The behaviour of our federal government officials in pressuring Bank of America to buy a terminally sick Merrill Lynch is nothing short of appalling. The Bank of America CEO and management owe a fiduciary duty to the stockholders, while the government officials were using "the eyes of market and regulators" and maybe some amorphous 'national interest' as the standards. For Fereral Reserve and Secretary of the Treasury chiefs and officials to strongarm Bank of America to close a deal that became clearly against the best interests of the Bank of America stockholders is wrong on more counts than some philosophical perspectives. For one, it very concretely transferred the enormous Merrill bad decisions and losses to Bank of America stockholders, including the many pension funds, and eventually to the American taxpayers via "bailout" money.

In addition to a probable lack of legal authority supporting government coersion, for any government official to encourage or pressure Mr. Lewis not to disclose the stench of the deal to the company's stockholders might have been criminal.  Bank of America stockholders would have a legitimate civil claim in court against any federal official whose action was criminal or otherwise beyond their official powers (including unconstitutional acts), because the shield of governmental immunity or official immunity against personal liability does not apply to ultra vires acts of government officials.

Maybe monstrous civil liability from such behaviour might operate as a deterent. Surely and sadly it appears the principles of limited central government and maximum private liberty that are rooted in our Constitution failed to operate as the intended checks against government abuse.