罗伯特·赖克：摩根大通，海外反腐败法案和美国腐败

美国司法部刚刚得到文件显示，摩根大通（华尔街最大的银行）在华雇佣高官子女，以获取中国国企“现在和潜在的商机”。“你们都知道我非常信任‘官二代项目’（Sons and Daughters program，摩根大通内部用语——观察者网译注）。”摩根大通的一位执行官在邮件中说，因为这样就能和中国公司“有近乎直线型的关系”，拿到相应的咨询项目。这些文件甚至列出了银行将雇员转化成生意的“业绩记录”。

这是严重的犯法行为。不过现实点吧，贿赂中国的所谓“太子党”，这和华尔街一直在进行的雇佣离职财政部官员有什么区别呢？都是花钱打点。奥巴马任内的首位财政部长蒂莫西•盖特纳（Timothy Geithner）如今是私募公司华平集团总裁；奥巴马的预算主管也已成了花旗集团的高管。

或者换个思路，就事论事，摩根大通在中国的所作所为跟华尔街雇佣美国政客子女的行为有什么不同？（我就不提切尔西•克林顿（美国前总统比尔•克林顿独生女——观察者网译注）了。2006-2009年她在艾威基金担任对冲基金经理，靠的是什么不知道，反正不是金融才能。）

再者，华尔街哪家投行不是往政客竞选金库里大把大把砸钱，不论民主还是共和党，华尔街都是主要支持者。摩根大通在中国那点事又算得了什么呢？

摩根大通在华雇佣高官子女，可那点事又算得了什么呢？相比之下，美国官员腐败起来易如反掌。

摩根大通在中国四处打点的恩惠可能触犯了《海外反腐败法案》。该法案的规定很严格：禁止美国公司以“获得任何不正当利益”为前提给予外国官员钱财或其他报酬。雇佣官员子女当然可算是一份礼物，即使对本人没有直接好处。

即便聘用“官二代”并未给公司带来任何业务或好处，摩根大通也不能以此为理由为自己辩护。根据该法案，礼物不一定跟公司某项利益相关；只要是为了获取竞争优势，就是违法。

相比之下，美国官员腐败起来易如反掌。比如，房地产泡沫破灭前，美国国家金融服务公司曾大方推出“安杰洛”贷款项目。该项目以公司CEO安杰洛•R•莫兹罗（Angelo R. Mozilo）命名，向有影响力的国会议员及其雇员提供优惠房贷。这些贷款至今没有受到任何刑事或民事指控。

2010年，最高法院就“联合公民”（Citizens United）一案做出了令国人蒙羞的裁决。最高法院援引宪法第一修正案，将公司和个人等同起来，从而保护了美国公司的政治运作开支不受限制。但在此之前，共和党一直在不遗余力地试图削弱国内反腐败法。1999年，在联邦政府诉太阳钻石种植者（Sun-Diamond Growers）一案中，斯卡利亚大法官将反腐败案做了过度宽松的阐释，即除非礼物与特定政策相关，否则送礼不违法。

我们甚至没有要求美国的公司公开股东名单，或者他们给政客送了多少大礼。大约去年的这个时候，美国证监会（SEC）公布2013年待办事项清单，称可能会正式提出一项规则，要求公司公布其政治运作开支。记录显示这一提议获得了60余万条评论，绝大多数是赞同意见。

但是上周，这一提议从2014年的日程表中神秘地消失了，没有任何解释。会不会是去年4月新上任的主席玛丽•乔•怀特（Mary Jo White）受到了共和党议员的压力呢？这个提议可是遭到了商团的激烈反对。

《海外反腐败法案》很重要，摩根大通可能会因贿赂中国官员而被定罪。但是，非要我说的话，为什么没有“国内反腐败法案”？

以前从来没有这么多美国公司和华尔街的钱流进中央和各州政府。以前也从来没有这么多的政府官员一退休就进了公司、游说公司、贸易协会和华尔街。我们的民主快被钞票淹死了。

腐败就是腐败，贿赂就是贿赂，在哪个国家、用什么语言交易，都一样。

作者罗伯特•赖克：加州大学伯克利大学公共政策教授，克林顿政府劳工部长。《时代》杂志将其称为上世纪办事效率最高的十位美国部长之一。他著有13本书，包括畅销书《余震》（Aftershock）和《国家的工作》（The Work of Nations）。他还是《美国前景》杂志（American Prospect）的创刊编辑之一、“共同事业”（Common Cause）组织主席。

（本文载于《赫芬顿邮报》网站2013年12月8日，原标题JP Morgan Chase, the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act, and the Corruption of America；观察者网张苗凤/译）

（翻页请看英文原文）

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.