So now we know one reason why there are so many settlements reached where a fine is paid but “no admission of wrongdoing” is part of the deal.  An admission of wrongdoing sounds pretty bad when it actually has to be admitted.

Here’s the latest news on one of the great corporate lying campaigns of all time.  Tobacco, for years, lied to and deceived the American public.  Oh, this punishment could still be overturned.  But, as of this moment, it is the law of the land that the tobacco companies have to admit that they deceived the American public.  Yes, they have to use that word:  “deceived.”  And they have to publicize their dishonesty to the American public, paying for the statements to be seen far and wide.  Here are some of the details (from Judge orders tobacco companies to say they lied):

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered tobacco companies to publish corrective statements that say they lied about the dangers of smoking and that disclose smoking’s health effects, including the death on average of 1,200 people a day.
U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler previously had said she wanted the industry to pay for corrective statements in various types of advertisements. But Tuesday’s ruling is the first time she’s laid out what the statements will say.
Each corrective ad is to be prefaced by a statement that a federal court has concluded that the defendant tobacco companies “deliberately deceived the American public about the health effects of smoking.” Among the required statements are that smoking kills more people than murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes and alcohol combined, and that “secondhand smoke kills over 3,000 Americans a year.”
The corrective statements are part of a case the government brought in 1999 under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations.
Kessler wrote that all of the corrective statements are based on specific findings of fact made by the court.
“This court made a number of explicit findings that the tobacco companies perpetuated fraud and deceived the public regarding the addictiveness of cigarettes and nicotine,” {Judge Kessler} said.
Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, called it an important ruling.
“The most critical part of the ruling is that it requires the tobacco companies to state clearly that the court found that they deceived the American public and that they are telling the truth now only because the court is ordering them to do so…”

Though some argue that deception should be protected speech because of freedom of speech, I don’t quite understand that.  It seems to me that we ought to have a society that supports and rewards truth-telling, and opposes and punishes falsehood-telling.  And when a corporation intentionally deceives, that ought to be revealed, acknowledged by the corporation, punished, and spread far and wide.  I applaud this ruling.

And one more thing…  Do you think the tobacco companies knew they were deceiving when they were deceiving?  The answer is pretty obvious – yes, they knew.  Only the dogged determination of some folks finally led to this one corporate deception finally being fully revealed.  (Ironically, one champion in this story is David Kessler, the same last name as this judge.  I assume there is no relation).

I think we need to ask these questions:

#1 – Is it possible for a corporation to intentionally deceive?
#2 – Is it possible for a corporation to continue to intentionally deceive, when they know they are being deceptive?  (that is what “intentionally” means).
#3 – Will they “quit,” and “turn themselves in” on their own?
#4 – Therefore, do we need to applaud whistle-blowers and regulators, and other people on a mission, to reveal such deceptions?

This week’s story is about the tobacco finding.  But we could peruse the news for many other illustrations of this propensity for some corporations to intentionally deceive.  BP just recently received a very hefty fine for their own failures to be honest in the aftermath of the Gulf Oil disaster.  “The explosion of the rig was a disaster that resulted from BP’s culture of privileging profit over prudence,” said Assistant Atty. Gen. Lanny A. Breuer at the news conference.  (Read about this here).

“Profit over prudence.”  Profit over the safety and health of customers.  Profit over honesty.

In other words, in a “buyer beware” and “trust but verify” era, I think I understand why we need plenty of regulations, and people responsible for enforcing regulations.  Don’t you?