay fines to the government for wrongdoing, those fines cut into the bonuses of the executives who should have been accountable or should have caught the problem."

What about criminally prosecuting those that break the law instead of just letting them pay a fine?

[jberryhill]

38. Yes, we should get regulators with no background, experience or education in the subject

For example, if you had a degree in finance and some experience with banks, then you will be perfect for the Environmental Protection Agency.

If you have a degree in biology and worked for a pharma company, then by golly, the FDIC is the place for you!

Or maybe the idea is we hire these "tough" regulators fresh out of college with no experience to go after lawyers and experts who have decades of experience in the subject relevant to whatever is being regulated.

Good plan. Good plan.

[Half-Century Man]

6. Bullshit

Take away their freedom when they break the law.
There are 317,000,000(+) people in the Unites States; it is mathematically impossible to not be able to find a replacement for incarcerated executives.

Don't fine them, imprison them.

On Edit
Do you want to end this shit right now?
Put a mandatory sentence clause based on monetary value involved in crimes. 1 year for every $100,000.00 of monetary value. Rob a bank at gun point of $99,999.99; serve your time for armed robbery. Bribe a politician with $100,000.00; both of you serve at least a year ( I know, in the prison next to the unicorn stable).

[djean111]

7. That is a joke on all fronts.

Regulators would be lapdogs from the very industries they are "regulating"

Whistleblowers have no reason to think they will not be punished

Cutting into the bonuses of multi-multi-millionaires who get paid tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars anyway. And the cut to the bonus would, IMO, just be made up for somewhere else.

[HFRN]

8. but not if there's a loophole wink wink

nudge nudge

[-none]

9. Not to worry...

This will be forgotten, no matter who wins the election. Are people forgetting who owns us?

[jberryhill]

10. Fodder for simpleminded

I like Hillary, but this is grade-A nonsense here:


3) Make sure that when corporations pay fines to the government for wrongdoing, those fines cut into the bonuses of the executives who should have been accountable or should have caught the problem.

First, how a company internally allocates its capital is not going to be decided by anyone in the government. It is virtually guaranteed that if you manage to empty the bank account of a large corporation down to its last dollar, then that last dollar is going to be paid as executive bonus. They'll take it out of everything else first.

Secondly, regulators are empowered to go after large fines right now. Why don't they? The answer is simple. Practically no regulatory action against a large corporation is prosecuted to a full stop for the maximum available penalty:

Practically all large penalties paid by large corporations are negotiated to a settlement.

Why? For simple reasons that can't be changed by say-so. Let's say I'm BigCorp If you tell me there is $X on the line, then I'm going to spend up to $X-1 to litigate it, stretch it out, delay it, keep it churning in court. The day before it looks like I might lose, then I'm going into bankruptcy, and then I'm going to stretch that out in bankruptcy court as well. And while I'm paying top-shelf law firms to throw an army at the case, they are going up against the bottom dollar civil-payscale lawyers working for the government who, God bless 'em are great, but a large contingent of them are there to get several years of inside experience before going into private practice as a specialist in that area.

The other thing I'm going to do is work the political end of things to dry up the budget for whatever department wants to embark on a years-long cross-administration complex prosecution of whatever the things is, so it's millions of taxpayer dollars going into that furnace of litigation, while the department has to allocate staff and funds to whatever other priorities they have.

For what? To watch BigCorp hollow itself out to its greedy core, which will be the last functioning organ after all of its employees and pensioners have been jettisoned first. And while BigCorp doesn't actually pay any taxes, it's employees sure do.

Thank GOD ALMIGHTY she's just peddling fluff to the effect that large financial penalties aren't available right now, and couldn't be sought by prosecutors right now instead of suggesting that anyone should go to jail.

So, exactly how does step 3 - "Make sure... those fines cut into the bonuses of the executives" - supposed to work, and why hasn't anyone figured out how to "make sure" that happens, ever?

[Nay]

17. Thank you. It's impossible to make companies allocate like this or to just roll over

for fines, etc. -- highly-paid lawyers fight it out. And we know who wins when that happens.

This is a "feel good" statement for the rubes who don't know how all this works.

[whatchamacallit]

28. +1

[artislife]

32. +++1

[Qutzupalotl]

44. La vache qui rit for the win.

And yes, there is no way to ensure that fines cut into executive bonuses. That is just telling people what they want to hear.

[jberryhill]

12. "Hillary Clinton wants executives to forfeit bonus money when their companies are fined"

And I would like a relaxing rum drink and a foot massage during lunch today.

[ibegurpard]

15. Good idea but

I just don't believe she'd fight for this. Sorry.

[Triana]

16. 4) SLAM SHUT the revolving door between regulators/law enforcement and private corporations. n/t

[jberryhill]

23. That's also something of a pipe dream as well

Tell me how this slamming is supposed to work:

Jim graduated from UMD with a degree in chemistry. After graduation, he got a job with the EPA in Washington. To advance in that career, he went to law school at night at George Mason. He graduated from law school and was internally promoted to an enforcement office of the EPA. He's been working exclusively in the field of environmental law for 20 years. He's in his 40's and is married to Jane.

Jane is a regional manager for a national department store chain. The chain is undergoing re-organization, and she is being transferred to Seattle. There is no office of the EPA in Seattle with an opening for Jim.

Which of the following can Jim do any of the following under your "SLAM SHUT" rule:

1. Get a job with a chemical company, in the regulatory compliance department?

2. Open his own consulting practice in environmental law, and be hired as a consultant to a chemical company?

3. Get a job with a law firm in Seattle that has chemical company clients?

Or is Jim just fucked, in his 40's with no relevant experience to doing anything other than environmental regulation law?

[Triana]

24. So you approve of Eric Holder letting the banks off scot-free then...

...going BACK to work for a law firm which defends their greedy criminal asses.

This type of corruption needs to be stopped.

Pick your own way of doing it but it needs to happen or government will NEVER work for actual people (real ones, not Wall St/corprat ones).

[jberryhill]

25. Oh yes, that's exactly what I approve of! How did you nail it!

What should Eric Holder do for a living for the rest of his life?

I guess he should grow asparagus. I'll bet he'd be really good as an asparagus farmer.

Oh, oh, I know, he should go to work for a law firm that doesn't defend anyone from anything.

There are rules about which clients he can work for and what cases he can work on. What, specifically, would you do to change those rules?

Or are you saying that he should no longer work as a lawyer, full stop.

And if the rule is "Work for an administration for a few years and then find another line of work thereafter" what kind of people are going to sign up for that?

[AgingAmerican]

19. Fuck that, Jail them

She is too close to Wall Street to say 'Jail them'.

[think]

20. These are LAWS they are breaking NOT rules.

[think]

21. In other words relax Wall Street it's "business as usual"

[Gothmog]

26. This is a good idea/proposal

[Myrina]

27. How 'bout just taking away their bonuses?

They already make 475x what their average employees make, isn't that ENOUGH??

[HooptieWagon]

29. How about prison?

Isn't that where criminals belong?

[cantbeserious]

31. No Way To Regulate Private Sector Bonuses

eom

[artislife]

33. Yup nt

[Iliyah]

34. K & R

[Fearless]

35. But let you write the "rules"? I don't think so.

[jberryhill]

36. I addressed point 3 above, but point 1 is pretty funny too

Let's break this one down:

1) Appoint and empower tough, independent-minded regulators...

As opposed to all of those flimsy feeble-minded regulators that everyone's been appointing since, ever. Yeah, there's a huge supply of them, and surely the Senate will confirm every one of them in a position needing confirmation. And you'll find seasoned experts in the relevant fields of regulation from among... oh, I guess people who've been doing it as a hobby for years and decided they wanted to make a career out of it.

But, yeah, nobody EVER thought of appointing good people to regulatory positions. This is a radical departure from anything anyone ever thought of!

...and give them the resources they need to do their jobs.

Because, yeah, the President can decide how much money is going to be spent on what. It's the part of the Constitution that says that Congress determines the budget, unless the president's name is Hillary.

[whatchamacallit]

37. +1

Again.

[99Forever]

39. Same old neoliberal song and dance.

Meaningless tough talk but zero real teeth.

It your intelligence isn't insulted, it should be.

[meow2u3]

40. Hillary doesn't go far enough

I think we should take away all but $100K from executives whose companies are fined for misconduct (we shouldn't leave them flat broke) and give the assets to needy families, especially those whose houses were stolen right out from under them; who were made poor by companies who shipped their jobs to third-world dictatorships; etc.

[wilsonbooks]

45. or we could apply the French solution.