Justice or revenge?
By Philip
Mattera, director of the Corporate
Research Project, for the Dirt
Diggers Digest
Nothing was said about the ways in which the DOJ has been
substantially disarmed over the past eight years and will
probably be further weakened in the next four. That is with regard to the
prosecution of corporations, which are increasingly being treated with leniency
rather than the iron fist commonly proposed for other types of offenders.
Bondi spoke repeatedly during the hearing about her intention to crack down on drug dealers, terrorists, human traffickers, and immigration violators. There were some oblique references to business malfeasance.
She responded positively to comments on the False Claim Act offered by Sen. Grassley, who reminded us of his leading role in the 1986 updating of the Civil War-era law to enhance the role of whistleblowers. It was unclear, however, whether Bondi was signaling her interest in cases against major federal contractors or just ones targeting smaller fish such as individual healthcare providers.
Bondi also agreed with comments by Sen. Klobuchar about the
importance of antitrust. Here it was unclear whether this indicated support for
aggressive action against corporate concentration of all kinds or just cases
against the Big Tech companies the Right likes to vilify. Bondi was evasive
when asked about upholding legislation requiring Big Pharma to negotiate with
the federal government on prescription drug prices.
While she sparred on several issues with Adam Schiff, the
new Senator from California, she seemed to agree with him on the importance of
preventing price-gouging in the wake of the disastrous fires in Los Angeles.
Schiff, however, had referred to abusive practices by oil companies, while
Bondi seemed to focus on gouging by local businesses.
The ambiguities in Bondi’s comments can also be found in her
record as Attorney General of Florida from 2011 to 2018. On the one hand,
Bondi’s tenure was tainted by accusations that she backed away from
investigating misconduct by the for-profit Trump University because of a
$25,000 contribution to a political action committee supporting her re-election
campaign by a Trump family foundation.
Bondi initiated relatively few cases against large
corporations, yet she was heavily involved in multistate rightwing legal
initiatives to undermine the Affordable Care Act, to undo a ban on some
semi-automatic weapons enacted by Connecticut in the wake of the Sandy Hook
massacre, and to block a plan by the EPA and six states to improve water
quality in the Chesapeake Bay by restricting pollution runoff by factory farms.
On the other hand, Bondi participated in numerous more
enlightened multistate attorneys general lawsuits. These included major cases
against BP for the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, against
big banks for mortgage abuses during 2000s, against Wells Fargo related to the
bogus accounts scandal, and against General Motors for selling vehicles with
defective ignition switches.
There seem to be two sides to Pam Bondi. She was a rightwing
partisan during and after her time as Florida AG and she may have allowed those
beliefs to stand in the way of prosecuting allies such as Donald Trump. Yet she
also was reasonably serious about carrying out the responsibilities of an AG to
serve as a consumer champion and was willing to confront at least some powerful
corporate interests.
If, as seems likely, Bondi is confirmed, she will serve in
an administration headed by a man who has little regard for norms such as the
independence of the DOJ and will probably be inclined to discourage
investigations of companies which support him and encourage prosecutions of
those he dislikes.
Which Pam Bondi will occupy the AG’s office: the partisan
loyalist who carries out Trump’s illegitimate wishes or the upright law
enforcement officer?
