July 15, 2011 /

Why Pay A Million Dollars To Change Anti-Bribery Laws When You Don't Bribe?

I think that is the $1 million dollar question right now: Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal. News Corporation […]

I think that is the $1 million dollar question right now:

Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal.

News Corporation contributed $1m to the US Chamber of Commerce last summer. In October the chamber put forward a six-point programme for amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a law that punishes US-based companies for engaging in the bribery of foreign officials.

News Corp swears up and down that they don’t bribe…honest engine!

News Corporation, which has its headquarters in the US, emphasises in its corporate literature that it has a global anti-bribery policy. “We don’t offer, give, solicit or accept bribes or kickbacks, either in cash or in the form of any other thing or service of value,” it says.

Sure – just like Fox news is “fair and balanced”.

It seems like every statement made by News Corp or the Murdochs is quickly invalidated by new evidence coming out. News Corp doesn’t engage in bribes, yet they decided to pay $1 million to lobbyists to soften anti-bribery laws? The old adage, “if you don’t break the law, you have nothing to worry about” seems to come to mind.

More IntoxiNation

Comments