It is interesting to hear the pundits following the “not guilty” Richard Scrushy verdict in Birmingham yesterday. A professor at Vanderbilt claimed that the government could not receive a “fair hearing” in Birmingham, since Scrushy is popular with blacks, and there were seven blacks on the jury. Others are saying that Scrushy should have been tried in New York City, where federal judges and juries are little more than rubber stamps for the prosecution.

That many observers are claiming that the government had “better” evidence in the Scrushy case than it presented in the Ebbers case should give all us us great pause. Even a somewhat casual observe like me could see that there were very large holes in the prosecution’s case, and it heavily depended upon the testimony of people already keelhauled into making guilty pleas.For the most part, the string of “corporate scandal” criminal cases that have been tried in federal court are little more than attempts to criminalize business failures. If “overstating” assets and revenues and “understating” expenses and liabilities is a crime when such actions concern businesses, then why is it legal for the government to do the same thing?

Remember that four years ago, the Bush Administration was projecting hundreds of billions of dollars in budget surpluses, instead of the hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits that have been the staple of this administration. If the government tries to claim that 9/11 was the culprit, please remember that 9/11 also had a terrible effect upon the fortunes of U.S. businesses.

No, this string of prosecutions is not about enforcing “honesty” in business, but rather expanding the reach and scope of the all-powerful state.