David Almasi of the National Center for Public Policy Research made himself the most unpopular person the room at the Boeing shareholder meeting in Chicago April 28, 2014 after he asked company chairman and CEO W. James McNerney about conflicts of interest between Boeing's philanthropy and actions by a senior public official, and raised the question of whether Boeing had unnecessarily exposed itself to the danger of being prosecuted for honest services fraud.
Almasi was following up on a April 13, 2014 Washington Post story by Rosalind Helderman, who reported that Boeing made a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation and a $2 million donation important to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in the same timeframe that Secretary Clinton made what she called "a shameless pitch" to Russia's state airline on Boeing's behalf.
Almasi asked Mr. McNerney, in part: "The official purpose of our Company's $900,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation was to build schools in Haiti. Assuming that building schools in Haiti was a key goal of this Company's philanthropic programs in 2010, why was it so important to support this work specifically through the Clinton Foundation, and not one of the many other reputable, independent charities then working in Haiti? By donating to the Clinton Foundation within months of receiving a huge favor from the Secretary of State, did we not expose both our Company and the Secretary of State to the risk of being charged with honest services fraud?"
Almasi further asked, "There is at least one lobbyist in jail right this minute for giving public employees travel and meals worth far, far less than $900,000. He claims he didn't intend bribery; that what he did was business-as-usual. But he's in jail now, nonetheless."
"Why would we risk federal charges by making a donation to the Clinton Foundation at a time when our Company had such a clear conflict of interest? It seems reckless and unnecessary, even if it was not illegal. Are we operating under the assumption that our Company is to big to be charged with honest services fraud or bribery even as little guys go to jail for it?"
"If so, may I politely remind the Company of questions raised in 2003 by the National Legal and Policy Center, also regarding our interactions with government officials, which resulted in two Boeing executives, including our CFO, going to prison, the resignation of our CEO, and over a half a billion dollars in fines?"
In response, Mr. McNerney, who clearly was annoyed by Almasi's question, said he disagreed with almost everything Almasi said, and said he was "confident" Secretary Clinton "would have advocated for Caterpillar's tractors or GE's turbines with equal fervor... with or without these few donations."
Mr. McNerney also said he was "highly confident that we followed the letter and the spirit of the law" despite the National Center's "indication that you made which is that it is beyond the pale."
Mr. McNerney concluded by saying, "I appreciate the secretary's support overseas" and added the "commercial advocacy by people that lead our country is highly appreciated by those of us toiling in the vineyards."
"There were people in the room suggesting Boeing executives were building kid-killing drones to pay for luxury homes in Miami, yet I think that company chairman W. James McNerney was more irate about my questioning of corporate donor strategy than he was about those questions," said Almasi. "While not addressing the core question of why Boeing chose the Clinton Foundation at a time when Secretary Clinton was involved in 'advocacy' for its company, McNerney insisted there was nothing wrong with its donations to public and private Clinton priorities. Maybe it was legal, but it stinks to high heaven."
"Mr. McNerney's response is inadequate and should concern shareholders," said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center. "He ducked the kernel of our question, which is why Boeing would make a donation to the Clinton Foundation at a time of such a conflict of interest. Even if the company's intentions were pure, such a move can raise legal questions."
"A key point here is that enforcement of laws covering honest services fraud is murky. The DC Court of Appeals has even said that determining what is and is not legal in this area is 'subtle.' So companies and individuals can be charged -- and have been -- even when they genuinely believe themselves innocent," Ridenour said.
This small excerpt of the Cavuto show on Fox Business, broadcast 5/1 /14, featuring the National Center's David Almasi, has been posted under fair use guidelines for the purpose of non-profit, educational public debate by the National Center for Public Policy Research, a 501(c)(3) educational foundation under the Internal Revenue Code. For more discussion of these issues, please visit:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Boei...
http://www.conservativeblog.org
/ ncppr
Информация по комментариям в разработке