First, hearty congratulations to John Bonifaz and his wife Lissa on the birth of their first child! Marisol was born on Labor Day (ah, precious irony), and all are reportedly doing well.
Second, Bonifaz is showing some strength outside his core area of voting rights. He’s just announced a seven-point “Corporate Citizenship Initiative” that consists of the following topics (visit his site to read the details of each proposal):
1. Enforce Massachusetts Right to Govern Massachusetts Corporations
2. Establish Responsible Business Corporations
3. Establish a Small Business Task Force
4. Require Public Interest Decision-Making
5. Advance Employee Protection
6. Ensure Corporate Tax Accountability
7. Create an Election Day Holiday
Some interesting ideas in there. And regardless of any quibbles one might have with specific proposals, it’s a good move for Bonifaz to show that he’s thinking beyond voting issues, since Secretary of State is a wide-ranging job.
I wish he would add examining compliance with the Massachusetts Pubic Records Law?
David, thanks for posting this.
<
p>
1. Props to Mr. Bonifaz for a fascinating, wide-ranging, thoughtful list of ideas on how to change the current public-corporate relationship. Seriously.
<
p>
2. I followed the link to his website. I appreciate that his ideas are written in straightforward terms.
<
p>
Some elements of this list would, in my opinion, have a HUGE negative cost in terms of corporate relocations out of MA. The job loss would be stunning. The revenue loss would be crushing. This is arguably the worst policy list I’ve ever seen. But maybe I am overreacting.
<
p>
I guess I support Galvin. Even if he is a chicken. I like chicken. Is Galvin a free-range chicken? That might help him with the environmentalists.
A collective “yum” is heard throughout the state’s accounting and legal firms.
I finally followed the link and read through the proposals. I do not even know where to begin… I am speechless, but now I am sure that I will not be voting for Mr. Bonifaz. I am so disappointed. I agree with some of what GoldsteinGoneWild says.
There was an article about this a couple of weeks ago in the Boston Business Journal, though it’s for paid subscribers only.
that show what the impact of an election day holiday would have on turnout?
<
p>
On the one hand, it’s easier to get to the polls if you have the day off. On the other hand, its much harder if you’re still on your four day weekend vacation.
It seems excessive – a whole day off to vote, which takes 2 minutes plus time in line.
<
p>
What about 10am start to workday instead?
you don’t even vote?
<
p>
Who’s going to figure that out?
<
p>
Currently many businesses already allow a couple of hours off for Election Day.
I think there are studies but don’t have them handy.
<
p>
I have discussed this issue with John, and he’s open to several ideas along the same lines. He suggested we could experiment with having state elections on the weekend, for example. Or perhaps we could have a half day on election day. Making election day a holiday is one of several things we could do to get around the problem we currently have (people not voting because they’re working that day).
If your goal is to increase voting, isn’t it better to allow people to vote by absentee ballot without having to state a reason or having to say they are going to be out of town on election day? I think Iowa does this.
I wouldn’t say “better”, since they’re not mutually exclusive. It’s certainly a good idea. As Bonifaz’s Voters’ Bill of Rights says,
There is a move afoot in the legislature to make absentee voting available without the need for an “excuse”, and John Bonifaz strongly supports it. I think it’s on the agenda for the next ConCon, in November.
<
p>
In practice, however, even in early voting states, many people don’t vote until election day for a lot of reasons: the tendency to procrastinate is universal, and the publicity about it being an election is higher then, to name a couple. We’d have better, healthier government if more people voted, because it would mean that candidates would know more people are going to vote!
<
p>
Democracy isn’t just about an individual’s right to make their voice heard, it’s also a system of incentives that creates government that better serves the people.
<
p>
One thing we could look into is an all postal mail voting system like Oregon’s, but I prefer encouraging people to vote in person while also making a postal mail option available. (For those people here who worry about fraud, consider that voting in person is certainly the best deterrent)
As I said on Andy’s blog just now, I think people too often conflate jobs and economic health with coddling large corporations, but in fact, small businesses and startups are where economic vitality comes from, large corporations have too many advantages. Measures that change the balance to be less in favor of large coporations by reducing their ability or propensity to throw their weight around, while also making it easier to start new businesses, would be a big win.
<
p>
I say this as the former co-founder of a small business that grew to employ about 30 people. We sold it to a large corporation, which got bought by an even larger one, which later mostly pulled out of the US. Many of our former employees from the original startup now work for companies that didn’t even exist when we started.
<
p>
As a progressive capitalist, I think this kind of churn is good, but we need to do better at certain aspects of it:
<
p>
1. We need to make it easier on people who switch from job to job, and spend sometime in between jobs. In particular, health care needs to not be linked to one’s job! Some basic food & shelter security is needed too.
<
p>
2. We need to make it easier to strike out on your own, go into business, and start new companies. Andrea Silbert is on it, and I think Bonifaz’s proposal to create a small business task force is part of the answer.
<
p>
On the other hand, what we don’t need to do is make things easier for large corporations that already have major advantages over small businesses through their scale, and through the political power they wield. Steps that make it harder for them to throw their weight around, or reduce their propensity to do so, change the balance and create an environment where newer businesses have a better chance to challenge established companies, and grow.
A corp is a corp.
<
p>
Combine the Mr. Bonifaz’s Corporate Citizenship initiative with Mr. Patrick endeavor to make wage and hourly law enforcement a revenue source and together we’ll solve the gnawing Massachusetts problem of too many unemployed lawyers and accountants.
<
p>
I took the time to read the proposal from Mr. Bonafaz’s website, and I think that most of those proposals are simply terrible.
<
p>
1: Enforce Massachusetts’ Right to Govern Massachusetts Corporations. The proposal is so vague, I have no clear idea of the proposal. But, I see that Mr. Bonifaz introduces some reference to the Delaware statutes and it appears that he is proposing that Massachusetts take some of the power away from the Delaware “internal affairs” rule. Noted if I’m right, the “internal affairs” rule is quite complicated and he’s right not to be detailed. He seems to propose that Corporations doing business in Massachusetts, must, with respect to agreements and relations between the directors and officers and shareholders, follow Massachsuetts rules if they wish to do business within the Massachusetts borders. I wonder, what ‘wrong’ is Mr. Bonifaz trying to right with this item?
<
p>
2: Establish “Responsible Business Corporations.” Wow! Where to begin? A Corporation is given tax incentives if it elects Directors that represent the interest of 1) the public and 2) the employees. Does that even survive Commerce Clause challenge? A Corporation must elect Directors that reflect the Massachusetts population and employee base or it will pay more in taxes? No question, the policy will disfavor out-of-state Corporation to favor in-state.
<
p>
3: Establish “Responsible Business Corporations. Sure, why not.
<
p>
4: Require Public Interest Decision-Making. Is the goal to drive the last Corporation from the borders of Massachusetts? Isn’t this yet one more NEW layer of oversight and regulation? Again, is there an actual problem here that’s being addressed?
<
p>
5: Advance Employee Protection. “Massachusetts must require companies to tell the truth to both shareholders and employees about important matters.” Yeah…lying is bad, that’s why it’s a crime to lie. Wait, it’s not. But, for Corporations it should be. Penalty of purgery to all statements made by a Corporation?
<
p>
6: Ensure Corporate Tax Accountability. “There should be a presumption that it is fraudulent for corporations to report different profits for different purposes. Massachusetts should require corporations to explain the differences in accounting and to pay taxes on their real revenue.”
<
p>
Now proposal is just naive.
<
p>
The internal revenue code has accounting rules; ERISA has some of its own rules; SEC has its own rules and GAAP has its own. Each method usually reports different profits, but Mr. Bonifaz presumes fraud then compels a corporation to prove otherwise: shakedown.
<
p>
7: Create an Election Day Holiday. Sure, I’d like a day off.
I was thinking of voting for Bonifaz for Secretary of State, but this new proposal scared me off of that idea pretty quickly. I think Gary has done a good job of explaining just some of the major flaws with these ideas. Hell, you could right a thesis on what’s wrong with idea number one.
<
p>
I believe Bonifaz is well intentioned, but clearly these proposals have no basis in the reality of business practices, accouting or corporate law. If you were to enact these proposals, Massachusetts would become the laughingstock of the corporate world.
<
p>
There is a lot of discussion on this post as to how we need to advance the interests of small business over large business etc. I don’t see how these proposals accomplish that at all (except of course for the one about creating a task force focused on small business). In the end, a lot of the same concerns that apply to large corporations apply to small businesses as well. Some of the factors that drive corporations to incorporate in Delaware also lead small businesses to do the same (have you ever tried to merge two Massachusetts corporations….a logistical nightmare….two Delaware corporations? Can be done in an hour.)
<
p>
These proposals simply seem to be derived from the assumption that all large corporations are somehow bad and should be punished. In the end, rather than have a positive benefit on the Commonwealth, these proposals, if enacted, would cost jobs and revenue and lead to a rush of companies from Massachusetts.
<
p>
In fact, I think the uncertainty of having a Secretary of the Commonwealth who was seeking these policies could have a chilling effect on the state economy and investment here. For the sake of my job, I’m now voting for Galvin. John Bonifaz lost my vote with this.
<
p>
But, Mr. Bonifaz is probably addressing some of the large mergers and subsequent departures that have occurred in the past several years. It’d be interesting to hear from the Campaign on reasoning behind this checklist of proposals.
<
p>
The best idea Ive read in a long time encouraging and hastening MA corporations to relocate their HQs elsewhere. Boeing got up from Seattle and moved to Chicago. Why not Raytheon to VA and the DC Beltway? This also has federal Article IV Full Faith and Credit problems, and is probably unconstitutional.
<
p>
2. Establish Responsible Business Corporations
<
p>
Anytime a politician begins a thought with Create a new class one can only imagine the limitless potential for government largess being showered upon that politicians pet new class. Whats next? Tax penalties for Irresponsible Business Corporations? A new Albino Eskimo Class?
<
p>
3. Establish a Small Business Task Force
<
p>
Want an idea to make operating small business in Massachusetts more feasible and profitable? Create fewer time- and money-wasting publicly funded task forces. Then undo some of the onerous regulations imposed upon small businesses by Beacon Hill.
<
p>
4. Require Public Interest Decision-Making
<
p>
Executives of large Massachusetts companies would be required required! –to consider the publics interests in important decisions that affect the public. Hey, isnt this called focusing on the customer? But that doesnt matter. Instead, let the government decide whats important. And then require companies to that important thing, whatever that is, under penalty of fines and jail. Who would define important? Why John Bonifaz of course!! Next up: demand social justice for corporations!
<
p>
5. Advance Employee Protection
<
p>
By this Bonifaz means no lying to employees. It means criminalizing lying to employees. Of course, Secretary of State Bonifaz would determine what defines lying, as in we hope we have a good quarter so we can pay bonuses, then getting sued for having a bad quarter. Thatll certainly encourage corporations to Do It Harder In Massachusetts.
<
p>
6. Ensure Corporate Tax Accountability
<
p>
Reporting different profits for different purposes is a legislative tax code issue, both federal and state, not a Secretary of State issue. This is total ignorance at best, disingenuous political grandstanding at worst.
<
p>
7. Create an Election Day Holiday
<
p>
Why? The entire public sector and most labor unions dont bother showing up for work on Election Day anyway (and for state employees, many other days too!) Besides, does it make sense to give every working stiff a day off just to vote? Maybe I dont want the day off to begin with; Im in and out of the voting booth in 40 minutes, why dock my pay for the other 7 hours and 20 minutes?
<
p>
I guess being a MacArthur Fellow doesnt necessarily mean youre smart or have any common sense. And socialists are MacArther Fellows too!
<
p>
Thats just what MA needs a socialist kook as Secretary of State.
I get the sense that a number of people who have commented thus far think that these initiatives are half-baked. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a corporate law professor at Boston College, and I have been advising John on issues of corporate reform for quite a while. Also, he has participated in conferences and meetings with scholars, activists, and business leaders to discuss ideas for corporate reform. There is much academic writing in this area, and while John is out front on these issues in the political community, he is a part of a strong and reputable movement among legal and business scholars. The initiatives he has outlined are sensible, workable, and beneficial for Massachusetts.
<
p>
Let me address a couple of the negative comments others have made. As for John’s Point #1, enforcing MAs right to govern MA corporations, I think this is one of the most important things we could do. Now, any corporation based in MA, with all their employees and shareholders here, can choose to be governed by Delaware corporate law, just by filing papers there. Delaware makes millions of dollars on this every year, and it makes no sense. An example of why this would matter: if a corporation based in MA is the object of a takeover attempt (think Gillette), the law governing that takeover would most likely be DE law, not MA law. Even if we wanted to allow the corporations managers to protect the interests of workers here in MA, and even if MA law would let them do so, it wouldnt matter since DE law would control. For what its worth, a number of scholars have begun to talk about this. (I even have a chapter dedicated to it in my upcoming book, The Failure of Corporate Law, to be published in a couple of months by University of Chicago Press.) Those who say it will make businesses move out of the state dont understand the proposal. Now, corporations are the only entity that is able to choose the state whose law applies to them, even though they dont actually have anything to do with that state. All John is saying is that if a corporation is going to be here in MA, our laws should apply. The rest of us have to abide by MA law, and we dont move out.
<
p>
Johns Point 4 is also being attacked unfairly. Most states (not including Delaware, mind you) already allow corporate directors to take into account the public interest in making decisions. Our neighbor CT requires corporate managers, when making big decisions that have big impacts, to take into account the public interest. Johns proposal is simply to make MA law the same as CT. Again, this proposal makes sense and is supported by a number of scholars. When you get down to it, corporations are made to make money. But they shouldnt be making money at the expense of the public interest.
<
p>
Johns Point 5 is simply that employees should receive the same protection from corporate lies that shareholders receive. If a CEO lies in a shareholders meeting, he has broken federal law. But if the same CEO tells the same lie on the same day to a meeting of employees, the employees have no redress. This is the subject of another one of the chapters of my upcoming book, not to mention a 100 page law review article in the Yale Law Journal and a Washington Post op-ed a few years back. Honest corporations should not mind this. The corporations who will be worried are those who are accustomed to saying one thing and doing another.
<
p>
Finally, Johns tax idea comes straight from reputable groups such as Citizens for Tax Justice. I, for one, think corporations should pay their fair share of taxes like the rest of us.
<
p>
All in all, Johns proposals are a way to make the high road of corporate accountability more attractive for corporations here in MA. They will be better off in the long run, and so will we.
And like Ive said, Bonifaz would prefer to use this serious position to concoct his radical ideas from a bully pulpit. Driving more buisnesses out of the state is an awful idea, granted I agree that in an ideal world we could do this, but people forget that every regulation MA adopts makes NH, VT, CT, RI, NY, far more tempting to do buisness in. Look no further than auto insurance, our currently law in my opinion is fair, great, progressive, but we’re the only state that has it so insurance companies can ensure we’re screwed over. Initiatives like Johns need to be done at the national level, they dont work at the state level.
<
p>
Also his entire campaign seems to be anti-Bush, anti-Iraq, and griping over Ohio and Florida. Id prefer a Secretary of State that actually has experience ordering voting machines than one concerned with whether or not they came from Diebold. Also Bonifaz is clearly neither neutral or objective enough for the job. Hence Stein is the only sane choice for the anti-Galvin wing. And hell if she proposes policies that are this impractical I might be a pro-Galvin supporter after all.
so I won’t hire any of them to advise me.
<
p>
Thanks for making my job easier. Now I can screen out those associates inculcated with your socialist legal theories.
<
p>
Scholars shouldn’t be making public policy because they do not reflect public or business sentiment. (Not that Beacon Hill does anymore.)
<
p>
And socialist kooks shouldn’t be teaching corporate law. Next time I retain a Boston law firm, I will reject any associate who has taken Corporate Law at BC from Professor Kent Greenfield.
<
p>
Thanks for the hat tip!
<
p>
Are you tenured? How did you miss Constitutional law? I don’t see how Bonifaz’s corporate governance idea avoids head-on conflict with the “good faith and credit” and commerce clauses.
<
p>
Can you immagine? Every MA-sited, Delaware-incorporated corporation would have it’s entire by-laws and governance nullified by fiat from the MA Secretary of State. This would create an INSTANT corporate mess. And a healthy exodus of HQ’s from MA.
<
p>
I have consistantly been advised, in a number start-up situations, NOT to incorporate in MA because it has some of the most difficult, convoluted and outdated incorporation laws. This is universally how the top firms in town with which I’ve worked have counseled.
<
p>
Responding to your support of Bonifaz’s “public interest” law, I should point out that CT is also low on the list of attractive states in which to incorporate, too, according to CT counsel. Does anyone consider CT to be the Mecca of corporate domiciles? I don’t think so. It’s industrial base has been gutted, and much of the insurance business has departed, too. One doesn’t see corporations flocking to file papers in Hartford.
<
p>
Is CT a state we wish to emulate (even higher per capital tax burden than MA)? Instead, why not emulate Delaware and recapture some of those corporate filing fees ourselves? What not think of something that actually helps, not hinders, business formation in MA?
<
p>
And yes, lying’s bad but why offer up every MA corporation and corporate officer as red meat to the trial lawyers when by criminalizing “lying” you also criminalize CEO and CFO misstatements, misjudgement and simple bone-headedness (Bonifaz #5)? Next thing we’ll see is their complete silence for fear of getting sued for “lying,” no doubt broadly defined by the Secretary of State. The courts will be jammed with class action suits because so-and-so corporation’s stock price went down, contrary the CEO’s comment in the prior quarter.
<
p>
Beautiful.
<
p>
We want to streamline the Secretary of State’s office and the corporate and tax laws to allow Massachusetts to be the state where Business seeks to do business: speed and efficiency in incorporation and formation of LLCs and partnership is the goal.
<
p>
That’s the proposal that gets the vote. You can’t underestimate the importance of economic freedom.
Massachusetts completely revamped its corporation statutes a couple of years ago, replacing Chapter 156B with Chapter 156D, which is based on model corporation laws. You may still think the laws are difficult and convoluted (I don’t think so), but they are most certainly not outdated.
that the words “difficult”, “convoluted”, nor “outdated” are not mine?
<
p>
Reread (remembering that grey means ‘quoted’.) My point is that the Secretary of State’s goal should be to made corporate practice more streamline and more efficient and that Mr. Bonifaz’s proposal make appear to make it more difficult.
<
p>
Is it your position that the corporations division is as efficient as it could possibly be?
<
p>
Yes, I realize that the words weren’t yours, but that they belonged to a previous post. I apologize that you were taken aback.
<
p>
My point was only that Chapter 156D is relatively state-of-the-art as corporations statutes go. No further opinion was intended (at least here).
Point 1.
<
p>
<
p>
Professor, as I’m positive you’re well aware, the ‘internal affairs’ rule started as a choice of law issue, then expanded. But, the bottom line is that individuals choose Delaware for many reasons, and by now choice of law is but one. (FYI, I’m rather keen on choice as a matter of ideology)
<
p>
Mr. Bonifaz’s proposals are grounded in some common (usually academic) debate that comes to the forefront every time large corporations merge with another and the entrenched shareholders fight it out. But, the core principle of Mr. Bonifaz’s proposal reduces choice. It says even if you choose Delaware to incorporate (note that I do it because of choice of law, and ease of administration) if you do business in Massachusetts, we remove, or at least limit, my choice.
<
p>
Is this not an economic barrier to entry into Massachusetts, albeit you’ll probably say it’s a) small and b) fair. As a barrier to entry it will reduce some corps. from entering Mass. Do you dispute this?
<
p>
<
p>
That’s a deceptive statement and you know that’s untrue. With respect to ‘internal affairs’ the corporation chooses its domicile and goverance. But a Delaware Corp in Massachusetts is subject to Mass laws and not Delaware law with respect to labour practices, tax statutes, employment law, wage and hour laws, political statutes, statute of limitations…I could go on and on.
<
p>
Point 4. (and I’m curious why you skipped 2 and 3) I’d like a cite for the statute in Connecticut that stands for ‘public decision making.’ Regardless, what you propose presumes that statutes in place (i.e. DEP, wage and hour, tax, local zoning, land use…) are inadequate, and we need more. I’ll not dispute the notion, provided there is some substantial abuse you are addressing. Otherwise, this too is a barrier to entry and a substantial one at that.
<
p>
Point 5. The “good corporations don’t tell lies” rule. Please. With the benefit of hindsight, every business, priest and sinner lies everyday:
<
p>
–“It’s going to rain tomorrow”;
–“Honey, I’ll be home at 7:00”; or
–“We at ABC Corp. will add 5,000 jobs to the Massachusetts economy.”
<
p>
In hindsight, each was a lie, but the last one, made by a Corporation, a crime!? All quotes? Well intended, but in hindsight, perhaps lies.
<
p>
Point 6.
<
p>
<
p>
Ever hear the saying “fair depends on whose ox is being gored.” Or, ever teach a 1st year law class, read a tough case, and have the 1st year’s hand go up to say “that isn’t fair.” When you figure out what ‘fair share of taxes’ means, call me. 😉 For my dime, a corporation’s fair share of income taxes is zero.
<
p>
You’ve reference the CTJ proposals. Here’s a list of the omissions and errors from the CTJ on Corporate taxation.
I think others have responded very well to the points that you have made, but wanted to add my .02 as well.
<
p>
What is Bonifaz trying to get at with his first point? As others have mentioned, if a corporation is doing business in Massachusetts, it is then subject to Massachusetts labor and environmental laws. As for the Delaware law governing in the case of mergers etc., corporations choose Delaware because of the sophistication of the Delaware Chancery Courts regarding corporate matters and the large and well-developed body of case law that deals with mergers and other matters of corporate concerns. Besides the incredible ease of doing your corporate work out of Delaware (filing is a breeze compared to the bureaucratic nightmare that is Massachusetts), corporations and those who run them take comfort in knowing that any litigation will be handled by people with extenive experience in and knowledge of corporate law cases and in relying on a large history to help predict outcomes. When I took my corporate law classes during law school, the vast majority of the cases, and just about all the major modern cases, where from the Delaware court system. Delaware has done a lot, and made a very concerted effort, to become an attractive place for corporations to incorporate. Businessmen like certainty and efficiency, and Delaware offers them both while Massachusetts offers neither. And this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Efficiency and certainty keep costs down, and that allows companies to do better, which in turn increases stock price, which allows them to keep employees and increases the values of peoples mutual funds and 401ks.
<
p>
By the way, what part of Massachusetts laws governing corporate governance is John so eager to enforce against companies that are currently incorporated in Massachusetts?
<
p>
As for point number 4, I think others have already pointed out that Connecticut isn’t exactly the model for attracting companies to incorporate. Corporations are bound to follow the law in their actions. A board cannot make a decision that would cause a corporation to violate the law (say, start dumping toxic waste into a public water supply). So what is meant by considering the public interest? The concept is so vague as to render it meaningless. Who determines what is in the best interest of the public? And what will the penalty be if the corporation considers the public interest, but acts against it? And what happens if acting in the best public interest is not in the best interest of the shareholders? You could imagine a situation where the public interest and the shareholders fiduciary duty to the shareholders are in opposition to each other. What is the director to do? Break the law and incur criminal penalties or break their fiduciary duty and be liable civilly? Yeah, I can see corporations running to Massachusetts to have to grapple these questions!
<
p>
As for Point 5, what about the other stakeholders? What about bondholders? Unsecured creditors?
<
p>
As for the tax idea, it makes a nice slogan…hell, who doesn’t agree that corporations should pay their fair share. I just don’t see how Bonifaz’s proposal would lead to that result.
<
p>
Your closing statement just makes no sense. How will corporations be better off under these proposals? These are all clearly designed to benefit other parties at the expense of the corporation. Corporations don’t have feelings, they aren’t people. So it cannot just be that they will feel better about themselves. And while it may be nice for a corporation to take into account other interests, the purpose of a corporation is to provide a return to its investors. These proposals would cost time and money and create incredible problems for a corporation.
Maybe that is because I spent that semeseter of my second year being clobbered around by a certain distinguidhed and aged visting Professor Emeritus from Harvard. It was a character building experience, indeed.
<
p>
I’m not sure that it is sufficiently clear from the Bonifaz website or your post that all the proposal is really addressing is corporate governance. While legally interesting, this is a little too much inside baseball for a political issue. Obviously, every corporation “doing business in” Massachusetts is subject to Massachusetts law in every respect other than corporate governance, which is presently a matter of choice.
<
p>
The proposal would restrict that choice for corporations that, what exactly? Do business in Massachusetts? What does that mean? If there are minimum contacts with the forum, corporations must be governed interally by Massachusetts law? Have their headquarters in Massachusetts? How quickly will all of those headquarters relocate to Nashua, Providence, or elsewhere? This is really to keep the next Gillette from being mergered into the next P&G. If you’re a shareholder or a director of that next Gillette, you must get that company gone before the shareholders’ equity is eroded by considerations other than return on investment.
<
p>
And in addition to these practical problems, this has a reverse commerce clause whiff about it.
<
p>
And those evil, lying officers, or at least those willing to subject themselves to shakedown for “lying,” would be well advised to be silent. So, instead of employees of some corporations receiving bad information, employees of all corporations will receive no information, other than their WARN act notice. Nice.
<
p>
The tax accounting issue seems to assume that corporations are, by definition, fraudulent. It is therefore immediately suspect. You say the proposal comes from CJT, so I suppose that this stance is unsurprising; CJT is run by the AFL-CIO. Worse, it fails to address the points raised above re: different accounting for different purposes. If DoR thinks that a corp in under-reprting its profits to reduce taxes, then it should conduct an audit.
<
p>
I remain skeptical.
Our choices in this race are:
<
p>
1. Your incumbebt hack, Bill Galvin, ducker of debates, alleged committer of trivial campaign finance infractions, apparent enjoyer of weekend leisure time, and doer of not much else in particular;
<
p>
2. Challenger A: John Bonifaz, advocate of voting ballots in the language of your choice, alleger of trivial campaign finance violations, proposer of business-unfreindly policies unlikely to be enacted by legislation, and maker of misleading campaign commercials;
<
p>
and
<
p>
3. Challenger B; Jill Stein, candidate of the odious “Isreal Has No Right To Exist” Green Rainbow Party.
<
p>
And the Republican candidate is….?
<
p>
Ay, caramba.
<
p>