Marc Rich Redux Marc Rich Redux
The spotlight is once again shining on Marc Rich. This time, Rich is represented by former Clinton counsel Jack Quinn, while Republicans Dan Burton and Arlen Specter are leading the charge, raising questions about trading with the enemy, tax evasion and influence-peddling. Just nine years ago, similar questions were raised in hearings before the Committee on Government Operations in the Democrat-controlled Congress. Back then Republicans kept silent; Rich was represented by former Nixon attorney Leonard Garment and William Bradford Reynolds, assistant attorney general in the Reagan Justice Department. The committee was investigating how Rich, America's most-wanted white-collar criminal, received more than $65 million in government grain-export subsidies, which he used to sell wheat and barley at enormous profit overseas, and how he had captured a lucrative deal to sell more than $20 million in nickel, zinc and copper to the US Mint. Until we began research for our book Ravenswood: The Steelworkers' Victory and the Revival of American Labor, we, like most Americans, had never heard of Marc Rich. In 1990, 1,700 aluminum workers, locked out of their plant in a small town in West Virginia, discovered that their company was ultimately controlled by the elusive Rich. Over the next two years, their union, the United Steelworkers of America, mounted an ambitious strategic campaign [see David Corn, "The Union and the Billionaire," February 24, 1992]. The Steelworkers' investigations, which led to the hearings, revealed the vastness of Rich's holdings. It was said that Rich owned "49 percent of the world"--from oil tankers to zinc mines to aluminum smelters to luxury hotels. Despite having a controlling interest in almost every metal and agricultural commodity on the world market, there was very little that Rich owned outright. This arrangement enabled him to establish profitable relationships with businesses and governments that might otherwise have been squeamish about associating with him. The Steelworkers were also shocked to discover that the Justice Department was not actively pursuing his case. The union quickly got a taste of Rich's ruthlessness. Early in the campaign, the local and national union leaders received a series of death threats, delivered by phone and in person, saying, "You'd better stop or you're going to get hurt.... You don't know who you're up against." By tracking Marc Rich drawing public attention to his dealings around the world, the union interfered with his ability to do what he did best--trade, invest and make deals behind closed doors. It prevented him from purchasing smelters in Czechoslovakia and Venezuela and a luxury hotel in Romania and from returning to the United States to visit his family. The Steelworkers not only won a victory for their members in West Virginia--they, unlike most others, held Rich accountable for his actions. Rich engineered his pardon from President Clinton in the same way he has managed his business empire--in the shadows, just below the radar of law enforcement, the media and the public, and buttressed by the best lawyers that money can buy. Yet the pardon should in no way absolve him of his crimes. The battle will likely move to civil court and to the IRS. But it's also important for civil and political leaders to take a firm stand against Rich. When he first fled to Switzerland, he bought himself respectability through his philanthropic efforts. Now that he's returning home, the philanthropic community--as well as public officials, government agencies and political parties--should refuse Rich's money until he has made appropriate reparations to the government and until we can be sure that the money he offers has been acquired through legitimate means. His millions may have bought his pardon, but they should not buy him redemption or shield him from public scrutiny.
Feb 15, 2001 / Editorial / Tom Juravich and Kate Bronfenbrenner
Return of Legal Realism Return of Legal Realism
Bush v. Gore may have superficially resolved a short-run political crisis, but it has triggered a deep intellectual crisis.
Dec 22, 2000 / Editorial / Sanford Levinson
What Must Have Happened to Create the Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore What Must Have Happened to Create the Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore
Though "activist" is what they've railed against, These five Supremes said, "Just this once, let's try it. We know which candidate we want to win. We'll simply find some law to justify it."
Dec 22, 2000 / Column / Calvin Trillin
A Texas ‘Advocate for Justice’ A Texas ‘Advocate for Justice’
The judge who chided Bush over aid to children is part of a state tradition.
Oct 26, 2000 / Feature / Lou Dubose
Power Shift Down–The Lower Courts Count Power Shift Down–The Lower Courts Count
Much of the debate swirling around the upcoming election focuses on the next President's power to shape the Supreme Court--but it would be a mistake to overlook the enormous impact the next President will have on the appellate courts as well. Each year the Supreme Court decides fewer cases. In the seventies and eighties, it routinely heard about 150 cases a year. The typical docket for the Rehnquist Court is less than 100. This trend toward fewer Supreme Court rulings gives the appellate courts vastly more power. In fact, some experts call the appellate courts "regional Supreme Courts" because so often they become the forums of last resort for plaintiffs bringing civil rights, abortion and environmental litigation. Appellate court appointments are rarely constrained by the kind of senatorial influence and patronage that frequently govern the selection of district court judges, so the President generally has a freer hand in making these appointments. Conservative activists have long been keenly aware of the importance of the appellate courts. Presidents Reagan and Bush both made it a priority to fill appellate court vacancies quickly, ultimately packing them with right-leaning judges whose agendas were to reverse years of progress on civil rights and the environment. Reagan and Bush appellate court appointees include such well-known ideologues as Robert Bork, Daniel Manion, Douglas Ginsburg, Frank Easterbrook and Alex Kozinski. Because of the critical importance of the 179 federal appellate seats, Senate Republicans have deliberately delayed confirmation of nominees during the Clinton era. Of the thirty-four judges confirmed last year, only six were to courts of appeals. This year is unlikely to be better; ultraconservatives in the Senate will do everything possible to avoid filling the twenty-two appellate court vacancies until after the presidential election. Consequently, even after seven years of Democratic rule, nine of the thirteen courts of appeals remain in the control of Republican appointees. Many of these judges, such as those on the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, have shown open hostility to civil rights, striking down such crucial protections as affirmative action, the Violence Against Women Act and the 1966 Miranda decision. Judicial hostility to environmental protections is also common. In 1999 two panels of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit handed a victory to polluters, overturning longstanding EPA standards reducing the ozone that exacerbates lung disease and asthma. In that case, the Reagan-appointed judges adopted an argument set forth by a conservative lawyer, even though the argument ran contrary to sixty years of legal precedent. Senate Republicans have also created a judiciary that is shamefully unrepresentative of the public it serves. It wasn't until this past summer that the number of African-American judges serving on the appellate courts reached the same level as when President Carter left office twenty years ago. More than half the country's circuit courts lacked either an African-American or a Latino jurist--or both--at the end of 1999. The conservative Fourth Circuit (which includes Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia) has never had an African-American judge, despite the fact that the region has the largest percentage of African-Americans in the general population of any circuit. While North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms is notable for actively blocking the nominations of African-American judges to the Fourth Circuit Court, other GOP senators have contributed to the delays in appointments across the federal judiciary. In the past year the Senate set a record for the longest delay imposed on a nominee: Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Paez, a Hispanic-American, was forced to wait more than four years before the Senate finally scheduled a vote and confirmed him this year. Unfortunately, in many ways the Clinton Administration has acquiesced in the Senate majority's crusade to strip away presidential appointment power. Clinton's strong desire to avoid confrontation over judicial appointments has led him to draw nominees from a limited pool, for the most part avoiding public interest lawyers and those in private practice with extensive pro bono experience. The regrettable result is that the Clinton Administration has failed to restore balance to the federal court system after twelve years of strongly ideological conservative appointments. Americans deserve better. We count on federal judges to protect our civil rights, our environment and our most basic freedoms. The next President could well appoint fifty or more circuit judges. We need a President who will appoint federal judges--at all levels--who will advance protections against discrimination and environmental destruction. And we need a Senate that will stop using political gamesmanship to delay and block qualified judicial appointees.
Memory Lapses From Ted Olson Memory Lapses From Ted Olson
Remember when Hillary Clinton dared suggest that a vast right-wing conspiracy was behind the campaign to destroy her husband's presidency? Well, the troubles besetting the nomina...
May 15, 2000 / Column / Robert Scheer
Many a US President Pays the Pardon Piper Many a US President Pays the Pardon Piper
The media coverage of the Clinton pardons has been so biased, overblown and vituperative as to call into question the very purpose of what currently passes as journalism. It is d...
Mar 6, 2000 / Column / Robert Scheer
‘Finality’ or Justice? ‘Finality’ or Justice?
Remember the bizarre daycare center "ritual abuse" trials of the eighties--the McMartin case in Los Angeles, the Little Rascals case in Edenton, North Carolina, the Kelly Micha...
Sep 18, 1999 / Column / Katha Pollitt