ExxonMobil deserves scrutiny

ExxonMobil may have “a right to its

opinions,” but it is not entitled to all the benefits that society extends to corporations if it has cynically breached the public trust. And absent a full investigation, it would be premature to draw any conclusions about the legality of ExxonMobil’s conduct (“ExxonMobil probe raises 1st Amendment concerns,” Our view, Climate Change debate, Nov. 23).

Your editorial claims that “the most likely effect of a costly legal examination of Exxon’s past statements is a lower stock price, hurting current investors.” However, it is ExxonMobil — not the attorney general of New York state — that is responsible for any losses incurred by its shareholders as a result of decisions that corporate leaders deemed to be in the company’s selfinterest. As with the tobacco cases two decades ago, our law enforcement officials have a duty to protect investors and the public when narrow corporate self-interest conflicts with the broader public interest.

Kathy Mulvey, campaign manager Union of Concerned Scientists Washington, D.C.

The editorial was well done, the

opposing view not so much (“What if Exxon broke the law?”). The opposing view states that ExxonMobil’s past public statements about climate change and its actions have “inspired revulsion on every front.” Most of us have learned to look to the selfinterest of those who try to influence us. Maybe some would like not to buy ExxonMobil products, but criminal charges go too far in interfering with free speech.

Hassel “Bud” Hill Jr.

Aurora, Colo.