DOCSLIB.ORG

Report, “Corporate Impunity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

July 2018 CORPORATE IMPUNITY “Tough on Crime” Trump Is Weak on Corporate Crime and Wrongdoing Corporate Impunity “Tough on Crime” Trump Is Weak on Corporate Crime and Wrongdoing Acknowledgements This report was co-authored by Rick Claypool, Taylor Lincoln, Michael Tanglis and Alan Zibel, research directors for Public Citizen’s president’s office and Congress Watch divisions. Philip Mattera of the Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First, which produces Violation Tracker, provided data, analysis and invaluable guidance. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, authored the introduction. About Public Citizen Public Citizen is a national non-profit organization with more than 400,000 members and supporters. We represent consumer interests through lobbying, litigation, administrative advocacy, research, and public education on a broad range of issues including consumer rights in the marketplace, product safety, financial regulation, worker safety, safe and affordable health care, campaign finance reform and government ethics, fair trade, climate change, and corporate and government accountability. About the Corporate Research Project The Corporate Research Project is a non-profit center that provides research assistance to organizations working on a wide range of corporate accountability issues. It produces public resources such as a guide to online corporate research; Corporate Rap Sheet profiles of more than 70 large and controversial companies; and Violation Tracker, a database containing more than 300,000 entries relating to corporate regulatory violations and other forms of misconduct. The Corporate Research Project is an affiliate of Good Jobs First, a national resource center on economic development accountability. Public Citizen Corporate Research Project of Good Jobs First 1600 20th St. NW 1616 P St. NW Washington, D.C. 20009 Suite 210 P: 202-588-1000 Washington, DC 20036 www.citizen.org www.corp-research.org © 2018 Public Citizen Public Citizen Corporate Impunity Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 I. LAW ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 12 1. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Criminal Enforcement........................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Civil Enforcement ................................................................................................................................................................................ 21 II. CONSUMER AND WORKER PROTECTION ............................................................................................................. 29 2. AVIATION CONSUMER PROTECTION DIVISION .............................................................................................................................. 29 3. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION ................................................................................................................................. 34 4. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ..................................................................................................................... 39 5. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION .................................................................................................................................... 45 6. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 51 III. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ............................................................................................................................. 59 7. BUREAU OF SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ...................................................................................................... 59 8. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ....................................................................................................................................... 66 IV. FINANCIAL REGULATION....................................................................................................................................... 76 9. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION ............................................................................................................................. 76 10. OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY ................................................................................................................. 81 11. OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSETS CONTROL ..................................................................................................................................... 85 12. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ............................................................................................................................... 89 APPENDIX A: INDIVIDUAL CASES THAT DEMONSTRATE DECLINING ENFORCEMENT ................................. 96 APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL METHODOLOGICAL INFORMATION ........................................................................ 102 APPENDIX C: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CASES SPLIT BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PORTIONS .... 103 July 25, 2018 2 Public Citizen Corporate Impunity EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table 1: In 11 out of 12 agencies led by a Trump administration official for most of 2017, the amount of penalties imposed on corporate violators1 declined, in many cases quite dramatically. Agency Penalty Sum Penalty Sum % Change in from Obama's from Trump's Penalty Last Year First Year Sums Environmental Protection Agency $23,870,000,000 $1,460,000,000 -94% Department of Justice $51,506,033,030 $4,898,284,958 -90% Federal Communications Commission $257,034,240 $39,631,327 -85% Commodity Futures Trading Commission $751,793,192 $153,469,100 -80% Securities and Exchange Commission $2,909,912,692 $927,377,931 -68% Federal Trade Commission $12,387,666,094 $4,338,996,773 -65% Office of the Comptroller of the Currency $214,981,500 $89,316,420 -58% Consumer Product Safety Commission $37,300,000 $21,350,000 -43% Equal Employment Opportunity Commission $52,000,000 $42,000,000 -19% Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement $2,198,770 $1,939,158 -12% Aviation Consumer Protection Division $3,605,000 $3,205,000 -11% Office of Foreign Assets Control $22,012,520 $118,974,240 440% Source: Public Citizen analysis of data from Violation Tracker and federal agencies. Table 2: In 10 out of 12 agencies led by a Trump administration official for most of 2017, the number of enforcement actions against corporate violators2 declined, in many cases quite dramatically. Agency Enforcement Enforcement % Change in Actions in Actions in Enforcement Obama's Last Trump's First Actions Year Year Federal Trade Commission 27 14 -48% Securities and Exchange Commission 207 116 -44% Federal Communications Commission 49 30 -39% Aviation Consumer Protection Division 28 18 -36% Consumer Product Safety Commission 6 4 -33% Commodity Futures Trading Commission 51 36 -29% Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 14 10 -29% Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 171 125 -27% Department of Justice 308 241 -22% Environmental Protection Agency 2107 1847 -12% Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement 27 24 -11% Office of Foreign Assets Control 12 13 8% Source: Public Citizen analysis of data from Violation Tracker and federal agencies. 1 EPA and FCC penalty sums include non-corporate violators (i.e., individuals and public entities). 2 EPA and FCC enforcement action tallies include non-corporate violators (i.e., individuals and public entities). July 25, 2018 3 Public Citizen Corporate Impunity INTRODUCTION Americans may be divided on many issues, but not on favoring tough enforcement of regulations and laws. Americans are virtually united in support for regulatory enforcement. Polling shows Americans favoring tough regulatory enforcement by an 87-12 margin. Democrats (89), Republicans (85), Independents (87) all agree, as do Americans from all parts of the country: Northeast (86), Midwest (88), South (88), West (84).3 In focus groups, Americans connect proper and fair enforcement of the rules to concerns about a rigged political and economic system. They favor enforcement to ensure that everyone has a fair shot in society. They want assurances that weak regulatory enforcement does not enable corporations and the rich to play by a different set of rules – with everyday people held to account, but the powerful able to disregard the rules because they know they won’t be enforced against them.4 These views are durable, and withstand counter-messaging.5 Indeed, Americans express overwhelming support for stronger regulatory enforcement.6 Americans’ overwhelming support for tough law-and-order against corporate wrongdoers reflects three interconnected understandings. First, basic standards of justice require that the rules be enforced equally against powerful corporations as they are against vulnerable
Recommended publications
  • Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Sustainability: HR’S Leadership Role SHRM-Morris County Chapter – Brian J

    Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Sustainability: HR’S Leadership Role SHRM-Morris County Chapter – Brian J

    Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Sustainability: HR’s Leadership Role SHRM-Morris County Chapter – Brian J. Glade, SPHR, GPHR – February 11, 2009 ©SHRM 2009 CSR and Business Sustainability: Defining the Terms CSR • Used since the 1970s to denote ethical and socially responsible business behavior Sustainability/Business Sustainability • Dates back to 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development • Combines traditional CSR concept with longer-term renewable approach to business practices CSR-Business Sustainability • Today, the two terms are used interchangeably and are defined by World Council for Sustainable Business as: “Contributing to sustainable development by working to improve the quality of life for employees, their families, the local community and stakeholders up and down the supply chain” ©SHRM 2009 2 CSR and Business Sustainability: HR’s Leadership Role Today’s Agenda • Evolution of CSR/Business Sustainability • Triple Bottom Line • SHRM’s 2007 CSR Pilot Study • HR’s Leadership Role in CSR/Business Sustainability • Barack Obama: our “Green” President ©SHRM 2009 3 CSR/Sustainability Evolution: Early Pioneers Founded in 1978 with a social purpose Shares rewards with its employees and the community Sources ingredients from socially conscious suppliers. In 1992, first U.S. public company to sign onto the CERES Principles to protect the environment. ©SHRM 2009 4 CSR/Sustainability Evolution: Early Pioneers UK cosmetics company founded in 1976 with a commitment to sell products not tested on animals. Company went on to support environmental causes, HIV/AIDS awareness, human and animal rights, and campaigns against domestic violence. In the early 1990s, sponsored employee trips to work in orphanages in Romania, raising international awareness of the poor conditions of the facilities and the children’s health.
  • The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne

    The Pulitzer Prizes 2020 Winne

    WINNERS AND FINALISTS 1917 TO PRESENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Excerpts from the Plan of Award ..............................................................2 PULITZER PRIZES IN JOURNALISM Public Service ...........................................................................................6 Reporting ...............................................................................................24 Local Reporting .....................................................................................27 Local Reporting, Edition Time ..............................................................32 Local General or Spot News Reporting ..................................................33 General News Reporting ........................................................................36 Spot News Reporting ............................................................................38 Breaking News Reporting .....................................................................39 Local Reporting, No Edition Time .......................................................45 Local Investigative or Specialized Reporting .........................................47 Investigative Reporting ..........................................................................50 Explanatory Journalism .........................................................................61 Explanatory Reporting ...........................................................................64 Specialized Reporting .............................................................................70
  • Illustration: Kah Yangni Design: Cary Design Group

    Illustration: Kah Yangni Design: Cary Design Group

    Illustration: Kah Yangni Design: Cary Design Group Dear friend, What a year it’s been. I hope this report finds you thriving, growing, and staying well. As I spoke with members like you over this turbulent year, I was struck by how different all our circumstances and experiences have been—and yet how most of us were grappling with similar, big emotions: grief, rage, and hope. Sometimes all three emotions in a single day, or even a single hour. Which, to me, is a clear sign of our shared humanity. I’ve also been struck by how many members like you, as well as our staff, board, and allies, have approached this season of change in visionary ways. Both the COVID-19 pandemic and the uprising for Black liberation have made it clear that all of us who hope and work for a better world must recognize the ways in which all of our struggles and issues are connected. This moment requires us to truly understand and challenge the roots of the economic and social systems we live within: anti-Blackness and systemic racism, which are inseparable from brutal, extractive capitalism. And it requires action and solutions that are larger and more encompassing than any single organization and any single issue. Corporate Accountability has always seen our work of stopping life-threatening abuses by corporations as integral to creating the systemic change we need. But we are called in this moment to be more explicit about how this work is specifically connected to ending systemic racism. For example, our campaigning to make Big Polluters pay is not just about taking fossil fuel corporations to court.
  • From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability

    From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability

    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 16 Number 1 Winter 2020 Article 3 Winter 2020 From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability Min Yan Daoning Zhang Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Min Yan and Daoning Zhang, From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability, 16 Hastings Bus. L.J. 43 (2020). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol16/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2 - YAN _ZHANG - V9 - KC - 10.27.19.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/15/2019 11:11 AM From Corporate Responsibility to Corporate Accountability Min Yan* and Daoning Zhang** I. INTRODUCTION The concept of corporate responsibility or corporate social responsibility (“CSR”) keeps evolving since it appeared. The emphasis was first placed on business people’s social conscience rather than on the company itself, which was well reflected by Howard Bowen’s landmark book, Social Responsibilities of the Businessman.1 Then CSR was defined as responsibilities to society, which extends beyond economic and legal obligations by corporations.2 Since then, corporate responsibility is thought to begin where the law ends. 3 In other words, the concept of social responsibility largely excludes legal obedience from the concept of social responsibility. An analysis of 37 of the most used definitions of CSR also shows “voluntary” as one of the most common dimensions.4 Put differently, corporate responsibility reflects the belief that corporations have duties beyond generating profits for their shareholders.
  • Institutions, Organizations and Individuals Advocating for Corporate Accountability Condemn Chevron's Retaliatory Attacks on H

    Institutions, Organizations and Individuals Advocating for Corporate Accountability Condemn Chevron's Retaliatory Attacks on H

    Institutions, Organizations and Individuals Advocating for Corporate Accountability Condemn Chevron’s Retaliatory Attacks on Human Rights and Corporate Accountability Advocates and See it as a Serious Threat to Open Society and Due Process of Law January 23, 2014 - We, the undersigned organizations and individuals, condemn the actions by Chevron in its efforts to silence critics and ignore a $9.5 billion judgment against it for environmental damage in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Chevron’s actions set a dangerous precedent and represent a growing and serious threat to the ability of civil society to hold corporations accountable for their misdeeds around the world. Since Chevron launched its attack on those who have been working for decades to pressure the company to clean up the environmental damage caused by its operations in the Ecuadorian Amazon, independent journalists have been forced to turn over their material and nonprofit watchdog groups have faced massive legal actions designed to cripple their ability to work and undermine their ability to grow support for their efforts. Attacks Free Speech In a move opposed by The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, Dow Jones, the Associated Press, the Hearst Newspapers, the Daily News, and the Gannett Company, Chevron used its legal might to launch a major threat to independent journalism when it won a decision to force documentary producer and director Joe Berlinger to turn over to Chevron more than 600 hours of raw footage. Chevron has also targeted nonprofit environmental and indigenous rights groups and individual activists with subpoenas designed to cripple their effectiveness and chill their speech.
  • What Is Corporate Accountability?

    What Is Corporate Accountability?

    WHAT IS CORPORATE ACCOUNTABILITY? BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Since the 1990s, the world has witnessed the growing importance and visibility of a range of initiatives led by businesses, social organisations and governments, with the stated aim of pressuring companies to behave in more socially responsible and accountable ways. This is a new development for many parts of the business world. Previously, the state (or government) was assumed to lead standard setting and behavioural norms for businesses in relation to most categories of stakeholders. When community organisations and interest groups wanted to change business behaviour, they focussed on changing the law. From the 1990s the focus changed, reflected in the emergence of new alliances and regimes of influence over business norms, linking together consumers, communities, workers and producers. What is the difference between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate accountability? Corporate responsibility, corporate social responsibility (CSR) and corporate accountability are sometimes confused or seen to be synonymous. However, corporate responsibility and corporate accountability are typically distinguished from one another along several lines. Corporate responsibility in its broadest sense refers to varied practices that reflect the belief that corporations have responsibilities beyond generating profit for their shareholders. Such responsibilities include the negative duty to refrain from harm caused to the environment, individuals or communities, and sometimes also positive duties to protect society and the environment, for example protecting human rights of workers and communities affected by business activities. Such responsibilities are generally considered to extend not only to direct social and environmental impacts of business activity, but also to more indirect effects resulting from relationships with business partners, such as those involved in global production chains.
  • Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States V. Jones Danielle K

    Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States V. Jones Danielle K

    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship Summer 2013 Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States v. Jones Danielle K. Citron Boston University School of Law David Gray University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Liz Rinehart University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Danielle K. Citron, David Gray & Liz Rinehart, Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States v. Jones, 103 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 745 (2013). Available at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/625 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fighting Cyber-Crime After United States v. Jones David C. Gray Danielle Keats Citron Liz Clark Rinehard No. 2013 - 49 This paper can be downloaded free of charge at: The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection http://ssrn.com/abstract=2302861 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 103 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 2013 Fighting Cybercrime After United States v. Jones David Gray Danielle Keats Citron Liz Clark Rinehart Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation David Gray, Danielle Keats Citron, and Liz Clark Rinehart, Fighting Cybercrime After United States v.
  • As Corporate Just Deserts

    As Corporate Just Deserts

    University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform Volume 31 1998 "Crimtorts" as Corporate Just Deserts Thomas Koenig Northeastern University Michael Rustad Suffolk University Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr Part of the Legal Remedies Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Thomas Koenig & Michael Rustad, "Crimtorts" as Corporate Just Deserts, 31 U. MICH. J. L. REFORM 289 (1998). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol31/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. "CRIMTORTS" AS CORPORATE JUST DESERTSt Thomas Koenig* and Michael Rustad** Just as Grant Gilmore described "contorts"that lie on the borderline between contractand tort law, the authors coin the term "crimtort"to identify the expanding common ground between criminal and tort law. Although the concept of crimtort can be broadly applied to many areas of the law, this Article focuses on the primary crimtort rem- edy-punitive damages. The deterrentpower ofpunitive damages lies in the wealth-calibrationof the defendant'spunishment. For corpora- tions this means that punitive damages will reflect the firm's net income or net worth. The theoretical danger is thatjuries will abuse wealth by redistributingcorporate assets in disregardof the purposes of civil punishment. 7b support their argument that wealth is not be- ing widely misused, the authors present an empirical study of a decade of crimtort cases in which federal appeals courts upheld puni- tive damages of $1 million or more.
  • Praise for the Corporate Whistleblower's Survival Guide

    Praise for the Corporate Whistleblower's Survival Guide

    Praise for The Corporate Whistleblower’s Survival Guide “Blowing the whistle is a life-altering experience. Taking the fi rst step is the hardest, knowing that you can never turn back. Harder yet is not taking the step and allowing the consequences of not blowing the whistle to continue, knowing you could have stopped them. Your life will be forever changed; friends and family will question your ac- tions if not your sanity, your peers will shun you, every relationship you treasure will be strained to the breaking point. This handbook is required reading for anyone considering blowing the whistle.” —Richard and Donna Parks, Three Mile Island cleanup whistleblower and wife “The Corporate Whistleblower’s Survival Guide will be an immense help! For while there are no one-size-fi ts-all ‘right answers,’ the au- thors have effectively translated their decades of actual experience, insights, and resources in this fi eld onto paper. A realistic framework will now exist to help people confronting such diffi cult situations.” —Coleen Rowley, FBI 9/11 whistleblower and a 2002 Time Person of the Year “Lays out exactly what potential corporate whistleblowers must know to help improve their chances of both surviving whistleblowing and stopping the misconduct they set out to expose. My only hope is that we can help spread the word so that all potential corporate whistle- blowers read this book before they take their fi rst steps down that lonely road.” —Danielle Brian, Executive Director, Project on Government Oversight “As commissioner, I relied on whistleblowers like Jeffrey Wigand to learn the inside story about the deceptive practices of the tobacco industry.
  • Closure Legacy Preface

    Closure Legacy Preface

    CClloossuurree LLeeggaaccyy from weapons to wildlife ROCKY FLATS CLOSURE LEGACY PREFACE Thank you for taking the time to read some or all of this Rocky Flats Closure Legacy report. The Rocky Flats Closure Project spanned over a decade and was unique in many ways. Recognizing that uniqueness this report takes a unique approach to sharing the lessons learned from the project, by considering not only the technical and scientific lessons, but also the policy and programmatic issues. Communicating “lessons learned” and reaching the target audience has always been difficult. This report was developed recognizing the challenge of communicating lessons learned as discussed in DOE-STD- 7501-99, The DOE Corporate Lessons Learned Program. The overall Legacy Project seeks to address that challenge in several ways: • First, the Rocky Flats Closure Legacy report is introduced by the “Rocky Flats – A Proud Legacy, A New Beginning” brochure, an 18-page, full color summary of the project history. This summary of the Rocky Flats Closure Legacy introduces themes that are explained in more detail by this report, and the visually engaging format is intended to increase interest toward pursuing the more detailed lessons learned. (see http://www.rfets.gov for info) • Second, this report does not try to represent all viewpoints, or consensus positions reinforcing current DOE policy. Rather it tries to fairly and accurately represent the conditions and influences that existed during the 10-year span of the project from the viewpoint of the DOE/Rocky Flats Managers and staff, and how the DOE and others reacted to them at the time.
  • Rehabilitating Corporate Purpose

    Rehabilitating Corporate Purpose

    Rehabilitating Corporate Purpose Malcolm S. Salter Working Paper 19-104 Rehabilitating Corporate Purpose How the Evolution of Corporate Purpose Has Contributed to a Widening Breach Between Capitalism and Justice . and What to Do about It Malcolm S. Salter James J. Hill Professor of Business Administration, Emeritus Faculty Associate, Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics Harvard University Working Paper 19-104 Copyright © 2019 by Malcolm S. Salter Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Rehabilitating Corporate Purpose Malcolm S. Salter Abstract In this essay, I address how the ascendance of the theory of shareholder value maximization into the central consciousness of public corporations and its canonization as the only legitimate expression of corporate purpose has contributed to both a widening breach between American-style capitalism and justice and increased alienation of the public from capitalism as a system of economic governance. Despite the vast academic literature and many management testimonials advocating a broader conception of corporate purpose—one that addresses the interests of firms’ multiple constituencies and the well- being of their employees, customers, and operating environment—shareholder value maximization remains the de facto expression of corporate purpose and guide for decision making for most publicly owned firms in the United States (and the United Kingdom). I argue that narrowing the compatibility gap between capitalism and justice and reversing declining public trust in contemporary capitalism requires a very different conception of corporate purpose—one reflecting established moral and economic principles that challenge those underlying the shareholder value maximization doctrine.
  • Law As Source: How the Legal System Facilitates Investigative Journalism

    Law As Source: How the Legal System Facilitates Investigative Journalism

    YALE LAW & POLICY REVIEW Law as Source: How the Legal System Facilitates Investigative Journalism Roy Shapir Legal scholarshave long recognized that the media plays a key role in assuring the proper functioning of political and business markets Yet we have understudied the role of law in assuring effective media scrutiny. This Article develops a theory of law as source. The basicpremise is that the law not only regulates what the media can or cannot say, but also facilitates media scrutiny by producing information. Specifically, law enforcement actions, such as litigationor regulatory investigations, extract information on the behaviorofpowerfulplayers in business or government. Journalists can then translate the information into biting investigative reports and diffuse them widely, thereby shapingplayers' reputationsand norms. Levels of accountabilityin society are therefore not simply a function of the effectiveness of the courts as a watchdog or the media as a watchdog but rather a function of the interactions between the two watchdogs. This Article approaches, from multiple angles, the questions of how and how much the media relies on legal sources. I analyze the content of projects that won investigative reportingprizes in the past two decades; interview forty veteran reporters; scour a reporters-onlydatabase of tip sheets and how-to manuals; go over * IDC Law School. I thank participants in the Information in Litigation Roundtable at Washington & Lee, the Annual Corporate and Securities Litigation Workshop at UCLA, several conferences at IDC, the American Law and Economics Association annual conference at Boston University, and the Crisis in the Theory of the Firm conference and the Annual Reputation Symposium at Oxford University, as well as Jonathan Glater, James Hamilton, Andrew Tuch, and Verity Winship for helpful comments and discussions.