This recent post on the FCPA Blog highlighted euphemisms, code words, and metaphors used by corporate employees in certain bribery and corruption cases.
All worthy observations.
But also consider that several institutional euphemisms, code words and metaphors are used to describe what many would call bribery and corruption here in the United States.
Consider U.S. government diplomats who act as “marketing agents” for U.S. companies and help broker sales with foreign governments. As detailed by the New York Times:
“The king of Saudi Arabia wanted the United States to outfit his personal jet with the same high-tech devices as Air Force One. The president of Turkey wanted the Obama administration to let a Turkish astronaut sit in on a NASA space flight. And in Bangladesh, the prime minister pressed the State Department to re-establish landing rights at Kennedy International Airport in New York. Each of these government leaders had one thing in common: they were trying to decide whether to buy billions of dollars’ worth of commercial jets from [a U.S. company] or its European competitor, Airbus. And United States diplomats were acting like marketing agents, offering deals to heads of state and airline executives whose decisions could be influenced by price, performance and, as with all finicky customers with plenty to spend, perks. […] To a greater degree than previously known, diplomats are a big part of the sales force, according to hundreds of cables released by WikiLeaks, which describe politicking and cajoling at the highest levels.”
In short, is there a difference between the U.S. government using public taxpayer money to offer or pay a foreign government to induce the government to purchase U.S. company product and a company using private shareholder money to offer or pay a foreign official to induce the government to purchase its product? Why does the U.S. government construct programs around the former and call it “foreign military financing” or “foreign military sales” while criminally prosecuting the later as bribery?
As to this issue, it has been noted that “the [U.S.] government wants to give the impression that it is law-abiding and others are not when the same behavior is engaged” in by both and that “when the government itself gives bribes in foreign countries every day of the week, they just call it foreign aid.”
Does the difference highlight that in the United States the dividing line between bribery and no bribery is subtle and dependent on the source of the money and influence? It has been noted:
“It’s not that the United States lacks corruption, […]— or even pervasive corruption. It’s just not of the low-level and petty variety like the kind [in certain emerging market countries like Africa], not most of the time anyway. In America, corruption is concentrated at the highest levels of society — and it masquerades [under different names].”
Similarly, the subtle differences between foreign bribery and U.S. bribery have been described:
“The idea of corruption … is simple bribery — cash changing hands. It’s the proverbial cash in the piano or the freezer. Corruption is reduced to bribery. In fact, today’s most savvy power brokers are engaged in a kind of corruption that is much more subtle and more difficult to detect. Today’s most corrupt players, at least in the West, don’t need this quid pro quo corruption. They are far beyond that. That’s for the little players. That’s for the small fry.”
Bribery ought to be bribery pure and simple and subtle distinctions ought not be drawn on the source of the money and influence. Doing so merely creates a distinction without a difference. Indeed, perhaps because of this uncomfortable truth regarding the U.S. crusade against bribery, U.S. government enforcement agencies frequently employ overblown and inconsistent rhetoric when describing FCPA enforcement.
As to certain U.S. examples of what many would consider bribery and corruption, the legality of such conduct has been countenanced by the U.S. Supreme Court in both Citizens United and McCutcheon because, in the words of the court, “ingratiation and access are not corruption.” Likewise, as to corporate lobbying in the U.S., the Second Circuit recently stated:
“Lobbying has been integral to the American political system since its very inception. […] In order to more effectively communicate their clients’ policy goals, lobbyists often seek to cultivate personal relationships with public officials. This involves not only making campaign contributions, but sometimes also hosting events or providing gifts of value such as drinks, meals, and tickets to sporting events and concerts.”
Yet, it is difficult to square the above judicial logic with the allegations in many FCPA enforcement actions which equate “ingratiation and access,” with a certain type of public official, or providing various things of value to a certain type of public official, as corruption.
Regarding unchecked political contributions in the U.S., President Jimmy Carter termed it “legal bribery of candidates.” Recall that President Carter signed the FCPA into law in 1977 and was praised for doing so.
How should we react to President Carter speaking out about another form of bribery?
So yes euphemisms, code words, and metaphors are often used by corporate employees in certain bribery and corruption cases.
However, we also have several institutional euphemisms, code words and metaphors to describe what many would call bribery and corruption here in the United States.