It would seem from the stream of news out there lately in newspapers, television and Internet that the United States of America is in need of independent and powerful law enforcement agencies above and beyond what exist; or much more intensive public lobbying for better government.
Otherwise, existing auditors, inspector generals, bureaus, commissions or agencies need to be improved and much more independent from the markets or agencies that they are allegedly checking into. How would you know whether these oversight agencies are unbiased?
Check out their rulings on past similar complaints in their own records, some of which may be included on the Internet. Did they seem to ignore the actual facts and clear whomever they were checking upon? If so, you need to either report them, or check into activation of a consumer class legal action to challenge their improper activities.
There are, of course, federal agencies like the FBI, the CIA, NSA and the US Justice Department that are seemingly immune from regular, effective checks even though there are agencies able to check on them: the U.S. Attorney or the U.S Inspector General, both part of the Justice Department. That department too has had its failures to deal with corruption or law breakers.Here are some of the thousands of hard headlines that show those critical unbiased investigational needs: Obama to Call for Curbs on NSA Phone Spying But Leave Bulk Data in Gov't Hands for Now (Democracy Now)
'Whitey' Bulger Trial Details FBI Corruption (ABC News)
CIA and the Culture of Corruption (Truthout.org)
Most Corrupt Agencies -- Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.mostcorrupt.com)
JPMORGAN CHASE: Another Slap on The Wrist For Wall Street (Rolling Stone)
Senator (Elizabeth) Warren Pushes on Failure to Prosecute Banks (Salon.com)
Fines and Other Security Enforcement Actions Against Insurers and Agents (insurancenewsnet.com)
Global Warming Cannot Be Ignored (Washington Post)
Corruption Around the World (Security Management.com)
While scrutinizing follow ups to stories with headlines like these, seldom does one discover that government officials or corporate officials ever get charged with the crimes they are suspected of committing. Nor do the superrich businessmen personally get punished with fines as part of the millions or billions of dollars their corporations pay from lawsuit damages; nor are corporate heads even usually cited as responsible for the illegal or unethical conduct involved in the consumer or other complaints against the firms they supervise.
It seems that one of the more recent historical developments in January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections, has created totally unequal access and influence for the rich over the poor. Essentially, now huge campaign contributions from to top one percent of the population can buy or help buy an election and the votes of congressmen to favor legislation for small, medium and giant corporations.
Here is an example of the 2008 election buying example from Opensecrets.org. "In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and 94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission., the candidate who spent the most money ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on candidates' spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission."