The attorneys general of a number of states are conducting "investigations" into whether or not oil companies can be sued for violating the RICO statutes for allegedly defrauding the public by claiming that climate change is not real. That's a gross oversimplification of the content of the investigation, but it's still pretty close to the substance of the investigations. The attorneys general involved are all ultra-liberal ones from states like Vermont and New York. They claim that (1) companies like Exxon knew that burning fossil fuels like oil increased carbon emissions and that this in turn caused global warming; (2) the companies nevertheless told the public that the threat from global warming was minor at most and that the emissions of carbon dioxide are not dangerous; and (3) this was done to maximize their continuing profits from their oil and gas production.
The claims by these attorneys general is a new way to use the RICO statutes. It is also a dangerous way for the government to step in to suppress debate about scientific and political issues. The RICO statutes were designed to fight organized crime, not to prevent speech that the government doesn't like.
We can debate whether or not these investigations are proper. It would be a one-sided debate, however, since there is little doubt that RICO does not apply in this case. Nevertheless, the point of the investigations is not to actually recover anything from Exxon and its sister companies. The goal is to shut them up from voicing their views about global warming and the theory that underlies that issue.
Instead of debating that issue, I would like instead to consider an alternative. Why shouldn't the attorneys general of other states begin an investigation of their colleagues who are conducting the RICO investigation. Think about it. An attorney general like New York AG Eric Schneiderman keeps making public pronouncements about Exxon and its activities with regard to global warming. These statements by Schneiderman are made to be transmitted by wire and by mail. If the allegations against Exxon are false (and they are), then the false statements by Schneiderman could be considered wire fraud and mail fraud. Schneiderman would be using the NY Attorney General's office to carry out multiple acts of wire and mail fraud. The point of these repeated statements would be to gain for Schneiderman and his allies contributions to "green organizations" and continued government support for alternative energy projects. In other words, one could argue that Schneiderman's conduct is actually a violation of the RICO statutes. The same could be said of the activities of the attorney generals from other states. The attorney general of another state wouldhave standing to bring the charge because the false statements would have been broadcast into their states and misled the people in those states.
This is far from a detailed analysis as to why someone like the Texas Attorney General should begin such an investigation. Nevertheless, the point is that such turnabout would surely be as valid as the original investigation.
By the way, there is news today that the various attorneys general investigating Exxon and the others secretly coordinated their activities with each other and environmental organizations. It's a fact that would go a long way towards proving a RICO violation.
The claims by these attorneys general is a new way to use the RICO statutes. It is also a dangerous way for the government to step in to suppress debate about scientific and political issues. The RICO statutes were designed to fight organized crime, not to prevent speech that the government doesn't like.
We can debate whether or not these investigations are proper. It would be a one-sided debate, however, since there is little doubt that RICO does not apply in this case. Nevertheless, the point of the investigations is not to actually recover anything from Exxon and its sister companies. The goal is to shut them up from voicing their views about global warming and the theory that underlies that issue.
Instead of debating that issue, I would like instead to consider an alternative. Why shouldn't the attorneys general of other states begin an investigation of their colleagues who are conducting the RICO investigation. Think about it. An attorney general like New York AG Eric Schneiderman keeps making public pronouncements about Exxon and its activities with regard to global warming. These statements by Schneiderman are made to be transmitted by wire and by mail. If the allegations against Exxon are false (and they are), then the false statements by Schneiderman could be considered wire fraud and mail fraud. Schneiderman would be using the NY Attorney General's office to carry out multiple acts of wire and mail fraud. The point of these repeated statements would be to gain for Schneiderman and his allies contributions to "green organizations" and continued government support for alternative energy projects. In other words, one could argue that Schneiderman's conduct is actually a violation of the RICO statutes. The same could be said of the activities of the attorney generals from other states. The attorney general of another state wouldhave standing to bring the charge because the false statements would have been broadcast into their states and misled the people in those states.
This is far from a detailed analysis as to why someone like the Texas Attorney General should begin such an investigation. Nevertheless, the point is that such turnabout would surely be as valid as the original investigation.
By the way, there is news today that the various attorneys general investigating Exxon and the others secretly coordinated their activities with each other and environmental organizations. It's a fact that would go a long way towards proving a RICO violation.
No comments:
Post a Comment