you're the worse. viewpoint with eliot spitzer next. ♪ >> good evening i'm eliot spitzer. this is viewpoint. the charges are bribery and coverup. possibly at the highest corporate level. the underlying law the foreign corrupt practices act which makes it illegal for u.s. companies to bribe foreign officials. the accusations come from a remarkably detailed story in the new york sometimes. the accused the largest retail center the world walmart. the sometimes story starts with walmart executive operating on what he called "the dark side of the moon." that's how whistle blower sergio cicero zapata described his job

in 2005 when he claimed that he handed out more than $8 million in bribes to middle men to speed up permits for new walmart stores in mexico. a scheme cicero said was pushed by his boss. edoardo castro-wright then ceo of walmart in mexico later vice chairman and headed of ex-commerce for the firm now scheduled to retire in july. cicero sent his charges to walmart international general counsel who promptly launched an investigation. it found documents that backed up cicero's claims and exposed another $16 million in direct, quote, contributions and donations to mexican authorities. the lead investigator former fbi

special agent ronald halter wrote is a christian report. there is reasonable suspicion to believe that mexican and usa laws have been violated. it sounds like a cover up from the very top. now walmart said it's cooperating with the fcc the securities exchange commission and the department of justice. now i'm join by the president of brave knew films robert greenwald, and mike kay letter. i can tell that you i've handled a fair number of cases. i don't think i've ever seen behavior as egregious as this in terms of bribes paid or the cover up from the top. am i out of line in saying that?

>> i don't think you're out of line at least with respect to the conduct of walmart including it's senior executives when it allegedly learned of this conduct in 2005. as you stated in your opening the company did not do what a responsible corporate actor would be expected to do in this situation conduct a meaningful, in-depth review nor did it take effective remedial measures. one of the individuals at the center of this, mr. mr. castro-wright, was there after promoted throughout the organization. how walmart acted over the last several years upon learning of this is obviously not going to sit well with the department of justice or the sec. >> professor, let me stop through. you and i in terms of our lives are aware of the statute give

us our viewers a quick summary and what happens to a company that once it finds out that a foreign subsidiary is giving bribes. >> the action is not new. it's been around approximately 35 years. congress passed it to capture payments to foreign government officials in connection with a business purpose. we're really at a new era of fcpa enforcement when the enforcement theories are expanding as well as the scrutiny that companies are under. the fcpa itself does not contain an affirmative exposure obligation when the company learns of improper conduct. there are any number of reasons why a? may want to make a voluntary disclosure, but even if a company does not voluntarily

disclose, you would expect company executives who are faithful to their fiduciary duties to conduct a meaningful internal review and implement effective remedial measures and-- >> professor. >> yes. >> you're using a lot of language you and i may have had in our dna from a young age fiduciary duties and all this. if you cover up and hide it instead of stilling the government what's been going on, you're not going to be looking too good when they decide whether or not to charge you. we'll get to that in a minute. i'll bring in robert grenwald and ask you a simple question, does it surprise you? >> no, it doesn't surprise me at all. in the two years we've spent researching and investigating the whole walmart story we saw incident after incident, case after case where literally it's built into the dna of that corporation that it's okay to do

anything if you make an extra buck. in this case we owe a great debt to david barstow in "the new york times" for a great piece of work. the stories keep coming, they don't stop and that's because walmart justifies it all if it will make an extra buck, if it make a nickel, then they think it's okay to do it. that's an awful way for a worldwide employer to behave. >> the juniors that you focused on in your documentary did not relate to bribery. what types of practices were you talking about? >> how many hours do you have that we can go into it. >> i'll give you one minute. >> i'll talk fast. i'm from new york. what we went into was the cases of how walmart hurts the small business owner, hurts the family who has a real estate or private home, hurts human rights practices overseas, hurts the

environment. it just goes on and on. the thing that tie it is all together is important for people to understand, it's not a rotten apple theory with walmart. it truly is how they operate because they believe they are the worst of capitalist. they believe you can do any of these. you can destroy neighborhoods local businesses you can take advantage of women because that's how they operate. >> most of the activity, the bribes being paid in mexico to reasonably to a whole array of people appear to have been paid back in 2005. is walmart going to get lucky because the statute of limitations, meaning it's been seven years later and you can only bring a case within a five-year period of time? are they going to escape because of that or are there theories of criminal or civil liabilities and say your luck has run out and you're going to be charged. >> that would stand in the fact

that there is a five-year statute of limitation. walmart is not going to get lucky. walmart is cooperating with the enforcement agencies and in furtherance of their cooperation they'll most likely waive any statute of limitation defenses. a lot of times the department of justice can work around the statute of limitation by charging a conspiracy. if the doj alleges that the so-called cover up is in furtherance of the conspiracy the clock does not begin to tick until that last act has occurred. i think it's highly unlikely that the statute of limitation also immune myselfize walmart in any way in this case. >> what does it when when you have someone vice chairman of the company deep fixing this investigation and saying, we want to sweep this away. am i right it's hard in the context of the justice department not to bring a

criminal case? >> i mean, i think we're talking about perhaps the difference between the corporate entities' exposure and the exposure of any culpable individual. you can be sure both the department of justice and the f fcc on the civil side will be looking at this carefully and. so i think that is likely to occur. obviously depending upon where the facts lead us. >> a lot of people when the statute was passed, and i robert i want to come to you in a second. when we came to the united states impose upon the rest of the world business practices that may violate the norms of what goes on over there who are we to do that, but it differentiates between the occasional payment that be made overseas that is customary in that geographical region and the cover up, the affirmative cover up that goes right to the top here.

comment if you would what that says to you what has changed in this company and who was promoted and why. >> i don't think anything has substantially changed. when we did the walmart film and we were working with 50 groups all organizing around various issues and abuses that walmart was undertaking. they made a pretend of covering up--cleaning up. i said covering up. they did cleaning up, green washing and minor things around the edges but they're not prepared to question the fundamentals. how do you run a business? how do you juggle your goals and needs for profits verse responsibility as the world's largest employer in our country and how do you deal with the fact that leadership and management has been there for so feign years they've implemented rule after rule, which have the total impact in effect on many of our lives even if we don't shop there even if we don't work there because of driving wages down and harming and

effecting neighborhoods. they're not prepared to look at any of that and examine their bottom line in terms of what it's doing to so many people throughout the country. >> robert, what you're articulateing many of those are judgment calls that are made that you and i mice disagree with, but they're not rank illegalillegality. what we have here is rank i will ill legality they've begun a new environmental push. is this going to completely destroy that effort? >> yes, it will completely destroy it publicly because many have questioned how deep and reel thatreal that effort is, how much is just painting over the old building, the building that is corrupt to its core. you're right this is breaking

the law at a whole other level and at the highest level we found there have been incidents of bribing city councilmen, city officials, but it's consistent because the bribery was in pursuit of opening stores, ignoring local regulations beating down the competition and controlling market share so they can do whatever they want. >> in fact i'm sure you're aware the mexicans subsidiary was one of its real success stories. they were the largest retail center mexico. and the walton family that owns walmart makes in three minutes what the average workers makes in an entire year. professor, i want to profit and this may come out of left field i want to pivot to another potential fcp case that is lingering out there news corps that has been bribing cops and government officials in england and now appears to have covered this up. does news corps have a fcpa

liability that it should be worried about? >> the news corps story broke over the summer last year. in some respects it's a similar situation in which the payments have been made outside of the context of foreign government procurement, but nevertheless very squarely within some dojs and fcc enforcement policies. now the thing with fcpa scrutiny it tends to result in a company doing a worldwide review of its operation. and both news corps and walmart stated over the weekend that it's in the process of doing a worldwide review. it will be a good two to four years before we know the end result in both the news corps fcpa exposure as well as walmart. >> a fair number of my friends of mine work at big firms where they've been retained to do similar types of investigations.

one thing that is a given lawyers get rich on this whether or not things change at the end of the day obviously that is the question we should care about. robert grenwal president of "brave new films and mike kaler. thank you for joining me if you have an opinion, you better back it up. >>eliot spitzer takes on politics. >>science and republicans do not mix. >>now it's your turn at the only online forum with a direct line to eliot spitzer. >>join the debate now. attack on women that perhaps the majority of the population woke up? >> idaho is not known as approaching act i.v. you had hundreds of women show up, thousands signed petitions. they made their voices heard. what happens is that now, the

legislators are running scared. very similar laws have passed quietly in other states for the past 10 years, really in the past two years have intensified. pennsylvania a similar law was shelved, idaho this proved to be political poison. women are paying attention and having their voices heard. >> thanks for coming in. >> the aclu considers a demand that to get a job you have to let an employer open your private mail, the senate wants to make it illegal to hand over a password to your facebook account.

>> forget mortgages let's take a look at the next alonging debt crisis. what do we owe the most money on? is it a credit card debt. b auto loan debt or c student

loan debt. if you guessed c you would be correct. the number of the day american student loan debt has now reached $870 billion surpassing credit card and auto loans by over $100 billion. the class of 2012 will graduate with an average debt of $25,000 and more than half of bachelor's degrees holders under the agef 25 went jobless or under employed last year. according to the report of the federal reserve bank of new york, 27% of the 37 million borrowers have past-due balances of 30 days or more. it looks like the early days of the subprime crisis. and student loan bills are not limited with the college graduates themselves. with parents shouldering college oh costs entire families may face bankruptcy. higher education >>this is outrageous! [[vo]]cenk uygur calls out the mainstream media.

>>the rest of the media seems like, "ho-hum, no big deal." we've have no choice, we've lost our democracy here. just refreshing to hear. no other television show does that. we're keeping it real. it takes people with real knowledge to build and maintain a race car. polymers, hydo-carbons, thermal plastics, math and science? you bet it is. many kids don't understand how important these subjects can be that's why time warner cable developed connect a million minds. to introduce kids in our communities to the opportunities that inspire them to develop these important skills. how can my car go faster? maybe your child will figure it out. find out more at connectamillionminds.com

exist? some say all this drama is nothing more than a diversion from the real issues. joining me now to discuss this so-called women's vote slate senior editor, dahlia. thank you for joining us. now you wrote this article "full disclosure." i also write for "slate" so we're colleagues. you wrote and said this is dramatic. counter intuitive. explain your thesis. >> well, i'm not suggesting that the war against women isn't real. what i'm suggesting is that weaponnizing the mommy wars, which i think is an entire fiction, this is something that was created as best as i know in the late 90s to get traffic where they pitted women against women. working women were supposedly passing judgment on stay-at-home

moms. stay-at-home moms were supposed to be risen with fear and rage. and everyone was angry at each other. and after this week, every woman has the luxury to sit around, opting to sit at home. opt to go working, judging one another. that's not the reality of women's experience. women work largely because they have to work. they're delighted they have a sister-in-law who stays at home. they're delighted they have a neighbor who works. we don't judge each other. the idea that you're going to deploy all this as a way to vote romney or vote obama strikes me as completely not mapping on to the reality of women's lives. let me see if i understand it. there was a word, the word choice. that women were choosing to pursue one or the other of the options you laid out. what you're saying there is

really no such freedom. these are imperatives, and some how the prism through which we were seeing some of the so-called choices were not in themselves real. >> i think it's one notch deeper. what i wanted to suggest in that piece when i cowrote it. we wanted to suggest why do we only talk about women through this lens of choice? we never talk about men oh, and then they choose to work. they choose to stay home. they choose to take three months off for paternity leave. men get to live. women are bound up in this language of choice. and choice suggests to me not just already fraught with the word choice because of the abortion wars, but already fraught yet again because of the idea that at every turn women have to bargain barter, settle, compromise that the well's life is a sum of complex choices. what i wanted to suggest in the

article, and i think this is posh, we talk about men in terms of maximizing field. we talk about women in terms of choice. it might an youthful thing given the economic reality that a lot of men stay home, a lot of memory are on flex time. a lot of women work full time, that we should talk about men and women in the same terms. men make choices and women want to pursue freedom and get away from the illusion that women are about choice. >> you're saying that it continued to say that if women have this choice, but there is an imperative. the distinct distinction is wrong and unfair to use in language referring to women. >> it's wrong to suggest that women have a menu of choices. we know that's wrong. on the other hand it suggests you're always have to choose. most women do what they have to do. most men do what they have to do. let's get beyond the confining and as you say incident

fanaticizing language of choice. >> any time i would see one block of voters voting in a significantly different way from the remainder of the electorate, you would view one coherent block. it could change from a concernible double digit margin voting in favor of president obama opposed to mitt romney, which would suggest that it is in fact, a separate and distinct group. do you disagree with that as a way of understanding the politics or do you disagree with it as an ideological matter? >> i think if if you slice and dice those numbers you'll see that women's votes vary along age lines profoundly along religion lines profoundly along income brackets. to say that it's this monolithic

vote that tacks one way or another is to diminish all the things at play. i would just ask you do we think there is a men's vote? no. we would find that notion laughable. we need to look at it much, much more subtly, much more respectfully and to understand that women, sure overwhelmingly they tack for obama but that is-- >> look, if what you're saying that we on tv and cable tv are completely superficial and draw conclusions that are much more interesting if you did what we say in economics was an analysis you wins hands down. i won't dispute with you on that score. but i would say there is a men's vote. right now people looking at the romney and obama race, i don't think these distinctions are meaningless. if you're saying there is a much more subtle way of understanding it you're right.

do you think there is a theological universe of female voters who felt that rick santorum had it right and those voters will be with romney and there will be those who will not be mitt romney. >> i think it's interesting. i hate snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. of course there is a black man's vote and a white man's vote. right there you made a distinction that we have to keep making. >> that's what i'm--that's what i'm trying to throw in the notion of theological women's vote that you can add subtilty. it's not always good on tv but let's give it a shot. >> let's try. we're going for broke on subtilty. religion is a driver as much for women as it is for men. that said i think this fear became very fraught on that front because of questions of contraception, not abortion any more but contraception.

basic economic questions about women's ability to choose how they can create an economic life if they cannot use contraception contraception. remember 99% of women in this country say they've used it at some point. once you sort of fold that into the conversation about religion and freedom it becomes very, very fraught for women in ways that are different from the way men talk about it. this year we confounded the religious conversation with a conversation about basic economic freedom the ability to work, and that's a harder thing for women to get their hits around, and i think this will make this a very tough election. >> interesting. senior editor dahlia who injected subtilty in the conversation. thank youthank you for your time tonight. >> thank you. >> jeb bush wants marco rubio for president. marco rubio wants jeb bush. oh no. the viewfinder next.

[ male announcer ] this is corporate caterers miami, florida. in here, great food demands a great presentation. so at&t showed corporate caterers how to better collaborate by using a mobile solution in a whole new way. using real-time photo sharing abilities, they can create and maintain high standards from kitchen to table. this technology allows us to collaborate with our drivers to make a better experience for our customers. [ male announcer ] it's a network of possibilities -- helping you do what you do... even better. ♪ ♪

>> alec on the ropes but first obama strikes a pose and the simpsons say thank you--sort of. when it doesn't fit anywhere else we put it in the viewfinder viewfinder. >> i think the republican party if the democrats came out against eating yellow snow, rick santorum would eat yellow snow. >> it was hysterical. >> you think it's funny. >> and frightening and hysterical. >> democrats and republicans are interesting because republicans really laugh at themselves more. >> president bush had a very different outlook on these comedy shows. he liked them, respected them but he never went on them. >> if expectations were so low i would say hi, i'm president obama.

president bush president bush. >> he'll point to you and you'll get it done. >> i will treasure this except when army or navy come by. >> let's be clear i don't want dead people voting in the state of north carolina. >> i see dead people. >> do you know robert? >> he's communist. >> communist slash socialist. >> karl marx. >> i came here to endorse romney. >> there it is. [applause] >> i mean, i'm a great admirer of mitt romney, and i'm a huge fan of marco rubio. the combination would be extraordinary. >> that's very nice. i hope jeb will say yes if governor romney asks him. [simpsons theme song] >> robert reich is a commune

mist. nowcommunist.now that all multivitamins give me the basics. they claim to be complete. only centrum goes beyond. providing more than just the essential nutrients, centrum. always your most complete. etch-a-sketch candidate, an image where romney is anti gas. [ male announcer ] cookies

with smooth caramel and chocolate. ♪ ♪ hmm twix. also available in peanut butter.

>> when is a charity not a charity? turns out alec, the right wing group which models bills like florida's stand your ground law and big tax cuts for businesses was spending over half of its money on lobbying for its donors. if true that would be a direct violation of the law defining charitable organizations. but no one has thought to challenge alec's tax exempt status until now. today, the advocacy group non-cause filed a complaint with the irs claiming that alec is actually a lobby group masquerading as public charity. alec claims it does not lobby but instead provides a forum for

legislatures and private corporations to come together and advance the fundamental principle of free market enterprise limited government, and federallallism at the state level. bob edgar thanks for coming in. what is alec doing that it's not allowed to do. >> common cause has been looking at alec for the last year. we've been provided documents and we came to the conclusion that they spend 60% of their time and revenue lobbying. they give corporation abouts 140 about 140 corporations the opportunity to lobby in a tax-free environment it's giving to a chair glit tax deduction for a business when giveing to a charity. >> tax deduction. we decided to go to the irs the whistle blower act to the irs

and charge them with fraudulent practices. if common cause were to have the kind of links to a corporation or series of corporations that alec has, we would be violating the tax code. we want the irs as a whistle blower complaint to tell us whether or not they are operating fairly and appropriately under the rules of the irs. >> you are a former congressman. i was the attorneys general and states have jurisdiction responsibility of enforceing charitable laws such as alec or what pretends to be a charitable entity. what is the distinction between lobbying and what alec said it did which is giving companies an opportunity to con together, consort and get ideas. >> i served in congress for 12 years. lobbyists would come to me with talking points and give me memos on issues that they cared about

and when they liked the way i voted they would give me legal contributions. but all of those activities were hard-core lobbying. they had the file with the appropriate documents and paperwork. in this case companies like coca-cola, pepsi kraft foods and 140 other corporations could, in fact give a charitable contribution to alec, which is found under the charitable rules. they claim on their tax forms that they do zero lobbying. >> zero. alec--just so it's clear, alec in the 990 forms submitted to the irs say they do not do any lobbying at all. >> they do not do any lobbying. we hired legal counsel, and our legal counsel happens to be experts on whistle blower lawsuits or complaints. >> right.

>> and they took this challenge reviewed it, and we put together 4,000 documents that we received from alec that show e-mails show talking points, show score cards where they watched the legislative process. this all blew up with the case in florida-- >> the stand your ground statute, which needless to say has rightly focused enormous attention on alec's insidious behavior on certain issues. >> exactly. the focus want to give everybody a weapon passed the stand your ground law in florida. and then they took that and gave it to the american legislative council. >> what would happen to alec if your lawsuit is successful, if it is determined they had been lobbying, whether it's 10% 50%

if that determination is made by the court or irs what then happens? >> they pay fines and penalties. they would have to change their tax status, and the corporations that hang with alec stay with the organization could face fines and penalties as well. because they have given between $7,000 and $25,000 a year and they get tax credit for that. >> to see the companies that gave to alec being penalized but as a political matter going forward, companies that had given to alec or were at the present timed to give to alec would pull back. wait a minute, if this was a lobbying organization, a coke or pepsi, has a different feel than giveing to a charitable entity. >> 14 companies that have important grants to protect have

left alec and we think more will leave. if the irs agrees with our complaint, our whistle blower complaint, and alec is fined any companies that would stay with alec would face some penalty and fine by the irs for giveing to a charity when, in fact, the organization is a lobbying organization. >> you were in the belly of the beast. you know the lobbyists when you see one. your antennas go up and you can smell them a mile away. will alec be put on notice so when it tracks legislation, that it will know that it is crossing that line? >> it has. there have been a number of cases in the past. alec knows what the rules are but they've hidden for the past 20 or 30 years behind the guise of a charity. let's face it, about 2,000 conservative state legislateters

pay $100 for a two-year membership. they're wined and dined several times a year by special interest groups. they sit side by side by corporate leaders. the corporate members have veto power over the model bills that go through their task forces. it is lobbying. >> and without any doubt. real quick question, does common cause lobby? >> common cause does lobby but we have a 501 c-4 which gives us permission to lobby state by state. we have a 501 c 3 which is our educational arm where we study. but we give no money to candidates. when we go to capitol hill or state capitols we register as lobbyists, fill out the forms and we're completely transparent. >> you're saying there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

you stay transimportant, you say this is our lobbying vehicle this is what you stand for and you don't masquerade behind the guise of being a charity. >> full transparency. we don't behind being a charity. register report, and file the tax code the way it's set up and don't try to hide your lobbying in a charity. >> all right former congressman and now president of common cause bob edgar, thank you for being here this evening. no justice the d oj dragging its feet. my view coming up. it's completely inappropriate for television.

>> calling romney a turn around

artist. that takes a lot of license. but let's head out to san francisco and check in with governor jen jennifer gran homed and "the war room." >> tonight we're all about wildcards on this campaign and secret weapons. so is the tea party in the wildcard category the ace of spades or the two of clubs? we'll put that question to former pennsylvania senator arrestarlan specter. and then we'll get the inside scoop from the folks at politico and we'll find out from our friends at buzzfeed about ana romney's history. we have more on the top of the hour. >> bill clinton is a great secret weapon. arlan specter is a wildcard. republican, democrat, has hair, has no hair.

i shouldn't say that. that was not fair. highways been a spectacular senator. when he came over and gave the democrats the majority in the senate. >> he wrote a book called "life among the cannibals." we'll find out who the newest voice in cable news is on the new news network. >>it is an independent progressive voice and i love that. >>jennifer granholm joins current tv. a former two term governor. >>people like somebody who's got a spine. >>determined to find solutions... >>we need government to ensure >>driven to find the truth... >>what's really going on? >>fearless, independent and above all, politically direct. rrenttv