Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: States consider requiring shareholder approval for political gifts

  1. #1

    States consider requiring shareholder approval for political gifts

    Lawmakers in at least four states are considering a back-door way to dampen corporate political spending: Require shareholders to approve it.

    State legislators in Maine, Maryland, New York and New Jersey have introduced bills that demand that a majority of shareholders approve corporate gifts to political committees or candidates.
    Continued - States consider requiring shareholder approval for political gifts



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Banned


    Blog Entries
    1
    Posts
    7,273
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Hmm, that s an interesting turn of events, and seems to follow the spirit of the law. This could be interesting, but will probably be struck down.

  4. #3
    Is it one share/one vote? What about non-voting shares? If per shareholder, I forsee a market of single-share holders with oddly pro-lobbyist leanings. With a mutual fund, are the fund managers voting like they do with everything else?

    Can I sell my vote? That's a valid question in this context. Arguably, most stockholders already have.

  5. #4
    “Shareholders can be subsidizing speech they find abhorrent through their stock ownership,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, a think tank that supports campaign finance reform.

    Torres-Spelliscy commended the shareholder approach, pointing to similar laws in the United Kingdom. But she said that if campaign finance activists want widespread change they will eventually need Delaware to pass a shareholder-approval law, as most corporations in the U.S. plant themselves there due to favorable tax laws.
    Who do we got in Delaware?

    If you get at all involved in politics, you'll soon learn the Chamber of Commerce is one of our main enemies to liberty.
    Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder. ~GEORGE WASHINGTON, letter, Aug. 17, 1779

    Quit yer b*tching and whining and GET INVOLVED!!

  6. #5
    Chester Copperpot
    Member

    Quote Originally Posted by The Free Hornet View Post
    Is it one share/one vote? What about non-voting shares? If per shareholder, I forsee a market of single-share holders with oddly pro-lobbyist leanings. With a mutual fund, are the fund managers voting like they do with everything else?

    Can I sell my vote? That's a valid question in this context. Arguably, most stockholders already have.
    Dude youve hit upon a can of worms that you probably have no idea. Back in the day, most of these shares were owned by companies (or had power to vote) with very benign sounding names like "Kane & Co.", "Cede & Co." but meanwhile they were massive holding companies for shares for just about every major publicly traded entity.



Similar Threads

  1. House blocks states from requiring GMO labels on food
    By Dianne in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 07-23-2015, 11:44 PM
  2. Lamar Smith wants political approval of scientific papers
    By green73 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 05-06-2013, 07:50 PM
  3. Senate hearing on requiring Congressional approval of all new regulations
    By tangent4ronpaul in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-24-2011, 04:00 PM
  4. Can You Help Identify States Legally Requiring Announcements of DUI Checkpoints?
    By NorthCarolinaLiberty in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 11-11-2010, 10:05 PM
  5. what do you know about the rise of political parties in the united states?
    By Isupportliberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-07-2008, 01:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •