The Future of Corporate Reform

Chartering a New Course: Revoking Corporations’ Right to Exist

by Charlie Cray

When they hear the proposal to "revoke corporate charters," most people probably think that means banning the use of company jets by top executives like Ken Lay, who used Enron's planes to fly his daughter and her bed to southern France and shuttle political allies including George W. Bush to campaign events. And to most people, banning that kind of corporate perk abuse wouldn't be a bad idea. But to a growing number of activists, lawyers and scholars, "revoking corporate charters" means doing something much more significant: dismantling harm-inducing corporations by revoking their right to exist.

"There's an almost an instantaneously favorable gut response from people when you explain that they can revoke a company's charter, distribute their assets and put them out of business," says attorney Robert Benson, who petitioned California's attorney general to revoke Unocal's charter on behalf of 150 organizations and prominent individuals in 1998. "After Enron, people want something that's simple and powerful -- not just jiggling around with accounting rules or prosecuting a few executives -- and this idea gets a good response." MORE>>

Global Rules for Corporate Accountability: The Proposal to Establish a Corporate Accountability Convention

by Matt Phillips

Corporations are active across national boundaries, and often their production, sales and ownership are in different legal jurisdictions with inconsistent regulations. Corporations are often listed on stock markets or have a home base in countries remote from where they operate and are hosted. Changes in the legal framework in any one country can have real or perceived impacts on the short-term competitiveness of companies in that country. Some governments, to remain competitive in the international marketplace, have become reluctant to unilaterally introduce rules corporations might consider unattractive. It is sensible, therefore, to devise a multilateral binding framework that provides a level playing field. A framework convention would allow signatory governments to deliver the agreement in the context of their own legal tradition. MORE>>

Trust-Busting: The State of Antitrust in the United States

An Interview with Robert Pitofsky

Robert Pitofsky served as commissioner and later chair of the Federal Trade Commission, one of the two U.S. antitrust enforcement agencies (along with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice) during the Clinton administration, and has also served as the director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the FTC. He is currently a professor of law at Georgetown Law Center, and practices law as counsel to the Washington, D.C. firm of Arnold and Porter. He is author or editor of numerous books and articles, including Cases & Materials on Antitrust and Revitalizing Antitrust in Its Second Century: Essays on Legal, Economic, and Political Policy (of which he is co-editor). MORE>>

New Rules for the New Localism: Favoring Communities, Deterring Corporate Chains

An Interview with Stacy Mitchell

Stacy Mitchell is a researcher with the New Rules Project, a program of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis. The New Rules Project provides research and innovative policy solutions for building strong local economies and healthy communities. Mitchell is the author of The Home Town Advantage: How to Defend Your Main Street Against Chain Stores and Why It Matters. She advises communities nationwide on strategies for strengthening their homegrown economies and produces an e-mail newsletter that tracks grassroots efforts to curb the spread of corporate chains and revitalize locally owned businesses. MORE>>