If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politicus USA)   The SEC is in a position to deal a major blow to Citizens United. And if there's anything the SEC is good at, it's knowing who to blow   (politicususa.com) divider line 71
    More: Interesting, Citizens United, David Koch, Business Roundtable, corporate campaign, National Association of Manufacturers, securities laws, executive compensation, tax-exempt  
•       •       •

3762 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2013 at 2:50 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



71 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 02:51:05 PM
LSU and 'Bama will never go for it.
 
2013-04-26 02:54:52 PM

ArkPanda: LSU and 'Bama will never go for it.


came here to say about that.
 
2013-04-26 02:54:59 PM
I think that politicians should wear jackets like NASCAR drivers.....that way we'd know who their corporate sponsors are.
 
2013-04-26 02:56:23 PM
TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.
 
2013-04-26 02:57:31 PM
Better hold off till a justice or two dies. This is just asking to end up with the court granting corporations sweeping privacy rights as they strike it down...
 
2013-04-26 02:57:56 PM
Won't happen

/bought-and-paid for overseers
 
2013-04-26 02:59:17 PM
The prospective rule has united major business groups to oppose the SEC's rule-making ability, and their Republican lackeys are already taking steps to halt any SEC action with legislation making it illegal for the SEC to issue regulations holding companies under their jurisdiction accountable to their shareholders. Three weeks ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable sent a letter to CEOs of Fortune 200 companies martialing support to oppose the SEC and wage war against shareholder and investor resolutions and proposals demanding to know where corporations are sending their investments.

Uh... What?
 
2013-04-26 02:59:45 PM

syberpud: TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.


Would you invest in a company backing a Superpac which was in turn backing Rick Santorum?
 
2013-04-26 03:00:28 PM

Citrate1007: I think that politicians should wear jackets like NASCAR drivers.....that way we'd know who their corporate sponsors are.


I can see the interviews now
"I done legislated real good today"
 
2013-04-26 03:01:49 PM
Yeah, not gonna happen.  It sounds like a good step but it's by far in the best interest of big business to keep their donations secret and they'll find a way to make this go away.
 
2013-04-26 03:03:21 PM
'The Chamber believes that the funds expended by publicly traded companies for political and trade association engagement are immaterial to the company's bottom line'

so they just admitted its cheaper to buy an election than anything else that might pop up.. remember that the the next time they are on about taxes.

we need to water the tree of liberty with the blood of companies, not people.
 
2013-04-26 03:03:29 PM

derpy: ArkPanda: LSU and 'Bama will never go for it.

came here to say about that.


Me too.  You guys are quick today.
 
2013-04-26 03:03:33 PM
The SEC is about as useful as a paper towel that has been used to wipe up vomit.

/that is disgustingly useless.
 
2013-04-26 03:04:35 PM
Yea, but can they stop Johnny Football.
 
2013-04-26 03:09:03 PM
You'll have to excuse me if I don't start dancing in the streets just yet.
 
2013-04-26 03:13:49 PM
Is there any viable complaint from the pro-business side other than "OMG CHILLING EFFECT" ?
 
2013-04-26 03:14:01 PM
So, if I'm understanding this right, there's a petition to ask the SEC to make a rule requiring publicly-traded companies to disclose all payments made to industry groups and political causes. Republicans (specifically, Darrell Issa) have responded by working up legislation that would prevent the SEC from making any more disclosure rules.

Now, not to stick my nose out too much, since I'm unclear about the way the regulatory framework lines up, but aren't corporations already required to disclose a whole crap-ton of the stuff they spend money on? I mean, a shareholder is allowed, by law, to have access to all sorts of books, right? I'm not too familiar with how all this goes, but I was pretty sure that even if you only own a single share, you get an annual report that describes all sorts of ways the company spends and makes its money. Are political/industry contributions not already listed in there somewhere?
 
2013-04-26 03:14:59 PM
Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras
 
2013-04-26 03:15:21 PM

TheBlackrose: The prospective rule has united major business groups to oppose the SEC's rule-making ability, and their Republican lackeys are already taking steps to halt any SEC action with legislation making it illegal for the SEC to issue regulations holding companies under their jurisdiction accountable to their shareholders. Three weeks ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable sent a letter to CEOs of Fortune 200 companies martialing support to oppose the SEC and wage war against shareholder and investor resolutions and proposals demanding to know where corporations are sending their investments.

Uh... What?


That paragraph says businesses have already started the counter-hype, and they're trying to get their bought-out legislators to pass rules saying the SEC can't make these kinds of decisions, effectively heading them off at the pass.

Could you not read that?
 
2013-04-26 03:18:57 PM

TheBlackrose: Three weeks ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable sent a letter to CEOs of Fortune 200 companies martialing support to oppose the SEC and wage war against shareholder and investor resolutions and proposals demanding to know where corporations are sending their investments.


Typically, a minor shareholder (or social activist shareholder) will make a proposal that is voted on by the shareholders of a publically traded corporation at their regular shareholder meeting.

According to one source, 127 proposals in 2012 were made regarding shining light on lobbying and political spending. While all of them were defeated (none got higher than 45% shareholder approval), 5 of the companies that had a proposal lodged against them resigned from ALEC, 13 companies entered into agreements that in exchange for the withdrawl of the proposal, policies were put in place to better disclose political activities of the company.
 
2013-04-26 03:19:41 PM
I think you'll find that a lot of businesses give to both sides and hedge their bets.  Politicians will try and make these companies choose sides.  This is the real issue.  Shareholders will be wondering why they are making political contributions at all.
 
2013-04-26 03:21:25 PM

phyrkrakr: I mean, a shareholder is allowed, by law, to have access to all sorts of books, right? I'm not too familiar with how all this goes, but I was pretty sure that even if you only own a single share, you get an annual report that describes all sorts of ways the company spends and makes its money. Are political/industry contributions not already listed in there somewhere?


The books might say no more than "Lobbying costs: $X", depends on the corporation by-laws.

It won't say "$X to Y PAC to lobby Representative H regarding issue Z"
 
2013-04-26 03:34:40 PM
"The Chamber believes that the funds expended by publicly traded companies for political and trade association engagement are immaterial to the company's bottom line," and added that the shareholders' "apparent goal is to silence the business community by creating an atmosphere of intimidation under the cover of investor protection. "

WOW.
 
2013-04-26 03:36:43 PM
So we are waiting for the SEC to reign in corporate interests? We're boned.
 
2013-04-26 03:37:27 PM

goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras


a company's first amendment rights are explicitly called out in the article.  I'm speechless. (pun intended)
 
2013-04-26 03:37:32 PM

advex101: I think you'll find that a lot of businesses give to both sides and hedge their bets.  Politicians will try and make these companies choose sides.  This is the real issue.  Shareholders will be wondering why they are making political contributions at all.


This.

A lot of the donating is hedged bribery to both parties, not ideology. It's not about who wins, but that the winner knows who helped them.

"Got-Money's not one to choose"
 
2013-04-26 03:42:48 PM
Whatever. They couldn't even stop Auburn and their tricksy recruiting.
 
2013-04-26 03:48:28 PM
You plebians get back to your cubicals and don't worry your pretty little heads about what the Important People are doing with the stocks in your 401(k)s
 
2013-04-26 03:52:03 PM
*whom* to blow.

I'm fighting a losing battle, I know.
 
2013-04-26 03:59:58 PM

mrshowrules: syberpud: TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.

Would you invest in a company backing a Superpac which was in turn backing Rick Santorum?


I would invest in a company backing a superpac which was in turn backing Obama if it was going to make me money.

I would avoid purchasing an item from a company that was doing the same though.
 
2013-04-26 04:04:36 PM

I alone am best: mrshowrules: syberpud: TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.

Would you invest in a company backing a Superpac which was in turn backing Rick Santorum?

I would invest in a company backing a superpac which was in turn backing Obama if it was going to make me money.

I would avoid purchasing an item from a company that was doing the same though.


I don't invest in companies whose bottom line is contingent on passing legislation bad for my country or the world.

/Canadian
 
2013-04-26 04:08:55 PM
yep, if people could choose not to invest in companies that subvert liberty, how could they continue to abuse their shareholders' ignorance? HOW??

corporations are not people. if the founders thought that was a good idea i damn well think it would have been spelled out.

farking corporate/civic corruption IS the most pressing issue of our time IMHO
 
2013-04-26 04:10:56 PM

PawisBetlog: goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras

a company's first amendment rights are explicitly called out in the article.  I'm speechless. (pun intended)


I was being ironic/silly, not trolling.

I don't see how the First Amendment has any relevance to this issue. The gov't compels me to pony up financial information all the time.
 
2013-04-26 04:12:47 PM
(heres a thought experiment.. if everyone registered their own LLC, would that justify their being able to vote twice in an election? why shouldnt i make 10 LLC's and get 11 votes?)
 
2013-04-26 04:13:35 PM

goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras


Why are corporations people that possess rights like the right to privacy or the right to free speech?
 
2013-04-26 04:14:28 PM

LookForTheArrow: (heres a thought experiment.. if everyone registered their own LLC, would that justify their being able to vote twice in an election? why shouldnt i make 10 LLC's and get 11 votes?)


You jest, but a state representative in Montana proposed a bill that would have legalized just that a few months ago.
 
2013-04-26 04:22:25 PM

mrshowrules: syberpud: TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.

Would you invest in a company backing a Superpac which was in turn backing Rick Santorum?


If it has a positive ROI... freak yes I would invest.
 
2013-04-26 04:25:26 PM

Saiga410: mrshowrules: syberpud: TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.

Would you invest in a company backing a Superpac which was in turn backing Rick Santorum?

If it has a positive ROI... freak yes I would invest.


Well, that's not cool.  Secondly, if it had a solid chance at an ROI, it wouldn't need to be backing that asshole to begin with.
 
2013-04-26 04:28:55 PM

goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras


And public shareholders have a right to disclosure. Otherwise, they wouldn't be publicly traded.

I like this, and I can already see CNBC now--"The Financial sector is aghast as stocks for Asscorp fell 30% after it was known that the corporation gave $69,000 to the Congressional GOP campaign of Dick Lovesrape, who recently made controversial remarks about Gays, Women, and Latinos." I'm glad that the SEC realizes that Shareholders have rights too.
 
2013-04-26 04:29:32 PM
saiga410 might say hed invest but all that money from rich investors in blue states? bye! and they know it. and they are scared.

just like they should be.
 
2013-04-26 04:37:03 PM

LookForTheArrow: we need to water the tree of liberty with the blood of companies, not people.


Remember, corporations are people
 
2013-04-26 04:42:27 PM

LookForTheArrow: saiga410 might say hed invest but all that money from rich investors in blue states? bye! and they know it. and they are scared.

just like they should be.


If they dump the stock I would buy it up right quick at the firesell price as long as I can expect the usual dividend or that the stock will normalize at a higher value.
 
2013-04-26 04:54:30 PM
(timujin: my thought experiment above was along the lines of disproving that... which i would think it did. of course there are lots of inconsistencies with the position that corporations are people. its crass to even suggest it and romney and the gop can go fark themselves with either end of a broken broomstick)
 
2013-04-26 05:08:41 PM
If you're really bored or interested, here's Koch Industries' SEC 10-K filing
http://marketbrief.com/koch-industries-inc/10k
 
2013-04-26 05:50:38 PM

LookForTheArrow: 'The Chamber believes that the funds expended by publicly traded companies for political and trade association engagement are immaterial to the company's bottom line'

so they just admitted its cheaper to buy an election than anything else that might pop up.. remember that the the next time they are on about taxes.

we need to water the tree of liberty with the blood of companies, not people.


www.commonblog.com
 
2013-04-26 05:52:13 PM

mrshowrules: I alone am best: mrshowrules: syberpud: TFA says the rule would be to disclose to stockholders how much they donate, not bar or limit them from donating.  More like a minor blow.

Would you invest in a company backing a Superpac which was in turn backing Rick Santorum?

I would invest in a company backing a superpac which was in turn backing Obama if it was going to make me money.

I would avoid purchasing an item from a company that was doing the same though.

I don't invest in companies whose bottom line is contingent on passing legislation bad for my country or the world.

/Canadian


Exactly what I said wasnt it?
 
2013-04-26 06:03:59 PM

goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras


They don't have a right to funnel the profits to a super PAC slush fund rather than pay out dividends
 
2013-04-26 06:42:42 PM

ShadowKamui: goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras

They don't have a right to funnel the profits to a super PAC slush fund rather than pay out dividends

yet.

Could've sworn Adam Smith said something about open access to relevant information being one of the key ingredients in properly functioning capitalism.  Enlightened self interest and sound decisions based on evidence and reason and all that.

/Could've been a dream.
 
2013-04-26 06:52:29 PM

Lochsteppe: ShadowKamui: goatleggedfellow: Corporations have a Right to Privacy

/its in the Constitution
//the penumbras

They don't have a right to funnel the profits to a super PAC slush fund rather than pay out dividends yet.

Could've sworn Adam Smith said something about open access to relevant information being one of the key ingredients in properly functioning capitalism.  Enlightened self interest and sound decisions based on evidence and reason and all that.

/Could've been a dream.


He also said something about people paying shares proportionate to their wealth to support society. Adam Smith is kind of like Jesus- you're not actually supposed to listen to what he said, you're just supposed to blindly follow what the nice men tell you.
 
2013-04-26 07:11:13 PM
I just ran head-first into Poe's Law.
 
Displayed 50 of 71 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report