Quote:
Originally Posted by CamEdwards
Interesting tidbit about Chief Justice Roberts and Solicitor General Elena Kagan:
|
IMO, it's the wrong argument. We don't need to protect shareholders against the political actions of the corporations in which they invest because a) the political actions of the corporations (i.e. lobbying, for a simple example) are for the purpose (ostensibly) of maximizing shareholder value and b) if a particular shareholder doesn't like the actions of the company, they can sell their stock.
Again, what these arguments are ignoring is that the political direction of a corporation can be influenced by a relatively small (and potentially very like-minded) group of people: the board and, say, the C-level execs. It's certainly reasonable to assume that in an unfettered system these people may agree to use the enormous capital at their disposal for political ends. After all, they already do this (i.e., lobbying and groups of personal donations) and wield an enormous amount of influence. Now imagine the kind of influence they'd wield if they could simply direct a percentage of their revenues to political ends.
People complained that Obama had so much money at the end of his campaign that he could air a primetime infomercial. The money he spent on that is peanuts compared to what corporations (actual corporations) could spend. Worse, corporations could simply outright lie in these ads and still withstand the cost of litigation for, say, libel/slander, that ensued after the election, in an unfettered system.
Again, I'm not sure how you fix all of this, I'm just saying that if we're somehow viewing this as a fight for the rights of "groups of individuals, acting together" to have equal influence to the Pickens & Soros of the world, be aware of the unintended consequences.