Whistleblowing: Hollywood takes a stand

A few days ago, I went to see George Clooney's newest thriller, Michael Clayton. To my surprise, Clooney produces a compelling and provoking film that demonstrates how different businesspeople handle the weight of ethics in their demanding corporate lives. Michael Clayton speaks not only to ethical dilemmas present for corporate employees, but also brings to light the current context on the pressing issue of whistleblowing.

The title character Michael Clayton (Clooney pictured left) is a burned-out and divorced father who works as a "janitor" for one of the most powerful Manhattan law firms. Clayton is called in to clean up the complex mess that ensues after one of the firm's top attorneys (Tom Wilkinson) has had a psychotic meltdown in the midst of a deposition for chemical giant U-North. In the process of trying to keep Edens away from the media, Clayton finds evidence that U-North may have knowingly and recklessly endangered the health of an entire Wisconsin community. This both pushes him toward a moral crisis and puts his law firm in danger of losing the biggest case of its life.

Clooney's character is paralleled by U-North's general counsel, Tilda Swinton. While both lawyers are on the same team, they choose different ethical paths to follow. Swinton's primary goal is to keep people from discovering U-North's corporate conspiracy. Clayton instead has to make the choice between outing U-North and remaining quiet so that his law firm can win the case. Harvard Law's The Record says the film "asks its audience to consider some difficult moral problems, but it does so in an unassuming way that leaves its audience satisfied in questioning the motivations and actions of these lawyers at the end." While Clayton blows the whistle on U-North at the end, it leaves one wondering if people actually find the courage to do so in corporate reality.

The term "whistleblower" originated hundreds of years ago and continues to be prevalent today. In early 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that government employees did not have protection from retaliation by their employers under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In response however, Congress introduced the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007 (sarcastic advertisement to the right), which had significant bipartisan support. However, President Bush promised to veto the bill if it was actually enacted by Congress. The bill is still on hold today. Without protection from their employers, employees who out their companies will not feel safe to do so and therefore more corporate fraud and corruption will continue to infest the economy.

Previous legislation has given too many loopholes to corporations. After the end of the 90s and early 2000s with Enron and WorldCom, Congress passed the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which largely failed due to the Department of Labor regulations and various judges' interpretations. Rulings on the SOX act have been so varied that private employees "who expose wrongdoing are likely to suffer punishment and get the cold shoulder from the federal government." University of Nebraska College of Law found that employees win only 1 in 25 cases brought under the SOX Act.

After an employee discovers and reports an ethical dilemma in the company, what happens to their job? Hopefully, legislation like the Whistleblower Protection Act will pass but in the mean time, where do employees turn? A few days ago, the famed "Walmart Whistleblower" Chalace Lowry was given a job back within Walmart after she reported what she thought was insider training by a senior executive. Walmart gave her 60-90 days to find another job. However, Lowry reapplied to over 30 positions within Walmart, the very corporation she reported. "I acted in good faith, just pointing out that there might have been some wrongdoing," said Lowry in June. Lowry is now assisting a legal team, ironically led by the woman tasked at Enron with reassigning their whistleblower, Sherron Watkins, to a new position.

In an MSNBC article, "Whistleblowers who made their mark," government affiliated agencies are the most reported organizations, highlighted in the last several days with the CIA. They are investigating one of their own employees, who has been reporting negatively on the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation programs. These people who speak out most of the time in a negative light on the corporation, like the CIA agent, cannot fade away into the media landscape. Citizens who have the courage to stand up and speak out need to be protected, so that there can be some system of controlling money mongers without consciences.

Bush Administration Outlines 2008 Budget: Paves the way for more White Collar Crime

The Bush administration ignited a bruising battle with Congress last week, demanding the mammoth sum of over 190 billion dollars to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While the Bush administration is clawing deeper into the government's pocket for the War on Terror, they are neglecting crucial programs at home. With the allotted 190 billion dollar budget, the FBI will lose critical funding for their criminal program, which Congress believes will cripple the bureau's ability to tackle white-collar fraud and other criminal injustices on the rise within the United States. White-collar crime has been on the rise in the last couple of years. Since September 11, many corporate criminals have escaped prosecutions because Bush has drastically shifted his funding programs towards increasing militarization and security as a result of the War on Terror. However, if he continues to do so as his 2008 budget outlines, corporations will take advantage of the loopholes.

President Bush has made, what esteemed blog "Comments from the Left Field" says is, a "wholesale shift" from domestic issues. The threat of terror abroad frightens the public, yet what they do not realize is that many corporations are stealing and defrauding them without their knowledge. White collar crime, defined as a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation, costs the United States government $300 billion dollars annually. Already, thousands of criminals have escaped the federal prosecution since September 11. According to the justice department, there has been a 34% drop in white-collar crime cases reported to the federal government and a 30% decline in convictions. The Internet is a threatening gateway for white-collar criminals to exploit the public, having simple one-click access personal and financial information. Former FBI congressional liaison Charlie Mandigo believes that cutting agents will leave the door open for crime to become global and make it more difficult "to address interstate crime where local police do not have the capability, resources and jurisdiction."

Bush and convicted white-collar criminals are far too friendly, especially Enron. The White House and Enron have at times seemed interchangeable, both financially and politically. According to political author Sander Hicks, Vice President Cheney and Bush's campaign advisor Karl Rove previously consulted with Enron Chair Ken Lay on energy policy. Lay also gave suggestions to Rove on government nominations, creating a revolving door of personnel: five former Enron employees work in the White House and Cabinet. Enron donated almost "$2.4 million to federal candidates, and $2 million to Bush alone. They were in turn rewarded with legislation that allowed them to profit off the deregulation of state-run power industries," according to Hicks. Bush's tax cuts are designed to benefit his wealthy contributors, so that by 2010 the top 1 percent of Americans will have received 51.8 percent of the total tax cut and the bottom 20 percent will have received 1.2 percent. When money and politics meet, money prevails over ethics. Entanglements with white-collar crime do not begin and end with the Republican Party, however because Bush is in the executive chair right now, he has come under fire. Currently, the Democrats have united against Bush in Congress and are vehemently opposed to his tax cuts in many areas, FBI funding included.

Senator Patty Murray, D-Wash., is leading the Congressional effort against the new budget. Democrats and many Republicans have asked Bush to reexamine his tax cut policy. Murray claims that if Bush is willing to take money from the FBI for programming, he should be willing to change his tax cut proportions and reallocate the money. She approached the FBI and also implored the President to increase funding. In 2005 Washington sent only 28 white-collar cases to the federal government, which was a 90% drop from the year before. Bush has already transferred 2,400 agents since 2001, and if Bush takes more agents to his counterterrorism squad, the impact will affect the American people nationwide. Murray, however, is treading lightly. There is a fear the Bush will exercise his veto power. Because legislative and executive branches are politically misaligned, there is a significant power struggle and fear of the other gaining more power. Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order "achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government. Having lost control of Congress, the President is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch."

Throughout the upper half of the last century, corporations, led by the contagious disease of greed, have sought emphatically for loopholes to cheat the system. Author Terry Leap argues in his book Dishonest Dollars: The Dynamics of White Collar Crime that "greed is difficult to understand, attributable to compulsive behavior and psychological behavior that can distort a person." Allowing adequate funding for the enforcement policies of white-collar crime is necessary to further democracy at home, regardless of what is happening abroad.

The American Government: A fair and just business

The Forefathers had the idea to create a fair and just government, reflecting the feelings and sentiments of the majority of the people. However, over time this ideal has become warped. Through profit motivation and greed innately present in human nature, the ideals of "fair and just" have not fully materialized. Recently, some actions of the government have reflected more like those of a business. This week I have entered the blogosphere to find some other relevant opinions on the ideas of government and business. I commented on two blogs, which referred to different news topics but which I related to a broader common theme: the American government often operates as an unethical business. Both blogs received high authority ratings from Technorati and also follow the IMSA criteria evaluation standards for blogs. Author Edward Morrissey, a conservative Minnesota radio host of a respected talk show, writes a stimulating post titled "Celebrity endorsements, Political Contributions, and Hsu" on his blog Captain's Quarters. Through this post, Morrissey explores how Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (pictured above) used money from an unethical source in order to fund her political campaign. I also responded to a second post, titled "Feds Target Blackwater in Weapons Probe," from another conservative blog Texas Fred. I argue with this author in his post, where he comments on Blackwater USA (soldiers pictured with Blackwater weapons above), a United States military weapons contractor who is allegedly being investigated for illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq.

"Celebrity endorsements, Political Contributions, and Hsu"
Comment to Captain's Quarters:

Firstly, I find your post extremely thought provoking. Although you say that you believe Clinton must have known about Hsu's past, I believe that her knowledge of Hsu's illegal scam is practically irrelevant. Even if she did not know, it shows she did not care enough to deeply investigate Hsu, who was one of her biggest fundraising contributors. Her motivation was to get the money for her campaign; the work and time to look deeper into Hsu's background was clouded by the necessity to get campaign funding. I think it is really important to see that getting the people's votes in America has become a business, teeming with unethical interactions. Pretend for a moment that Hsu did not fraud $23 million from investors and did not have a shady past, Hsu was in charge of getting money for Clinton from investor groups for her campaign. For decades and possibly centuries, candidates have been garnering money from politically charged factions that later require some sort of favor. The accepted American system of electing members of government is not conducive to a just and fair way of governing.
As you stated, Hsu had celebrity endorsements: "Tobey Maguire got caught up in the spider web as well. Stephen Spielberg's close encounters with Hsu convinced investors that Hsu was on the level." These celebrities, who have general public support and are respected figures helped Hsu raise money. They too did not really have an idea who they were helping. However, when it comes to politics, it is obvious that getting elected has become a business. The candidate hires a "professional" like Hsu, they "find" money in order to make their product sell, even if the product could be our next just and honorable president.

"Feds Target Blackwater in Weapons Probe"
Comment to Texas Fred:

I agree with your support of the troops and your strong nationalism toward our government. However, I believe when profit is at stake, people will follow unethical and unjust means in order to accomplish their ends. That is why in this case, the United States Attorney General needs to conduct a deep probe into Blackwater USA. Looking at Blackwater's history, it does not provide a clean slate on which to evaluate them. I am looking at this situation from an business viewpoint, and when a contracted government company is perhaps violating ethical standards, a huge red flag needs to be waved. I am skeptical of Blackwater in general, who the Associated Press in an article titled "'Cowboy' Aggression Works for Blackwater" outlines its in depth involvement with the Republican party. The article says, and I believe you also say, that Blackwater has one task: to protect state department diplomats. As part of their contract, they do abide by this principle. However, does our country want such an organization that compromises ethical behavior in order to not only protect lives but also make money at doing so? Putting aside their recent media storm, at the beginning of last year, two former Blackwater employees pled guilty possessing stolen firearms. The firm is also entangled in GOP fundraising campaigns, giving more than $200, 000, which according to the AP article has allowed Blackwater to operate in a "murky legal world" during the Republican reign.
By using Blackwater, the government becomes twisted into their transactions. Hopefully this issue can be resolved as justly as possible, and the government will let the situation unfold and hold Blackwater accountable as the legal system outlines.