Occam's razor suggests that the simple answer is often the right answer.

The average American is not prone to conspiracy theories.  We tend to think that governments and big corporations are dispassionately operated by people who know the rules and abide by the rules because we know that we would get caught if we were in their position and we don't want to get punished.

On the other hand, we also know that government and big corporations are inhabitated by people who are amazingly like people and that people are not above playing favorites, particularly where they have learned that they are immune from responsibility, as might be the case for someone in government or a large corporation.

Bryan Preston at the PJ Tattler looks at various data points that appear to show grotesque political use of the powers of government to punish political enemies and reward political friends and asks "is it that simple?"

Why did the Department of Justice raid Gibson Guitars twice in the span of two years, yet leave competitor C.F. Martin untouched? Both appear to use the same allegedly illegal woods. The allegation floating around is that it’s because Gibson’s CEO supports Republicans and Martin’s supports Democrats, and we have a Democratic administration hell-bent on punishing Republicans. Instinctively, I want to reject that theory. It’s too simple and too, I don’t know, obvious and even un-American. Gibson’s CEO may face jail time, and the company may end up failing under the weight of the federal boot. And over what?


Why does Warren Buffett, billionaire businessman, keep supporting President Obama despite the president’s obvious economic failures? Reading Tim Carney’s piece about Buffett and bank bailouts that appeared yesterday, it’s evident that at every turn over the past couple of years, Buffett has managed to cash in on huge government actions. Carney suggests that Buffett bought a major stake in Bank of America on the belief that the Obama administration will end up bailing that bank out, stuffing more money into Buffett’s pockets. One would expect a savvy and fair-minded businessman to oppose the rampant regulatory state that Obama has unleashed on the nation’s economy, but if the businessman stands to profit from it? If can use his influence to direct it to move in ways that help him? Does Buffett continue supporting Obama because he, Buffett, basically owns the president and knows he can make money off of his policies?

Why did the Obama administration shut down offshore oil drilling? Why did it take some car dealerships from their owners back in 2009? Do we really have an administration abusing its powers to punish its enemies? Is is really that simple?

Preston points to this data point:

3M Claims Democratic Lobbyist, Talking Head, and Former Clinton Staffer Lanny Davis Tried to Extort $30 Million From It


And I think this is standard operating practice. Do what we want, or we will make government trouble for you.

3M claims an investment company conspired with high-powered lobbyist Lanny Davis in a smear campaign to "coerce" it into paying "tens of millions of dollars ... to save them from the consequences of yet another unprofitable investment," a screening test for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus...

Davis, who worked as a special counsel for President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, has lobbied for a string of controversial clients since leaving the White House, including African dictators, military coup supporters in Honduras, and the government of Pakistan.

This report does not specify the interest of the parties here. It is my guess that 3M entered into some agreement with a company Davis lobbied for, to test and then distribute their drug; they decided it wasn't commercially viable, and terminated the agreement, and then Davis went to work to pressure them into reversing that decision.

I assume the termination of the contract wasn't a breach at all, because I don't see any mention of suing over a broken contract.

After attacking them in the press, it is alleged, they got more direct:

"Defendants' illicit campaign has included overt threats of reprisals by holders of large blocks of 3M stock; public demonstrations by paid individuals posing as victims of an altogether fabricated public health 'issue' allegedly created by 3M's decision to discontinue selling a product no one wanted...

And so forth. And then they kicked it up a notch.

3M adds: "When these tactics failed to yield the financial windfall defendants sought, they resorted to making extortionate demands upon 3M." It claims that Boulter and Davis then "acted together" to make a "crude extortion attempt" by "sending to 3M's counsel an unsolicited e-mail in which Boulter claimed that the British Minister of Defence had instructed Boulter to inform 3M that if it did not pay over $30 million, the Minister of Defence would interfere with 3M's ability to do business with the British government. He also threatened that the British government would reconsider the recently announced call to knighthood of Buckley. This crude extortion attempt threatened both to embarrass Buckley and to tarnish 3M's most valuable asset, its corporate brand."

Sounds a lot like a form of privateering. Well-connected individuals, acting with other pals in government, pirate money away from companies and people. And it's kinda-sorta legal, if you have enough friends in government.