Corporations are people who don't go to jail when they commit crimes

Although corporations are presumed to be people when it comes to campaign contributions, per the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, they are not the sort of people who go to prison when they break the law.

Por ejemplo, if you or I were found to have engaged in "illegal distribution of controlled substances," spurring a a US Attorney to publicly avow our actions were a "threat to public health and safety," one would certainly expect serious prison time. But, for CVS and HEB pharmacies, who allegedly sold drugs to an unlicensed doctor, the result was a stiff fine: "CVS Pharmacy, Inc. paid a civil penalty of $1,912,500 on Thursday, while H-E-B paid $262,500 in early August to resolve the alleged violations of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970," reported the Houston Chronicle ("HEB, CVS, pay more than two million in drug penalties," Sept. 5).

This pattern became apparent after the 2008 financial scandals: Crimes by corporations result in civil settlements that would never be available to  an individual defendant in lieu of, say, a plea bargain.

(On the flip side, the justice system seems to offer little recourse when corporations are victims of major crimes, only minor ones. A shoplifter, they can arrest; the hacker who steals millions of credit card numbers from Target is virtually untouchable.)

To be clear, I'm not calling for HEB nor CVS to be prosecuted further, nor for any individual in the company to face prison time. The deal is done. Perhaps instead, though, the same civil settlement approach should be available to other "people" who are not, like corporations, legal fictions designed to distance owners from personal liability? What's good for the goose ...

RELATED: From The Consumerist (Sept. 12): "How corporations got the same rights as people but don't ever go to jail."

Not buying story of Iranian links to drug cartels

The news story making waves that the Iranian government allegedly tried to have the Saudi Arabian ambassador assassinated on US soil strikes me as squirrelly and self-interested. Said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador? Nobody could make that up, right?" Well, nobody but government officials who rely on a lazy, compliant media to repeat their spin countless times before vetting the facts. (See Bruce Ivins' story, and Steven Hatfill's for classic illustrations, or since these charges could start a war, maybe the Gulf of Tonkin is a better example, or Bush II's claims that Iraq had chemical weapons.)

As it turns out, the suspects did not go to any "Mexican drug cartel" at all, but the case is based on a paid informant from Corpus Christi unaffiliated with any cartel who had state charges dropped in exchange for his services. In reality, the feds could have used an informant pretending to be from the Italian mob, the Crips, Bloods, you name it, since the only link to drug cartels is the cover story they fabricated.

Reported the Texas Tribune, the corporate intelligence service Stratfor says, "It seems unusual that the Iranians would approach a Mexican cartel to carry out the assassination, when the Iranians probably have the capability themselves," and that "at this point the cartels have not been directly linked to the plot."

Why would the Iranian government seek the Saudi ambassador's assassination, and if true, why would they choose to do it on American soil? It makes no sense. I don't yet know what to believe about these allegations, but one thing I know for sure: Only a fool would agree that "Nobody could make that up."

MORE: From Sylvia Longmire and Pete Guither. Amy Davidson at the New Yorker says one thing the story has going for it is an indictment. Read the full complaint here (pdf).