A post that isn't about Iraq!

Recently, officials from the state of California presented the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with evidence that during the massive energy crisis the state faced during 2000 and 2001, the states major energy wholesalers conspired to manipulate energy availability and otherwise create situations to artificially increase the price they could charge for power.  The officials claim that the energy companies overcharged California consumers to the tune of $9 billion dollars and is now seeking refunds from the companies to their customers who were victimized by the scheme.

There are some who feel that white-collar crimes, such as this, deserve harsher punishment than just paying restitution or fines.  They feel that corporations that commit crimes should be treated like any other criminal, and subject to a white-collar version of the states "three strikes" law, and a bill to that effect has now been introduced in the California State Senate.

California State Senator Gloria Romero recently introduced a bill that would hold California's law-breaking corporations to the same standard to which the state holds its law-breaking citizens. Three strikes and you're out. If a corporation commits three major violations that result in a fine of at least $1 million or a death, the California Attorney General will revoke the corporation's charter. For companies incorporated in other states, three strikes means that they will lose their right to transact business in California.

It's certainly a novel approach, and given that California is one of the nations most populous states, it could have a strong impact on businesses across the country who do business there.  Firms that run afoul of California law and find themselves unable to do business there any longer may lose enough of their consumer base that they will end up bankrupt or simply shut down.  I have no doubt that opponents of the measure will argue that putting companies out of business in this way could have a devastating impact on the economy - not just in California, but also in the other states where the company had been doing business.

I think this argument has some merit - in part because each state has their own laws and regulations, and what may be perfectly acceptable behaviour in New York might be illegal in California.  At the same time, however, companies should be well aware of what the laws are for each state they do business in, and they should be expected to follow those laws.  If a company is consistently engaging in actions that are serious enough to result in major fines or the death of customers (the criteria that would trigger the corporate three-strikes law), there's certainly a question as to what, if any, benefit there is in their continuing to do business.

It'll be interesting to see if there's enough concern over white-collar crime for it to gain sufficient support to become a point of public debate.  Many people do not seem to consider white-collar crimes as being as "bad" as "regular" crimes - and are willing to cut corporations more slack in terms of what they can get away with.  Some of this, I think, stems from the perception that white-collar crime doesn't really "victimize" someone they same way a robbery, assault or murder does - that it's "only money", so it can't be that bad.  Yet with the economy in the poor shape its in, and money being as tight as it is, there may be a change in that perception.  People can ill afford to be overcharged on their energy bills, or otherwise suffer the economic effects of corporate crime - and they may be more willing to support harsher measure to try and deter companies from committing those crimes in the first place.

For more views on this proposal, see the discussion at MetaFilter.