Mind the Books


So much news, so little time. Let’s see, should we talk about Rick Santorum comparing Democrats who uphold the law to Hitler invading France? No. Should we talk about Saddam Hussein in his underwear? Er, no. (Although I’m a little worried that it’s so easy to get past security and take pictures of the man.) Eh, for now we’ll stick with the mundane and boring—but important!—topic of corporate regulation.

Usually if one want an answer to the question, “Is X a good thing,” the place to turn is emphatically not the pages of the Economist. And sure enough, their take on Sarbanes-Oxley—the corporate regulatory bill passed in the wake of the Enron collapse—is vintage stuff. Will the statute reduce financial fraud? “It might.” Will it work? “Time will tell. It is possible that Sarbanes-Oxley will come to be seen as both too much and too little.” Okay, thanks.

To be fair, it’s a tough issue to assess. The basic question is whether it costs too much to impose regulations that mandate the sort of honest accounting and rigorous auditing that prevents large-scale looting, ala Enron or Worldcom. The problem, though, is that the costs here are more or less well-known—one study has pegged the downside to Sarbanes-Oxley at $1.4 trillion—but the benefits are difficult to quantify. You can’t measure the possible benefit of a hypothetical major corporation not going bust through shady dealings, especially if you don’t know whether or not that company would have pulled an Enron in a laxer regulatory atmosphere. Counterfactuals are hard to quantify. So inevitably, the news stories will be stacked against the regulation—those concrete drawbacks always draw headlines.

Meanwhile, Clay Risen of the New Republic had a story last November that’s worth dredging up again: the real regulatory problem these days isn’t insufficient regulation; it’s the fact that the accounting industry has consolidated among four big companies, and those companies have much-too-tightly intertwined consulting and accounting divisions. Obviously a firm isn’t going to much rigorous accounting when it’s also advising the company being audited on how to pay as little in taxes as possible.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.