The Corporate Accountability and Public Integrity Act (CAPIA)

Why are corporations incentivized to screw us?

In short, there needs to be a distinction between normal corporate fuckery and those actions that undermine the public good/trust. Every company can and should make a healthy profit… but at what point is the drive for profit detrimental to the public good? The recent news about a health insurance CEO being murdered begs the question.

Share/Sign this resistbot petition.

The Problem:

In today’s world, some corporations deliberately put profits ahead of public welfare, harming consumers, communities, and the environment. These actions can take many forms, like false advertising, selling unsafe products, exploiting private data, or polluting the environment while cutting corners. Often, these companies know the damage they’re causing but calculate that the profits will outweigh any fines or penalties. This behavior undermines public trust, creates unfair markets, and leaves regular people to bear the consequences—whether it’s higher costs, health risks, or environmental damage.

Examples

Crime: Mislabeling products as “organic” or “natural” without meeting the required standards.

Example: A major food corporation markets a line of snack bars as “all-natural,” charging a premium price. However, investigations reveal the bars contain synthetic additives and highly processed ingredients.
Harm: Consumers are misled into paying more for products they believe are healthier. Competitors offering genuinely organic products are undercut, and public trust in labeling systems is eroded.
Penalty Under CAPIA:
- The company faces fines proportional to its global revenue from the mislabeled product line.
- Executives and board members who approved the deceptive labeling are held personally liable.

Crime: Price gouging on essential medications through monopolistic practices.

Example: A pharmaceutical company buys the rights to a life-saving drug and immediately increases the price by 500%, knowing patients have no alternative treatment.
Harm: Patients suffer financial hardship or are forced to forgo treatment, jeopardizing their health. Public healthcare systems face increased strain due to inflated costs.
Penalty Under CAPIA:
- Massive fines based on the company’s total drug revenue.
- Clawbacks of profits earned through the price hike.
- Regulatory oversight of future drug pricing decisions.

Crime: Selling user data without consent or under deceptive terms.

Example: A social media company secretly collects users’ private messages and sells the data to advertisers, violating privacy agreements. The company uses vague terms in its user agreements to obscure these practices.
Harm: Users’ privacy is violated, their personal data is exploited for profit, and they are exposed to potential risks like identity theft or manipulation.
Penalty Under CAPIA:
- Substantial fines tied to the company’s advertising revenue.
- Restitution payments to affected users.
- The board and executives responsible for privacy policies face personal financial penalties or bans from leadership roles.

The Solution:

The Corporate Accountability and Public Integrity Act (CAPIA) is a bold new law designed to put a stop to these profit-driven crimes. It clearly defines and penalizes corporate behaviors that harm the public for financial gain, ensuring that businesses are held accountable for unethical actions. CAPIA doesn’t just target the companies—it also holds their leaders personally responsible for decisions that prioritize profits over public safety, fairness, or the environment.

CAPIA ensures corporations can’t put profits over people by holding CEOs, boards, and shareholders accountable for harmful practices like false advertising, safety shortcuts, and exploitation, protecting the public and restoring trust.

Large companies should achieve success by serving the public good, not by disregarding or harming it

How CAPIA Works:

Defines Corporate Crimes Clearly: CAPIA identifies harmful actions like false advertising, unsafe products, price-fixing, and environmental damage as intentional profit-driven crimes.
Imposes Real Penalties: Companies found guilty face hefty fines tied to their revenue, not just profits. In extreme cases, repeat offenders can face corporate probation or even dissolution.
Holds Executives Accountable: CEOs and board members can be fined, banned from leadership, or even face criminal charges if they knowingly approve harmful actions.
Protects Whistleblowers: Employees who report wrongdoing are protected from retaliation and may receive financial rewards for helping expose violations.
Requires Transparency: Companies must assess and disclose risks to public health, safety, or the environment before launching new products or major initiatives.

What It Achieves:

CAPIA ensures that corporations can no longer treat public harm as the cost of doing business. It protects consumers from unsafe or deceptive practices, levels the playing field for ethical businesses, and restores trust in the marketplace. By enforcing accountability and prioritizing fairness, CAPIA safeguards the public good and ensures companies succeed through responsibility, not exploitation.

Purpose: CAPIA aims to protect the public from corporate practices that prioritize profits over safety, health, fairness, and environmental sustainability, ensuring trust and accountability in commerce.

Key Features

1. Definition of Profit-Driven Corporate Crime

Profit-driven corporate crimes are defined as intentional or grossly negligent acts by corporations that harm public health, safety, or the environment or distort competition, with the primary motive of increasing financial gain. Examples include false advertising, concealing safety risks, environmental harm, data exploitation, price collusion, and planned obsolescence.

2. Principle-Based Framework

CAPIA is built on three principles:

Transparency: Corporations must provide truthful, clear, and complete information.
Harm Avoidance: Companies must prevent actions that knowingly or negligently harm public health or the environment.
Accountability: Corporations and executives are personally liable for prioritizing profit over ethical obligations.

3. Strict Liability for Harm

Corporations are strictly liable for public or economic harm caused by violations. Penalties include:

Fines based on revenue, not profit.
Mandatory restitution.
Corporate probation or dissolution for severe violations.

4. Executive Accountability

Executives and board members who approve or fail to prevent violations are personally liable, facing fines, bans from leadership roles, and criminal charges in egregious cases.

5. Whistleblower Protections and Incentives

Employees reporting violations are protected from retaliation, with anonymity guaranteed and financial rewards for successful enforcement assistance.

6. Independent Oversight

Establishes the Office of Corporate Accountability (OCA) to:

Investigate and prosecute violations.
Conduct random audits.
Publish corporate integrity ratings.

7. Public Harm Assessments

Corporations must conduct and disclose Public Harm Assessments for major decisions like new products or mergers. Failure to comply is a CAPIA violation.

Structural Safeguards

Broad definitions paired with industry-specific examples prevent ambiguity.
Revenue-based penalties deter violations, especially for large corporations.
Mandatory compliance programs and transparent settlements enforce accountability.
Independent oversight ensures impartiality and public trust.

Impact

CAPIA deters misconduct by imposing severe penalties, protecting the public, and fostering trust through transparent enforcement. It ensures businesses thrive responsibly by holding them accountable for actions that exploit the public for financial gain.

Possible Outcome

Example: Tech Giant and Data Privacy

A global tech company generates $50 billion in quarterly profit by monetizing user data aggressively. It collects extensive personal data through its apps and sells it to advertisers without explicit user consent. This approach maximizes ad revenue but raises significant privacy concerns and exposes users to risks like identity theft or manipulation.

Alternative Approach: Prioritizing Public Good

The company decides to adopt a privacy-first model:
- Consent-Driven Data Use: Users must explicitly opt-in to share data, and the company clearly explains how it will be used.
- Reduced Data Collection: It collects only essential data, minimizing unnecessary invasions of privacy.
- Transparency: It launches an easy-to-understand dashboard allowing users to see and control their data.
- Investing in Data Security: The company invests heavily in cybersecurity to protect user data.

Outcome

The company’s advertising revenue decreases slightly because fewer users opt to share data, reducing targeted ad effectiveness. Quarterly profits drop from $50 billion to $47 billion.

However, it gains long-term benefits:

A reputation as the most trusted tech company, attracting privacy-conscious customers.
Increased user loyalty, with customers willing to pay more for subscriptions and services due to its ethical stance.
Avoidance of costly lawsuits, regulatory fines, and PR disasters tied to data misuse.
Higher shareholder confidence, as the business aligns with growing global privacy regulations and sustainable practices.

This approach illustrates that a company can remain highly profitable while benefiting the public good. The $3 billion sacrifice in profit is an investment in consumer trust, brand loyalty, and long-term success, making the business stronger and more ethical.

$3 billion is A LOT of money.. however no shareholder is going to starve or lose their house when that other $47 billion prints AND the public benefit is realized.

Opposition Tactics

Corporate Opposition to CAPIA: Strategies and Loophole Exploitation

The Challenge:

Corporations facing tougher regulations like CAPIA are likely to push back forcefully, arguing that the law is overly broad, stifles innovation, or creates undue financial burdens. Their goal would be to weaken the law, limit enforcement, or exploit gaps in its application.

Corporate Strategies to Fight CAPIA

1. Lobbying and Political Pressure

Argument: Corporations may claim CAPIA will harm economic growth, increase costs for consumers, or discourage investment.
Tactics: Lobbying lawmakers, funding political campaigns, and using trade associations to push for amendments, delays, or exemptions.

2. Legal Challenges

Argument: Corporations could argue that CAPIA is overly vague, conflicts with existing laws, or violates constitutional rights (e.g., free speech for advertising).
Tactics: Filing lawsuits to challenge the law’s scope, delay enforcement, or set precedent for limiting its impact.

3. Public Relations Campaigns

Argument: Corporations may frame themselves as victims of government overreach, claiming that CAPIA unfairly targets “job creators” or punishes honest mistakes.
Tactics: Running ad campaigns, leveraging media outlets, and funding think tanks to shape public opinion against the law.

4. Pushing for Exemptions

Argument: Specific industries or practices may claim they require unique treatment to avoid unintended harm.
Tactics: Securing industry-specific carve-outs or reduced penalties through political influence or regulatory lobbying.

Potential Loopholes and Exploitation Tactics

1. Exploiting Ambiguities in the Law

Tactic: Corporations might manipulate vague definitions, such as what constitutes “intentional harm” or “significant profit motive,” to argue their actions don’t meet CAPIA’s criteria.
Example: Claiming that deceptive advertising was not “intentional” but an oversight.

2. Minimizing Liability Through Shell Entities

Tactic: Structuring operations to shift liability to smaller subsidiaries or contractors, making enforcement difficult and penalties less impactful.
Example: Using third-party vendors to handle potentially harmful practices while shielding the parent company.

3. Creative Accounting and Financial Structuring

Tactic: Hiding revenues or profits through complex accounting tricks or offshore entities to reduce fines tied to revenue.
Example: Declaring lower domestic earnings while shifting profits to tax havens.

4. Undermining Enforcement Mechanisms

Tactic: Delaying or obstructing investigations, overwhelming oversight agencies with legal hurdles, or exploiting underfunded enforcement bodies.
Example: Challenging subpoenas, demanding excessive documentation, or appealing fines to delay penalties.

5. Targeting Whistleblowers

Tactic: Retaliating against or discrediting whistleblowers despite protections, or creating hostile work environments to deter reporting.
Example: Using lawsuits or settlements to silence employees who expose wrongdoing.

6. Rebranding Harmful Practices

Tactic: Using deceptive terminology to make practices appear compliant with CAPIA while continuing harmful behaviors.
Example: Greenwashing environmental harm by rebranding unsustainable products as “eco-friendly.”

7. Settling Quietly

Tactic: Negotiating confidential settlements with regulators to avoid public scrutiny, reducing the deterrent effect of enforcement.
Example: Paying fines without admitting guilt, allowing continuation of similar practices.

Long-Term Opposition Goals

Corporations may aim to gradually erode CAPIA’s power by:

Advocating for weakened enforcement budgets.
Lobbying for watered-down amendments over time.
Exploiting legal precedents to limit future applications of the law.

Conclusion:

While CAPIA is designed to be comprehensive and resilient, corporations are likely to fight it with substantial resources and sophisticated strategies. Effective implementation requires strong oversight, clear definitions, and robust funding for enforcement agencies to withstand these challenges and ensure the law delivers its intended protections.

Collective Responsibility

Shared Accountability Across Leadership and Governance

Hold Boards of Directors Accountable

Why: Boards set corporate strategy, approve key decisions, and often pressure CEOs to prioritize shareholder returns, even at the expense of public welfare.

How:

Require personal liability for board members who approve or fail to prevent profit-driven crimes.
Mandate that boards certify Public Harm Assessments for major decisions under penalty of law, ensuring they cannot claim ignorance.
Impose penalties such as disqualification from serving on boards, fines proportional to personal compensation, and even criminal liability for gross negligence or complicity.

Executive and CEO Accountability

CEOs remain central to enforcement:
Introduce joint and several liability: If the board pressures the CEO to act unethically, the CEO and board members share legal responsibility.
Strengthen whistleblower protections for executives to disclose board-directed unethical demands.

Shareholder Accountability

Why: Shareholders drive demand for short-term profit maximization, often pushing boards and executives to take excessive risks or cut ethical corners. Without accountability, they remain insulated from the consequences of these actions.

How to Hold Shareholders Accountable

1. Monetary Penalties:

Impose collective penalties on shareholders for repeated or egregious violations. This could take the form of fines distributed proportionally based on share ownership, or direct deductions from dividends.
Create a corporate crime reserve fund that large shareholders must contribute to in cases of violations.

2. Clawbacks for Profit Gained from Misconduct:

If shareholders profited from illegal or harmful corporate actions (e.g., through stock price increases), those gains can be clawed back as restitution for affected parties.

3. Shareholder Voting Accountability:

Require shareholder votes on high-risk corporate strategies flagged by regulators (e.g., cost-cutting measures tied to safety or environmental risks).
Introduce penalties for institutional investors (e.g., pension funds, mutual funds) that repeatedly support unethical corporate practices.

4. Transparency for Activist Shareholders:

Activist shareholders driving harmful short-term strategies must disclose their influence on corporate governance, allowing regulators to assess their role in harmful decisions.

5. Structural Reforms to Prevent Shareholder-Driven Misconduct

Incentivize Long-Term Thinking: Create tax or financial incentives for shareholders who prioritize sustainable and ethical long-term growth over immediate profit maximization.
Tie Shareholder Gains to Compliance: Introduce compliance-linked dividends, where companies distribute dividends only if they meet specific public welfare and compliance benchmarks.
Public Shareholder Accountability Registry: Maintain a public registry of significant institutional shareholders and their voting records on corporate decisions tied to public harm, increasing transparency and deterring unethical pressure on boards.

6. Enforcement Mechanisms

Liability Framework: Shareholders, boards, and executives share liability in proportion to their role and influence over decisions that led to violations.
Whistleblower Protections: Provide mechanisms for whistleblowers (including shareholders or board members) to report unethical demands or practices safely.
Independent Oversight: Empower regulatory bodies to assess shareholder influence in corporate misconduct, especially in cases involving activist investors or concentrated ownership.

Conclusion

By extending accountability to boards and shareholders, CAPIA ensures that every party driving profit-driven misconduct bears the penalty. CEOs and boards cannot use shareholder pressure as an excuse, while shareholders are deterred from pursuing reckless short-term gains at the expense of ethical and legal compliance. This approach aligns corporate governance with public welfare and ensures collective responsibility for harm caused.

Positive Incentives

Incorporating positive incentives into CAPIA could encourage corporations to align their operations with the public good while still achieving profitability. Examples: Tax Incentives for demonstrable Ethical Practices, Access to additional Grants or Subsidies, Regulatory Streamlining for Compliant Companies, and/or Preferential Treatment in Public Contracts.

Share/Sign this resistbot petition to contact your state or federal representatives.

A summary letter of the above was sent to POTUS and my Senate and House reps in Late December 2024