Yes. But that’s not a RICO issue. That’s a Rule 10b-5 issue (10b-5 is the SEC rule that prohibits misleading statements in shareholder disclosures by publicly traded companies). Corporations are found guilty of 10b-5 violations all the time.
[ul]
[li]Mail fraud[/li][li]Wire fraud[/li][li]Honest services fraud[/li][li]Probably a number of other things…[/li][/ul]
Are they guilty of any of those? Could those constitute a pattern?
Perhaps. But there is no way that a GOP-controlled Congress is going to allow that sort of litigation to go forward. And that’s not a slam on Congress or the GOP for being beholden to corporate interests; it’s a slam on them for being climate change deniers.
To me, this sounds awfully similar to the disinformation campaigns being waged by the fossil fuel companies.
True, but that’s a separate question from whether or not they should be charged.
And if you won’t slam them for being beholden to corporate interests, I certainly will. Not that the Democrats are completely innocent either.
See post 40.
Yes, but climate change nonbelievers would/will oppose this sort of Justice Department action even if they hadn’t received a dime from oil companies.
Maybe I haven’t had enough coffee yet, but I don’t see the connection to post 40. That post gives a reason that they should be charged, at least with something.
And yes, there are true believers (non-believers actually) who have no financial stake, but certainly some of our lawmakers have financial interests at stake.
Whoops. Post 39. Post 40 is… yours. :smack:
What are the ‘health effects and addictiveness’ of petroleum’? Especially when balanced against the greater good they provide?
Okay. Perhaps there’s a disadvantage to shareholders? The price they paid for those shares may not reflect the negative information. Could the obfuscation of negative information perhaps be a direct harm to shareholders? Regardless of whether or not share prices are inflated, is the lack of important information a direct harm?
Well, that’s tricky. The shareholders have arguably benefited from the obfuscation far more than they’ve been harmed by it. There is a fairly long line of cases that say that shareholders don’t have the right to feel good about their investments on a moral level; they can vote for directors who will give money to breast cancer research and promote sustainability or whatever but they can’t sue the corporation if those things don’t happen.
Rational people will oppose this action because:
1)It will harm the economy
2)Oil makes our lives better
3)Unlike the effects of smoking its far harder to understand what petroleum products are doing to facilitate CC
4)Government prosecution of opinion or so-called thought crimes or of entities opporating legally in their self-interest should be repulsive in a free society.
The tobacco companies also didn’t really lose; they simply raised their prices. This disproportionately hurts poorer/working class folks.
The automobile/heating oil etc has been a great benefit to humanity overall. The same can not be said for tobacco. (I wonder if there would have even been a suit against toba co companies if they hadn’t spiked the nicotine to make them more addictive. Where is the smoking gun against the petrolium industries?)
I see what you did there.
I’m rational, and I wouldn’t oppose this action on any of those grounds, madsircool. What evidence is there that it will harm the economy? The market works best when buyers and sellers are fully informed.
Oil won’t be banned regardless of what happens, so #2 is not a relevant consideration.
It’s easy to understand what petroleum products are doing to facilitate climate change; it’s just hard to understand to what extent they are doing it.
There are no “thought crimes” going on here, so I don’t even need to address that one. If the companies have been acting legally, then this action will fail anyway so #4 is not a relevant consideration at all.
Is there any evidence that tobacco companies raised their prices? The rise in the cost of cigarettes is almost entirely due to tax hikes. Anyway, rising oil prices are a net positive in the long term since they spur consumers to act and buy more sustainably.
ETA: Have I been whooshed?
I think a civil RICO case would have less chance of success against big oil than against big tobacco. Also, the penalties are very limited in such a case. I believe the outcome of the civil RICO case was that big tobacco was required to basically start a campaign in the public to correct its past misinformation. I think several of the modern day “smoking is bad for you” ad campaigns are ran by an organization set up as an outcome of this case.
I don’t believe there were significant financial penalties. The big pay out from big tobacco was with the “Master Settlement Agreement” which was entered into with like 45 or so State Attorneys General and resulted in tens of billions of dollars in payouts form big tobacco. That wasn’t a result of the RICO case (the tobacco companies did not settle the RICO case, they lost–a judge ruled against him and his ruling was upheld in multiple appeals.)
As the judge who found the tobacco companies guilty of RICO violations explains in his judgment:
It may or may not be worth pursuing, but a lot of the underlying behavior of big tobacco was criminal because they were lying to the public about their products in a collusive scheme to maximize profits. That on the surface has some similarities to climate change denial but I think there’s a few things that work against it. I think it would be very difficult to establish that big oil has defrauded the public since the public largely has believed in human-caused climate change for some time, at least in a majority of opinion polling. Further, lots of researchers outside of the oil majors have been releasing scientific papers for decades now to this effect. With tobacco, big tobacco really did control a lot of the research being done on tobacco’s health effects, and since it was done by their internal scientists it was easy to keep it hidden.
There was also a lot of specific damning evidence found in terms of coordination of efforts between the different companies, I’m not sure if such evidence is there for the oil majors. That collusion between different parties is key to sustaining a RICO charge.
In the long run, we’ll all be dead. 
But do you think you can get a general agreement among economist that rising oil prices are a net positive? How much of a “rise” are you talking about?
Missing the point again, that conviction was not achieved does not mean that the prosecution was useless. What happened to the Tobacco companies is very informative. They did settle so there was no conviction, however several important things did happen as a result:
IMHO if this was a perfect world one would see the perpetrators be charged with crimes against humanity at The Hage, but one has to live in this time and age, the settlement was a good result as it also included the dismantling of the Tobacco related groups that delivered twisted science to be used to confuse the issue.
It’s not a matter of feeling right on a moral level. That’s not what I’m talking about. It’s a matter of not having information that may at some point have a large negative effect on their investment and cause them to lose value.
Among economists generally? Of course not. Environmental problems are an externality. It’s not an economic argument (or rather it’s an anti-economic argument).
That’s kind of the point, though: that hasn’t happened yet.
Right. So the current price may not reflect the real value because of the disinformation campaign. If shareholders have been misled, isn’t that an issue even before the price reflects the real information? I don’t know. Are there SEC rules or legal precedents regarding the hiding of negative information?