LAT: Why are the Dems caving in on Cox?

[question everything]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-court25jul25,0,4198137.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Why are the Dems caving in on Cox?

By Jamie Court
Jamie Court, author of "Corporateering: How Corporate Power Steals Your Personal Freedom and What You Can Do About It" (Tarcher/Penguin, 2004), runs Consumerwatchdog.org.

July 25, 2005

In a better world, next week's Senate confirmation hearings on the nomination of Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission would be the Democratic Party's finest hour. The hearings offer a perfect opportunity to decry Wall Street's looting of Main Street and to put the GOP on trial for creating the conditions under which corporate criminals flourished.

Instead, Democrats have been eerily silent on Cox, a right-wing Republican who wrote a 1995 law making it harder for investors to take corporate swindlers to court. Cox's Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which became law over President Clinton's veto, has been blamed for allowing some of the nation's worst financial scandals — including those at Enron and WorldCom — to proceed unchecked. The law let corporate executives off the hook for exactly the kind of utterly misleading statements Enron Chief Executive Kenneth Lay made to keep his company's stock price artificially high.

(snip)

Consider his record: As a congressman, Cox voted repeatedly in the interests of Wall Street investment houses to undermine conflict-of-interest standards protecting investors and pension plans. He has voted against post-Enron proposals that would require executives to certify financial statements, strip bonuses from CEOs who falsify statements, and stop stock analysts from holding shares in the companies they cover (although he did ultimately vote for the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reform bill when it became a fait accompli).

(snip)

Cox's approach to corporate crime predates his time in Congress. As a private securities attorney in the mid-1980s, Cox worked for William Cooper and his company, First Pension Corp. Cooper was accused of running a Ponzi scheme, convicted of fraud and imprisoned. After Cooper was caught, Cox, then a congressman, claimed he had not known his client was a fraud. Nonetheless, Cox was sued by investors for what they said was his role in misleading regulators on Cooper's behalf. Cox's law firm settled the case.

(snip)

Senate Democrats' willingness to accept such a quid pro quo from Bush would suggest that this party has no fight, no heart and no soul... California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer should lead the Democrats in this battle on behalf of First Pension's victims. Cox has never publicly acknowledged shame over his role in representing a swindler who would soon be sent off to prison. It is time for an apology from Cox and for a public explanation of how a lap dog for investment houses and a convicted swindler can be the nation's investor watchdog.

[Karmadillo]

1. Democrats have no fight, no heart, no soul? How dare

Court make this charge. We're fighting to be moderate Republicans with all the heart and soul we can muster.

[msongs]

2. feinstein is really a repub-lite and most elected dems do not the

fortitude or courage to be a true opposition party, that is to say, actually oppose on behalf of the voters who elected them. sorry to say this, but I do not see the majority of democrats as having much integrity when it comes to standing for their self proclaimed princicples. Of course there are some exceptions to this general failure to advocate on behalf of the democratic electorate.

It seems they may actually afraid of george w bush and the republican party.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[xxqqqzme]

3. they're probably 'saving

themselves for the bigger fights'.

I am also baffled by no roar over yet another fox nominated 2 guard the henhouse. Is it that no one is surprized by these nominations since it is just more of the same? There really ARE different rules 4 rethugs!

[realFedUp]

4. 'saving themselves for bigger fights'

each time we ask this...this comment comes up...
saving themselves and us from what? Each one
of these guys, steps, nominees, issues corrodes
the infrastructure of this American democracy,
of human rights, fairness for all, not just for the
rich and powerful.

Cox is a ridiculous, thumb your nose at the
American people kind of choice...like many other
moves Bush Inc. makes, but at least some Dem
please the fuck show up at Cox's hearings,
unlike the no-shows at Karen Hughes hearing.

[question everything]

5. I suppose by "saving for the bigger fights"

some mean filibuster.

We should resign to the idea that Roberts, Cox, perhaps even Bolton will be confirmed, eventually. But we should at least pose some hard questions, not meekly follow "their leader."

[realFedUp]

6. and maybe show up at hearings....

this constant drip of putting off big
fights to not offend those amorphous centrists
in purple states somewhere just pisses off
people like us who follow Dem's daily antics.