Again this week, the Koch brothers’ criminal justice PR stunt is on center stage. Their apparent do-gooder spirit when it comes to criminal justice reform is in reality, self-serving.
According to the New York Times, Mark Holden, the face of the Kochs’ criminal justice campaign, was able to win some good will from the Obama administration through the Kochs’ focus on the “ban the box” initiative. The campaign hopes to help ex-convicts gain employment, by ending employers’ requirement to report criminal records on their job applications.
But unsurprisingly, the Kochs’ support of banning the box is entirely self-serving. The Kochs would benefit from a ban on the box: Koch Industries has more than a few serious infractions on its rap sheet, amassing multiple felonies, more than $90 million in fines and settlements for environmental violations, and lawsuits from workplace accidents that resulted in death or serious injury. The Kochs want to ban the box because they’re required to check it themselves.
Furthermore, in the broader criminal justice reform debate, the Kochs continue to push an effort to protect themselves from legal action. According to the Huffington Post, the Kochs are pushing a proposal that would “eliminate a host of white-collar crimes where the damaging acts are merely reckless, negligent or grossly negligent. If enacted, the legislation would make it more difficult for federal authorities to pursue executive wrongdoing, from financial fraud to environmental pollution.” It’s not far fetched to question whether the Kochs are pursuing leniency towards white collar crimes because they’re afraid state AGs might target them next over climate change denial.
Over the weekend, the New York Times editorial board argued that the rules on criminal intent should not be changed:
While most criminal laws require the government to prove “mens rea,” or intent on the part of the defendant, some do not, and the proposed change would apply indiscriminately to all of those. Ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse for breaking it, and it certainly should not be turned into an excuse when the action inflicts serious harm to large numbers of people or to the environment.
Leading the charge to change the standard are the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Koch Industries, the conglomerate owned by David and Charles Koch, who have also supported the wider criminal-justice reforms.
If the new provision becomes law, corporate actors could avoid prosecution by claiming, as they commonly do now, that they didn’t know what they were doing was illegal. And corporations that now go to great lengths to train employees on their legal responsibilities would have far less incentive to do so.
…
If anything, it is still too hard for prosecutors to go after corporate bad actors who endanger the health and safety of the public or the environment. And when they do bring charges, they’re generally doing so with good reason. A University of Michigan study examining almost 700 prosecutions brought under federal environmental laws between 2005 and 2010 found that virtually all involved one or more of the following: repeat violations of the law, deceptive or misleading conduct, a refusal to follow regulations at all, or actions that caused significant harm to the environment or to public health.
While Holden has promised that the Kochs won’t kill a bill without the added criminal intent provision, the brothers are already lobbying Republicans in Congress hard on including it. The Kochs’ criminal justice reform push has always been first and foremost a selfish endeavor to rig the system in their favor — if the final bill doesn’t do that, it’s safe to assume that their “altruistic” streak will end.
Read more about the Kochs’ criminal justice reform agenda in Bridge Project’s recent report, Koch Advocacy For Criminal Justice Reform Is Driven By The Motivation To Protect Their Own Corporate Interests & Profits.