Last checked at 
(Corrects figure to $600 million in 14th paragraph)
By Steven Brill
Sept 3 (Reuters) - 1. Ask about the Miley Cyrus sleaze:
In the wake of MTV's universally-panned decision to feature20-year-old Miley Cyrus in a cringe-producing sex pantomime with36-year-old Robin Thicke during the telecast of the MTV VideoMusic Awards, reporters ought to be sticking microphones infront of producers and executives at MTV and its parent Viacom.
Using what the New York Daily News called "a foam hand as asexual prop," Cyrus's act was characterized this way by MikaBrzezinski on MSNBC's Morning Joe: "That was not funny. That wasreally, really bad for anybody who is younger andimpressionable. And she's really messed up, so I don't thinkthey should have put her on stage. They should be ashamed ofthemselves...."
MTV's target demographics are teens and pre-teens. Soreporters should start with a simple question: Would theproducers and executives responsible for Cyrus's performancehave wanted their own teen or pre-teen children (orgrandchildren or maybe great-grandchildren in the case ofViacom's 90-year-old founder and chief executive SumnerRedstone) to have watched the show?
So far, MTV seems unembarrassed, at least officially. As ofthis writing its website featuring a recap of the Video MusicAwards proudly headlines the show this way: "Miley Cyrus Twerks,Gives Robin Thicke Some Tongue At VMAs." The write-up goes on tocall Cyrus's act a "festival of booty."
Are the people in charge of the "festival" really thatcrass?
Beyond Redstone, high on my list of people who should bequestioned - even chased down, Mike Wallace style, if necessary- would be MTV president Stephen Friedman. His bio on the MTVwebsite says he "launched mtvU's Sudan Campaign to fightgenocide in Darfur" and that before joining MTV he "served as aDirector for the PEN American Center (the international humanrights organization)." Seems like a sensitive soul whosethoughts on his programming decision ought to be interesting.2. Tallying a scorecard on the Donald and the law:
On August 27th, New York State Attorney General EricSchneiderman sued Donald Trump for $40 million, alleging that aschool for aspiring real estate moguls that Trump launched tocharacteristic fanfare in 2005 engaged in "persistent fraud,illegal and deceptive conduct." According to the AttorneyGeneral, Trump's unlicensed school "promised to teach DonaldTrump's real estate investing techniques to consumers nationwidebut instead misled consumers into paying for a series ofexpensive courses that did not deliver on their promises. Morethan 5,000 people across the country who paid Donald Trump $40million to teach them his hard sell tactics got a hard lesson inbait-and-switch."
Trump has denied the charges and promises to fight them.
That last sentence, it seems, could be written about dozensof civil suits over the years that have charged Trump with allvarieties of misconduct and misrepresentation in running hisfar-flung businesses.
Indeed, search "Donald Trump lawsuits" and you get 394,000Google results. Of course, many of the Donald's legal battlesproduce hundreds or even thousands of these search hits becausethey are so widely publicized. Besides, Trump seems to sue asmuch as he gets sued, regardless of how serious his grievance.For example, he sued HBO's Bill Maher for welching on an offerMaher made during a comedy riff to donate $5 million to charityif Trump, a relentless Obama birther, would produce his ownbirth certificate. (Trump soon dropped the case.)
Trump has also successfully defended many claims againsthim, such as the verdict he won in May after being sued for notpaying cash incentives that he promised investors in a Chicagocondominium. The jury found that a clause in the contract gavehim the right to withdraw the incentive.
With all of these ups and downs, it would be great for areporter to dig up the court records behind those web searchresults and give us a Trump scorecard. Is he more often found tobe an unfairly accused deep pocket, or is there a string ofsettlements and verdicts that suggest that Schneiderman may begoing after a recidivist con man? Either way, a good story.3. Federal fines: Where does the money go?
The Financial Times reported last week that the U.S.Federal Housing Finance Agency is demanding that JPMorgan pay afine of $6 billion "to settle allegations it mis-sold securitiesto government-backed mortgage companies." Even in Washingtonthat's a lot of money - about four times the SEC's budget andabout 75 percent of the FBI budget. In fact, with other fineslooming, JPMorgan could end up coming close to funding theentire FBI this year or covering two years of the FederalReserve's net operating expenses.
The FT report reminds me of a story I think about whenever Iread about the millions or even billions in fines latelydropping into the government's coffers. A few other examples:the SEC is said to be seeking $600 million for JPMorgan'sconduct in the London Whale trading fiasco; UBS recently agreedto pay the Federal Housing Finance Agency $885 million;drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to pay $3 billion last year forvarious marketing misdeeds; and BP received a record $4 billioncriminal penalty apart from its far larger settlement of claimsrelated to the damage it caused in the Gulf.
So where does all that newfound money go? What's the totalfor the current year? How much has it been increasing? How much,if anything, did the Office of Management and Budget anticipatethis year? Assuming there's a multi-billion-dollar surplus,which lucky government agencies get it? I bet there's a lot ofCapitol Hill and bureaucratic wrangling about all that. (Steven Brill)
