Photo via Tracy O.

A few days ago, I highlighted a report in the NYTimes that a USAtty in NJ had given a no-bid contract to former AG John Ashcroft to monitor a corporation accused of paying kickbacks and committing fraud. Turns out it wasn’t just John Ashcroft getting the cozy no-bid goodies. Via the WaPo:

The number of corporate monitors has risen more than sevenfold since 2001, researchers said, a move that reflects a shift from lodging criminal indictments against businesses for fear they will collapse and cost employees their jobs. Instead, the government has taken a different path: forcing companies to submit to outside oversight at their own expense as a condition of settling fraud and corruption cases. Major companies from AOL and Bristol-Myers Squibb to Merrill Lynch have yielded to such oversight after recent financial scandals.

The arrangements all but give prosecutors a seat in the corporate boardroom. The arrangements are spelled out in contracts and vary depending on the company and its problems. Generally, though, monitors enjoy wide latitude to interview employees, sift through business contracts, uncover legal violations and mandate that companies change their ways. In recent years the overseers have made recommendations to hire and fire workers, enlisted high-priced accountants and consultants to review corporate operations, and blown the whistle to prosecutors if the company fails to respond to their concerns. The monitors typically send private reports to update prosecutors several times a year — and send their bills to the companies.

Fees for most of the cases that involve monitors are not publicly available, but people involved in the arrangements say they can surpass tens of millions of dollars over two or three years. The fees rarely involve court approval and, according to defense lawyers, are hardly questioned by companies because they fear reprisal. Current and former executives at two businesses that were monitored under Justice Department agreements years ago declined comment last week, citing the sensitivity of the issue.

Cozy, isn’t it? There may be absolutely nothing about this but putting a known, qualified person in a position to oversee a difficult situation and protect the public interest. But, with the Bush DOJ’s penchant for secrecy, backroom dealing, politicization and rampant cronyism and no-bid handouts? Without oversight how in the hell are we supposed to know?