羅伯特·賴克：摩根大通，海外反腐敗法案和美國腐敗

美國司法部剛剛得到文件顯示，摩根大通（華爾街最大的銀行）在華僱傭高官子女，以獲取中國國企“現在和潛在的商機”。“你們都知道我非常信任‘官二代項目’（Sons and Daughters program，摩根大通內部用語——觀察者網譯註）。”摩根大通的一位執行官在郵件中説，因為這樣就能和中國公司“有近乎直線型的關係”，拿到相應的諮詢項目。這些文件甚至列出了銀行將僱員轉化成生意的“業績記錄”。

這是嚴重的犯法行為。不過現實點吧，賄賂中國的所謂“太子黨”，這和華爾街一直在進行的僱傭離職財政部官員有什麼區別呢？都是花錢打點。奧巴馬任內的首位財政部長蒂莫西•蓋特納（Timothy Geithner）如今是私募公司華平集團總裁；奧巴馬的預算主管也已成了花旗集團的高管。

或者換個思路，就事論事，摩根大通在中國的所作所為跟華爾街僱傭美國政客子女的行為有什麼不同？（我就不提切爾西•克林頓（美國前總統比爾•克林頓獨生女——觀察者網譯註）了。2006-2009年她在艾威基金擔任對沖基金經理，靠的是什麼不知道，反正不是金融才能。）

再者，華爾街哪家投行不是往政客競選金庫裏大把大把砸錢，不論民主還是共和黨，華爾街都是主要支持者。摩根大通在中國那點事又算得了什麼呢？

摩根大通在華僱傭高官子女，可那點事又算得了什麼呢？相比之下，美國官員腐敗起來易如反掌。

摩根大通在中國四處打點的恩惠可能觸犯了《海外反腐敗法案》。該法案的規定很嚴格：禁止美國公司以“獲得任何不正當利益”為前提給予外國官員錢財或其他報酬。僱傭官員子女當然可算是一份禮物，即使對本人沒有直接好處。

即便聘用“官二代”並未給公司帶來任何業務或好處，摩根大通也不能以此為理由為自己辯護。根據該法案，禮物不一定跟公司某項利益相關；只要是為了獲取競爭優勢，就是違法。

相比之下，美國官員腐敗起來易如反掌。比如，房地產泡沫破滅前，美國國家金融服務公司曾大方推出“安傑洛”貸款項目。該項目以公司CEO安傑洛•R•莫茲羅（Angelo R. Mozilo）命名，向有影響力的國會議員及其僱員提供優惠房貸。這些貸款至今沒有受到任何刑事或民事指控。

2010年，最高法院就“聯合公民”（Citizens United）一案做出了令國人蒙羞的裁決。最高法院援引憲法第一修正案，將公司和個人等同起來，從而保護了美國公司的政治運作開支不受限制。但在此之前，共和黨一直在不遺餘力地試圖削弱國內反腐敗法。1999年，在聯邦政府訴太陽鑽石種植者（Sun-Diamond Growers）一案中，斯卡利亞大法官將反腐敗案做了過度寬鬆的闡釋，即除非禮物與特定政策相關，否則送禮不違法。

我們甚至沒有要求美國的公司公開股東名單，或者他們給政客送了多少大禮。大約去年的這個時候，美國證監會（SEC）公佈2013年待辦事項清單，稱可能會正式提出一項規則，要求公司公佈其政治運作開支。記錄顯示這一提議獲得了60餘萬條評論，絕大多數是贊同意見。

但是上週，這一提議從2014年的日程表中神秘地消失了，沒有任何解釋。會不會是去年4月新上任的主席瑪麗•喬•懷特（Mary Jo White）受到了共和黨議員的壓力呢？這個提議可是遭到了商團的激烈反對。

《海外反腐敗法案》很重要，摩根大通可能會因賄賂中國官員而被定罪。但是，非要我説的話，為什麼沒有“國內反腐敗法案”？

以前從來沒有這麼多美國公司和華爾街的錢流進中央和各州政府。以前也從來沒有這麼多的政府官員一退休就進了公司、遊説公司、貿易協會和華爾街。我們的民主快被鈔票淹死了。

腐敗就是腐敗，賄賂就是賄賂，在哪個國家、用什麼語言交易，都一樣。

作者羅伯特•賴克：加州大學伯克利大學公共政策教授，克林頓政府勞工部長。《時代》雜誌將其稱為上世紀辦事效率最高的十位美國部長之一。他著有13本書，包括暢銷書《餘震》（Aftershock）和《國家的工作》（The Work of Nations）。他還是《美國前景》雜誌（American Prospect）的創刊編輯之一、“共同事業”（Common Cause）組織主席。

（本文載於《赫芬頓郵報》網站2013年12月8日，原標題JP Morgan Chase, the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act, and the Corruption of America；觀察者網張苗鳳/譯）

（翻頁請看英文原文）

  JP Morgan Chase, the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act, and the Corruption of America

Robert Reich

Posted: 12/08/2013 10:32 pm

The Justice Department has just obtained documents showing that JPMorgan Chase, Wall Street’s biggest bank, has been hiring the children of China’s ruling elite in order to secure “existing and potential business opportunities” from Chinese government-run companies. “You all know I have always been a big believer of the Sons and Daughters program,” says one JP Morgan executive in an email, because “it almost has a linear relationship” to winning assignments to advise Chinese companies. The documents even include spreadsheets that list the bank’s “track record” for converting hires into business deals.

It’s a serious offense. But let’s get real. How different is bribing China’s “princelings,” as they’re called there, from Wall Street’s ongoing program of hiring departing U.S. Treasury officials, presumably in order to grease the wheels of official Washington? Timothy Geithner, Obama’s first Treasury Secretary, is now president of the private-equity firm Warburg Pincus; Obama’s budget director Peter Orszag is now a top executive at Citigroup.

Or, for that matter, how different is what JP Morgan did in China from Wall Street’s habit of hiring the children of powerful American politicians? (I don’t mean to suggest Chelsea Clintongot her hedge-fund job at Avenue Capital LLC, where she worked from 2006 to 2009, on the basis of anything other than her financial talents.)

And how much worse is JP Morgan’s putative offense in China than the torrent of money JP Morgan and every other major Wall Street bank is pouring into the campaign coffers of American politicians -- making the Street one of the major backers of Democrats as well as Republicans?

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, under which JP Morgan could be indicted for the favors it has bestowed in China, is quite strict. It prohibits American companies from paying money or offering anything of value to foreign officials for the purpose of “securing any improper advantage.” Hiring one of their children can certainly qualify as a gift, even without any direct benefit to the official.

JP Morgan couldn’t even defend itself by arguing it didn’t make any particular deal or get any specific advantage as a result of the hires. Under the Act, the gift doesn’t have to be linked to any particular benefit to the American firm as long as it’s intended to generate an advantage its competitors don’t enjoy.

Compared to this, corruption of American officials is a breeze. Consider, for example, Countrywide Financial’s generous “Friends of Angelo” lending program, named after its chief executive, Angelo R. Mozilo, that gave discounted mortgages to influential members of Congress and their staffs before the housing bubble burst. No criminal or civil charges have ever been filed related to these loans.

Even before the Supreme Court’s shameful 2010 “Citizens United” decision -- equating corporations with human beings under the First Amendment, and thereby shielding much corporate political spending - Republican appointees to the Court had done everything they could to blunt anti-bribery laws in the United States. In 1999, in “United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers,” Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, interpreted an anti-bribery law so loosely as to allow corporations to give gifts to public officials unless the gifts are linked to specific policies.

We don’t even require that American corporations disclose to their own shareholders the largesse they bestow on our politicians. Last year around this time, when the Securities and Exchange Commission released its 2013 to-do list, it signaled it might formally propose a rule to require corporations to disclose their political spending. The idea had attracted more than 600,000 mostly favorable comments from the public, a record response for the agency.

But the idea mysteriously slipped off the 2014 agenda released last week, without explanation. Could it have anything to do with the fact that, soon after becoming SEC chair last April, Mary Jo White was pressed by Republican lawmakers to abandon the idea, which was fiercely opposed by business groups.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is important, and JP Morgan should be nailed for bribing Chinese officials. But, if you’ll pardon me for asking, why isn’t there a Domestic Corrupt Practices Act?

Never before has so much U.S. corporate and Wall-Street money poured into our nation’s capital, as well as into our state capitals. Never before have so many Washington officials taken jobs in corporations, lobbying firms, trade associations, and on the Street immediately after leaving office. Our democracy is drowning in big money.

Corruption is corruption, and bribery is bribery, in whatever country or language it’s transacted in.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers “Aftershock” and “The Work of Nations.” He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.