Chapter 23: Our laws are far too easy on those who commit securities fraud. Ten thousand dollars and five years in prison are not stiff enough penalties for those who violate the public's trust in the stock market and thereby undermine our economy.

Because our economy is based on capitalism, our businesses are dependent upon outside sources of funding. If a company wishes to expand or purchase another company, it needs access to outside funds. In addition, people need to make money, and their prospects in today's job market are uncertain. Thus, people need to supplement their income. For this reason, they are willing to "loan" businesses money to expand by purchasing securities.

When people commit securities fraud, they cause two undesirable outcomes. First of all, they cause investors to lose their money. Many of these investors are counting on their investments to enable them to survive after retirement. By committing fraud, white-collar criminals wipe out the investors' savings and force them to work extra years. In this sense, these corporate con artists not only are taking money from the investors but also are taking away years of their lives.

Second, when members of the public hear about acts of securities fraud, they become afraid to invest. When people fail to invest, businesses are unable to raise the capital they need. This lackof capital may cause them to lay off workers, close down divisions, or possibly close altogether. At any rate, lack of capital makes our economy run less efficiently, and when that happens, we all suffer.

Clearly, securities fraud isn't a small crime committed against a business. Instead, its effects are felt by companies, investors, and even workers all across the country. Because acts of securities fraud have such far-reaching effects, those who commit them must be subject to stiffer punishment.

1. What reasons does the author give for harshly punishing those who use securities to defraud people?
2. What evidence does the author provide to support these reasons?
3. What information would be helpful for you to have in evaluating the worth of the author's claims? (Refer to your answer to question 2.)
4. Which words or phrases in this essay are especially ambiguous?
5. Set out some arguments for the hypothesis "Our laws are far too hard on those who commit securities frau

Chapter 24: Gene Washington, Diron Talbert, and Sean Lumpkin, former professional football players, instituted a suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated players alleging that the National Football League (NFL) had monopolized the market for their likeness in violation of the Sherman Act. The players argued that because they were not allowed the rights to game footage and images from the games in which they had played, the NFL had committed an antitrust violation. The players alleged that they received little compensation from game footage in which they appeared, while the NFL reaped large sums. The game footage at issue was owned either by the NFL alone or by the NFL and a particular team. In other words, the individual teams did not exclusively own the footage of their own players. Thus, the teams had to "cooperate to produce and sell"the footage because "no one entity can do it alone." The district court held that the NFL and its teams could "conspire to market each [team's] individually owned property, but not property the teams and the NFL can only collectively own." The court therefore found no illegal concert action under the Sherman Act. Should the retired players be permitted to sell their likeness in the footage? Why or why not?Washington v. National Football League, 880 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (D. Minn. 2012).