Forum Post: What About Bribery Laws Within the US?
Posted 11 years ago on March 5, 2013, 11:03 a.m. EST by TrevorMnemonic
(5827)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Sheldon Adelson’s Casino Company Stirs Fresh Questions With Admission It ‘Likely’ Broke Federal Law
by Stephen Engelberg, March 4, 2013
Last week's admission by Sheldon Adelson's casino company that it had "likely" violated provisions of the federal law barring U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials raises some intriguing questions. Chief among them: Which transactions by Las Vegas Sands and its far-flung subsidiaries are at issue?
Adelson, one of the world's richest men, came to public prominence during the 2012 campaign, when he and his wife Miriam donated at least $98 million to various candidates and groups. Included was $30 million for the Restore Our Future super PAC that supported Mitt Romney and $20 million to Winning Our Future, a super PAC that backed Newt Gingrich. Late in the campaign, Adelson asserted that federal investigators had targeted his company because of his political activity.
I think it's pretty obvious all sorts of bribery laws were broken. But then again, I consider that 98 million he spent on this past election to be a form of bribery. While he may have lost his bet on the big ticket this past election, he won in Congress and at the state level and has for many years. I wonder what kickbacks his hired politicians give out? Definite bribery.
They are about as effective as truth in advertizing laws, here in the US anyway.
For Adelson though, they would have to cut him up and send the pieces to separate prisons all over the World.
They don't come much slimier.
In Capitalist America Bank Robs You
WallStreet got there first, that's why they bought the FED.
They truly do HATE competition.
[Removed]
He spent this money because he knew Pres willard would never pursue him.
I look forward to see how far Obama /Holeder push this.
Criminal charges - I hope.
Most American bribery is legal - and will be until we get rid of citizens united & corporate person hood
And Organizing for Action. Unions must lose their "personhood" too.
You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you.
I love unions, but we will get zero support from the Rs if we treat them differently I would like to see laws: All political donations ( with a limit ) must go from human voters to candidates
All political expenses must come from candidates
Lobbying will be restricted to accepting contributions & using that money to write or email to tell constituents why to support a candidate
This could be used by unions, corporations or parties
That's why Goldman Sachs funded both campaigns. Not only are they not getting criminal charges, but they manipulated the government to the point that they're profiting off the taxpayers and the federal reserve.
The question is - is any of this illegal? If it is, I suspect Warren will take them down.
If it is not, she will push to change the laws
We need more pro-99% reps in congress
It is illegal. It's bribery. It's racketeering. Obvious racketeering.
Candidates funded by Goldman Sachs voted to give 10 billion dollars to Goldman Sachs in TARP. An idea pushed by a treasury secretary who used to work for Goldman Sachs. And billions and billions more have continually been handed over to them as they commit fraud.
the kind of bribery you refer to is present in almost every race and has been for 100+ years
Are there any lawyers here who can give us the statute that could be used to prosecute?
If I go to my congressman's office and tell him my widget factory will close and lose 500 jobs in his district if we dont get a government contract and I give his super-pac $50,000, what law did I break?
If HJR29 was fully implemented, this could be easily made illegal.
RICO
I'm no lawyer, but it does not seem to apply:
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually do it.
RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
Summary
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil suit; if successful, the individual can collect treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).
When the U.S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he or she has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to temporarily seize a defendant's assets and prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. This provision was placed in the law because the owners of Mafia-related shell corporations often absconded with the assets. An injunction and/or performance bond ensures that there is something to seize in the event of a guilty verdict.
In many cases, the threat of a RICO indictment can force defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges, in part because the seizure of assets would make it difficult to pay a defense attorney. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.[4]
There is also a provision for private parties to sue. A "person damaged in his business or property" can sue one or more "racketeers". The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same. There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise; or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control over, the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering activity; or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above. In essence, the enterprise is the illegal device of the racketeers. A civil RICO action, like many lawsuits based on federal law, can be filed in state or federal court.[5]
Both the federal and civil components allow for the recovery of treble damages.
Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time, "We don't want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and another set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas."
if you've read the RICO act and don't see how it applies to Goldman Sachs, I don't know what to tell you.
HSBC would fall under RICO as they violated many laws. So did Goldman. You might remember they both got let off in recent cases because they're too big to fail.
These banks have broken many laws which federal prosectuors let slide. Shit they haven't broken up a monopoly in years. ExxonMobil is even bigger than it was before Exxon and Mobil were formed after Standard Oil was broken up.
From WIKI
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as the RICO Act or simply RICO, is a United States federal law that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering, and it allows for the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes which they ordered others to do or assisted them, closing a perceived loophole that allowed someone who told a man to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial because he did not actually do it.
RICO was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970). RICO is codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968. While its original use in the 1970s was to prosecute the Mafia as well as others who were actively engaged in organized crime, its later application has been more widespread.
It has been speculated that the name and acronym were selected in a sly reference to the movie Little Caesar, which featured a notorious gangster named Rico. The original drafter of the bill, G. Robert Blakey, refused to confirm or deny this.[1] G. Robert Blakey remains an expert on RICO;[2] his former student Michael Goldsmith also gained a reputation as one of the nation's leading RICO experts.[3]
Under RICO, a person who is a member of an enterprise that has committed any two of 35 crimes—27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes—within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering.
And this means exactly what, in relationship to TM's comments above? Does RICO apply? Or not? If not, why not? Any fool can cut and paste. Can you reason as well? It's good to know you're not a lawyer, but that's obvious. Doesn't stop you from pontificating about that which you seem to know nothing...
But then again, you're carrying water for lobbyists and campaign financiers...
mideast: "All political donations ( with a limit ) must go from human voters to candidates [sic]
"All political expenses must come from candidates [sic]
"Lobbying will be restricted to accepting contributions & using that money to write or email to tell constituents why to support a candidate [sic]
"This could be used by unions, corporations or parties" [sic]
Hate to break it to you, but that's pretty much exactly the way things are now -- let's not set that reform bar too high. Do you want money out of politics? Or not? Is CU your only tin drum? Just a hint -- we had serious problems with campaign finance and lobbying before CU...
FYI - if CU & CP were gone, it would be legal to stop ALL free speech from non-humans
Does RICO apply?
Heaven forbid I should cite a source instead of inventing my own twisted logic to try to prove a point stated in law.
If I am wrong about RICO ( and unlike most who post here - I admit I could be ) -
post the part of the law that could be used to prosecute a bankster.
What you cited was not a "source", but a wiki abstract mideast. Well, was it named for Edward G's character or not? Pressing information given our current state of affairs, grave matters we consider, and all that hogwash...
Sorry, cutting and pasting RICO statutes sounds like so little fun. While I've read the statutes, it's not my area of expertise and, unlike you, I'm not trying to pass myself off as an expert by citing and pasting dubious "sources" and summaries as law... If this is the depth of your expertise, well...
BTW, what about defending your statements from above:
mideast: "All political donations ( with a limit ) must go from human voters to candidates [sic]
"All political expenses must come from candidates [sic]
"Lobbying will be restricted to accepting contributions & using that money to write or email to tell constituents why to support a candidate [sic]
"This could be used by unions, corporations or parties" [sic]
Sounds like you're a political man?
sorry - i missed your answer - please cite the law that can be used to prosecute
not the NAME of the law - but the text of the section that can be used to prosecute banksters
defending???
With CU & CP gone, these changes are possible:
"All political donations ( with a limit ) must go from human voters to candidates [sic]
"All political expenses must come from candidates [sic]
"Lobbying will be restricted to accepting contributions & using that money to write or email to tell constituents why to support a candidate [sic]
Do you disagree?
And excepting CU and CP, just how, exactly, is your proposal any different from the campaign finance laws that got us here?
Individuals already contribute (with limits) to candidates.
All political expenses for a campaign are already paid by the candidate (well, his bookkeeper at least).
And lobbyists already contribute to officeholders with the expectation those funds will support his next (or ongoing rather) campaign.
Campaign finance is a terribly thorny issue and what you propose is no different than what got us here in the first place. I'm not trying to be combative, nor mock your ideas, but simply point out that CU and CP are dangerous precisely because they are so narrowly focused. Repealing CU and overturning CP will not protect candidates from a "wealth primary" because it does not address the underlying circumstances which give it rise.
By asking you to defending your statements above, I'm asking you to differentiate your ideas from current law regardless of CU and CP. I don't necessarily disagree with you... but you need to consider the implications of what you propose.
CU & CP - as they exist now - void almost all campain finance restrictions
without a constitutional amendment overturning CU & CP,
we cannot legally stop the koch from giving $1,000,000,000 to a superpac we cannot legally stop any company from contributing
we cannot regulate or stop lobbying IF CU & CP were gone, we could legally pass a law that stops contributions over a certain number
All you need for a civil RICO case against the banks is to have multiple organizations involved in a conspiracy for fraud. It would have been much easier had they not colluded and funded politicians to take out securities fraud aspects from RICO in 1995. Now first they must be found guilty of the securities fraud, but this corrupt government has never prosecuted the banks that fund their campaigns. If they were to prosecute, civil RICO would and does apply.
I think there are several other areas where RICO can apply too.
The anti-trust laws can also be used to split up banks. Too big to fail and all the acts of fraud that have been committed means they violate anti-trust laws and are therefore illegal.
Lets hope Warren lives up to the banks' expectations
With big assist from Washington pols. I can't understand the focus on Wall St when it ignores their partners in crime. Wall St merely launders the money being stolen in DC.
simple - don't blame wall street or Washington
sever the connection so wall street cannot buy Washington
Hi mideast,
Am posting my reply here.
mideast:
CU & CP - as they exist now - void almost all campain finance restrictions without a constitutional amendment overturning CU & CP, we cannot legally stop the koch from giving $1,000,000,000 to a superpac we cannot legally stop any company from contributing we cannot regulate or stop lobbying IF CU & CP were gone, we could legally pass a law that stops contributions over a certain number
DSamms:
Yes, I understand CU and CP and share your concerns. Moreover I support an amendment to not only overturn CU and CP, but effect "the Separation of Wealth and State" (a friend coined the term). Now I'm not precisely sure what that phrase means, but I'd like to ask what it makes you think...
Two key elements of any Amendment
"Separation of wealth and state": Once CU & CP are gone, we can pass ordinary laws that limit campaign contrinutions to $100 per humans only. And ANY corporate political "speech" could be stopped.
I agree with both elements and $100 sounds affordable to me. But I do not propose any amendment. I propose process. I do support movetoamend's efforts and others. But I think them unlikely to succeed based on the process employed. Hopefully, and substantively, I will be proven wrong. But if not, we'll need alternatives. This alternative is designed to function Constitutionally in the only forum the USG cannot ignore, dismiss or foreclose unless willing to forego legitimacy.
MTA's amendment is IN CONGRESS today
HJR29
Well, let's see if it passes (intact or not). If so, yeah! If not, it's crunch time.
There are too many Rs in the house.
And Harry was too scared to get rid of the filibuster.
Virtually everyone in the House & Senate that supported a similar bill last year ( around 100 ) was a D or I.
I would vote for any electable candidate D or R or G or I who supports HJR29
You, personally, can only vote for two candidates, one Representative and one Senator, to Congress. One hundred supporters in Congress, be they D, I or R, is far from a 2/3s majority. And, as you say: "There are too many Rs in the House." But how many Ds didn't step up either?
But you can only vote for one Rep. Last time, did you vote for a good witch or a bad witch? Or was your only choice the lesser of two evils?
I prefer one hundred million supporters at the polls. I am tired of the lesser of two evils, time and again. Screw the parties and their politicians.
I prefer to vote for ( and did vote for ) candidates who support amendments like HR29 Over 100 reps already did.
And 1,900,000 have signed petitions supporting this idea
This is a real ( but difficult ) path
None of the candidates in our races supported either. What choice? Any path worth the effort will be difficult. But any path controlled by the twin parties will be futile.
tell that to Elizabet h Warren
[Removed]
Wall Street and the big bank have captured control of the government. Many people are aware of their partners in crime.