Ban Political Donations by Corporations Without Shareholder Approval

[kaz]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP

Republicans say the intent of the bill is to empower union members by giving them more say in how their dues are spent, and to allow them to continue participating in a union even if they don’t agree with the union’s political activity.

OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

WOw are you ignorant.
Corporations are banned from giving money to political candidates, period. Have been since the 1950s

I don't see anywhere in his post where he said they can

 

[Ernie S.]

So I was reading this thread

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/161862-florida-leads-the-way.html

And I was reading this passage in the link in the OP



OK

So why not give shareholders the same rights as union members? A lot of shareholders do not approve of their money being used for political purposes yet they have no say in how their money is spent. Why not pass a law which requires corporations to ask permission from shareholders to use their funds to promote political causes and political lobbying? Why not give shareholders more say in how their money is spent, and allow people to continue acting as a shareholder even if they don't agree with the company's political activities?

Why would Republicans be opposed to this? I mean, if they are so worried about individual's monies be used in a manner in which the individual disagrees, why would they not apply consistent standards between businesses and unions? Or is this all just a thinly-veiled political attack on an opponent?

What you fail to realize is that in most corporations, the board of directors owns or controls the majority of stock. It's not one man one vote in a corporation. It's one share one vote.

And many of them get stock as part of a compensation package. And lately..compensation packages have nothing to do with performance.

And union wages are based on performance?

 

[Toro]

What you fail to realize is that in most corporations, the board of directors owns or controls the majority of stock. It's not one man one vote in a corporation. It's one share one vote.

This may be true for most privately held companies, but I can't tell you how completely and totally wrong this is for almost all publicly traded companies in America. Most board members only own stock because they are granted stock options or perhaps outright stock as compensation, but almost all of them own a very small percentage of the company. Even most CEOs of America's largest companies only own a fraction of the company's stock.

And there is very little representation of shareholders on the board. The directors are supposed to work in the interests of shareholders, but if you take the largest 1000 publicly traded companies in America then look at their ownership rosters, you will see almost no board representation by the largest owners of the stock.

 

[Sallow]

What you fail to realize is that in most corporations, the board of directors owns or controls the majority of stock. It's not one man one vote in a corporation. It's one share one vote.

And many of them get stock as part of a compensation package. And lately..compensation packages have nothing to do with performance.

And union wages are based on performance?

Not sure what you are getting at here. It probably depends on the job. I've never been in a Union..so I am not really sure how that goes. Where I work you are given performance reviews.

 

[bripat9643]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

Corporations are not allowed to give unlimited donations to politicians. The Supreme court decision did not make campaign contribution limits illegal. Liberal turds like you keep trying to sell this characterization of the decision. One can only conclude that those who do it are shameless propagandists who care nothing about the truth.

 

[Toro]

Can we ban union donations without member approval as well?

This came from another thread which linked an article where Florida legislators want to allow union members the right to withdraw their union dues from political activities. I say if you do that, then you should give that right to shareholders as well.

Personally, I think neither union members nor shareholders should have a direct say over political activities of unions or companies. But it should be consistent. You either give both union members and shareholders those rights or you don't give either. If you give it to union members but not shareholders, why should shareholders have less rights over their money than union members?

 

[Ravi]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

Corporations are not allowed to give unlimited donations to politicians. The Supreme court decision did not make campaign contribution limits illegal. Liberal turds like you keep trying to sell this characterization of the decision. One can only conclude that those who do it are shameless propagandists who care nothing about the truth.

Unions abide by the exact same rules as corporations regarding political donations so your point is moot.

 

[bripat9643]

For one thing, stock holders don't make payments to corporations, so what money "donations" are you going to allow them to withdraw?

Second, unions are an uninvited third party to a contractual agreement between employer and employee. They operate the same as Guido the leg breaker who invites himself to a percentage of a business owner's profits even though no one requested his "services."

The arrangement between corporations and stock holders, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary for both parties.

Can we ban union donations without member approval as well?

This came from another thread which linked an article where Florida legislators want to allow union members the right to withdraw their union dues from political activities. I say if you do that, then you should give that right to shareholders as well.

Personally, I think neither union members nor shareholders should have a direct say over political activities of unions or companies. But it should be consistent. You either give both union members and shareholders those rights or you don't give either. If you give it to union members but not shareholders, why should shareholders have less rights over their money than union members?

 

[Immanuel]

Good idea, but good luck getting cons and the con Supreme Court to bite. It's different for them, you know. Union contributions = bad. Unlimited, unchecked corporate donations = good.

I hope you are not under the impression that Dems would be in favor of this bill either.

Immie

 

[bripat9643]

Corporations are not allowed to give unlimited donations to politicians. The Supreme court decision did not make campaign contribution limits illegal. Liberal turds like you keep trying to sell this characterization of the decision. One can only conclude that those who do it are shameless propagandists who care nothing about the truth.

Unions abide by the exact same rules as corporations regarding political donations so your point is moot.

Then what are you whining about?

BTW, That was exactly my point.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

Amway?

Hell no.

hard money lender?

 

[Toro]

One is forced to become a shareholder in a corporation? No. One makes a decision, usually based on whether that corporation has a good track record of profits. Not the same thing as unions at all.

I don't have any issue with the idea as such, other than a faux analogy between a corporation's shareholders and the members of a union.

If you are in a pension fund, you are forced to be a shareholder of a company. If you have a 401k, you are forced to be a shareholder of a company. What if the shares are locked in a trust and you can't sell?

One might argue that you don't need to have a 401k, but you can also argue that you don't need to work at that company either. Go work somewhere else. I mean, that's the argument I keep hearing from the Right if government workers don't like having their benefits slashed or their union de-certified.

Besides, it should be obvious that not everyone can sell their shares. Companies must have shareholders. The principle in law is not to treat shareholders as an amorphous bunch but instead to view shareholders as permanent. If a board member is not acting in a fiduciary duty, the law doesn't say "If you don't like it, sell your stock." The law says that the fiduciary must act in the best interests of all shareholders, no matter who the shareholders are. It's not good enough to tell shareholders to take a hike if they don't like it.

At the risk of looking really pretentious, I'm going to quote myself from elsewhere. But that's just because I'm really lazy and don't want to re-type this.

So why do I have to sell my stock, then? If I really like Apple's products and I think they are going to make a lot of money, why should I be forced to have Apple spend my money that I have contributed to the company in ways I think are politically inappropriate? Why should I have to miss out earning a boatload of money because you think I should sell my stock because I don't like Steve Jobs's politics? How is that any different than the pipe fitter who has to miss out earning money as a pipe fitter and instead has to work at Wal-Mart?

 

[Toro]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

82% guaranteed!? That sounds great!

I'd like to know about that!

 

[Toro]

For one thing, stock holders don't make payments to corporations, so what money "donations" are you going to allow them to withdraw?

Second, unions are an uninvited third party to a contractual agreement between employer and employee. They operate the same as Guido the leg breaker who invites himself to a percentage of a business owner's profits even though no one requested his "services."

The arrangement between corporations and stock holders, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary for both parties.

First, it is not entirely voluntary. For example, some pension funds are required by law to invest in stocks. But working someplace is also voluntary, is it not? Nobody forces
you to choose a livelihood. Most jobs are non-union. You can find a job that is non-union.

Second, whenever you buy stock, you are buying a piece of the company. That is a "donation" to a company which confers the owner of the stock certain rights. When companies issue equity, money is given to the company by the shareholder. If one then buys stock in the stock market, all that is doing is transferring share ownership. Shareholder A gave money to the company for stock. Shareholder B then bought that stock from Shareholder A. That now becomes Shareholder B's money that was originally given to the company by Shareholder A.

 

[Immanuel]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

82% guaranteed!? That sounds great!

I'd like to know about that!

No kiddding, but I'd be worried that she had invested in one of Bernie Madoff's latest schemes and probably would chicken out before I got involved.

Immie

 

[California Girl]

Personally, being self employed, I don't have or require a union. I don't generally invest in shares in corporations either. My latest investment gives me 82% return on my investment over 5 years. That's minimum risk. 82% guaranteed. Tell me a corporation who can offer me better and I'll consider it, until then, I'll stick with my latest goldmine. LOL

82% guaranteed!? That sounds great!

I'd like to know about that!

No kiddding, but I'd be worried that she had invested in one of Bernie Madoff's latest schemes and probably would chicken out before I got involved.

Immie

Nope, totally legitimate, ethical, and honest.

 

[California Girl]

Amway?

Hell no.

hard money lender?

 

[bripat9643]

For one thing, stock holders don't make payments to corporations, so what money "donations" are you going to allow them to withdraw?

Second, unions are an uninvited third party to a contractual agreement between employer and employee. They operate the same as Guido the leg breaker who invites himself to a percentage of a business owner's profits even though no one requested his "services."

The arrangement between corporations and stock holders, on the other hand, is entirely voluntary for both parties.

First, it is not entirely voluntary. For example, some pension funds are required by law to invest in stocks.

"Required" by whom? If I sign a contract to have a house built and I require it to have three bedrooms, does that mean the contractor isn't building it voluntarily? According to your definition of the term, no contractual arrangement is voluntary.

But working someplace is also voluntary, is it not? Nobody forces you to choose a livelihood. Most jobs are non-union. You can find a job that is non-union.

Working for someone is voluntary. Joining a union normally isn't. No one forces a business owner to locate in Guido's "territory" either. Does that mean paying him protection money is "voluntary?" You continue failing to explain the distinction between a union and an extortion racket. That's because you can't. There is no distinction other than the fact that one is legalized and the other isn't.

Second, whenever you buy stock, you are buying a piece of the company. That is a "donation" to a company which confers the owner of the stock certain rights. When companies issue equity, money is given to the company by the shareholder. If one then buys stock in the stock market, all that is doing is transferring share ownership. Shareholder A gave money to the company for stock. Shareholder B then bought that stock from Shareholder A. That now becomes Shareholder B's money that was originally given to the company by Shareholder A.

Wrong. Your mortgage payment isn't a "donation" to the bank. It's the price of buying your house. You purchase stock. You don't "donate" money to a corporation.

You keep trying to claim an equivalence between things that aren't equivalent. You're posting propaganda. Anyone with a brain can see what an obvious con it is.

 

[bodecea]

I think that's fair.

I agree...seems fair to me.

 

[Immanuel]

82% guaranteed!? That sounds great!

I'd like to know about that!

No kiddding, but I'd be worried that she had invested in one of Bernie Madoff's latest schemes and probably would chicken out before I got involved.

Immie

Nope, totally legitimate, ethical, and honest.

Let me say this in all sincerity.

I pray you are right.

However, I think it can be said by Bernie Madoff's victims that they all believed that it was "totally legitimate, ethical and honest". I sincerely pray that you do not find out that you are wrong in the manner that they found out they were.

Immie