Should the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act be declared obsolete following the Wal-Mart case in 2012? In the opinion of Jeffrey Miron, it should. He holds that the Act should be abolished, but Wal-Mart should be prosecuted. This is because its existence alone is bound to increase the rate of corruption. In business, bribes are mainly given to get around minor laws that are deemed unnecessary. These laws are an excessive invasion by the government into the businesses of its citizens. They make expansion of these businesses unnecessarily hard. This is because it is hard to open different outlets of the same business with so many regulations. This law also seems to favor companies that are better at covering up their corruption. It also discourages citizens from setting up their businesses abroad due to the risk of prosecution.
On the other hand, Charlie Savage holds that the Act should be upheld. According to him, the prosecution of Wal-Mart will put other firms on the alert on the issue of bribery. Business should be done honestly, any form of bribery, whether in monetary form or not is prosecutable. This law which had been ignored for many years by the government is now starting to have impact across companies. The observance of this law is actually capable of transforming the current reality of very high rates of corruption in large companies. This was evident from the economic impact Wal-Mart suffered after the case was uncovered. The increase in the enforcement of the Act is another factor to consider. Since the fines and penalties which had been previously stated in the Act went up, there has been increased observance of the Act.
Charlie savage and Jeffrey Miron majorly disagree on the relevance of this Act, its effectiveness and its fairness. According to Michael B. Mukasey, the use of this law should be restrained. This is because it is difficult to implement; misinterpretation may lead to punishment of companies which have no connection to actual bribery or have not been involved in any form of improper dealings.
In my opinion, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act should neither be abolished nor be maintained at its current state. This is because its abolishment would create a situation whereby the companies would be at liberty to participate in improper dealings. This would occasion skyrocketing of corruption to uncontrollable levels. On the other hand, the method of interpretation of the statute by the justice department should be reasonable. This would ensure that only actual crimes are dealt with, without harassment of innocent corporations. According to Mike Koehler, the justice department has gone beyond its limit in the interpretation of this statute. Though many escape from this by opting for out of court settlement, the enforcement of this law in such a manner acts against the interests of business people.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been in place since to 1977. It was aimed at discouraging bribery. According to some scholars, however, it is fair to say that for most of the time it has been in place, it has only acted to prevent open cases of bribery. It has been easy to go around it by just proper concealing of bribery. It has also been oppressive to poor citizens trying to establish their businesses, by imposing such regulations. However, according to others, it is expected by many that the law shall be enforced more effectively, in a bid to curb corruption.
Work Cited
Cassin, Richard. Bribery Abroad: Lessons from the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. New York: Lulu.com, 2010.
