Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Don’t Let Corporations Buy Elections

January 29, 2010 By repmikecapuano

This week I introduced the Shareholders Protection Act, H.R. 4573, which would require a shareholder vote before any corporate general treasury funds can be spent on political activity. The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will basically open the floodgates of corporate spending in federal campaigns. Arguing that a corporation should be treated as an individual for the purposes of free speech, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision to allow corporations to freely spend their money on politics. I find the logic of the majority extremely flawed and am very disappointed in this ruling. We should be moving in the exact opposite direction, limiting outside influence, not enhancing corporate voices in our elections. Those of you who are familiar with me know I have always been a strong defender of free speech, and I always will be. This ruling ignores the free speech rights of the shareholders themselves. Shouldn’t they have a say in how these funds are spent? It’s their money after all. My legislation has the support of U.S. PIRG and Public Citizen, and I am optimistic that many of my colleagues will sign on as well. We know that we cannot reverse the full impact of this ruling legislatively, but Congress can certainly take steps to ensure that the voice of the voters is not overshadowed by corporate influence. I am also working with my colleagues to develop a more comprehensive approach to this ruling and I will keep you informed on our progress.

You can read the full text of my bill on THOMAS at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User

Comments

  1. judy-meredith says

    January 29, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    to urge their own Members of Congress to sign onto this.

    <

    p>And Mike, let us know if your colleagues in the Mass delegation  need any encouragement.  

  2. power-wheels says

    January 29, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    Could the Sec. 14A(d) exception swallow the rule by allowing corporations to create “Media subsidiaries” or purchase a small ongoing media operation to make their political speech?
    Do loans count as “expenditures,” i.e. could a corporation just loan the money to a political advertising group, then when the entity disbands after the election the loan is forgiven but no “expenditure” has occurred?
    Sec. 14A(e)(4)(ii) seems both overly broad and tough to enforce. It applies to all non-profit entities and trade associations.  How does a corporation know if a non-profit or trade association is “reasonably expected” to engage in political speech? What if a corporation contributes $10,000 worth of land to a conservation entity as a nature preserve and that conservation entity later runs ads against a candidate. Would that be reasonably expected?

    <

    p>

    • christopher says

      January 29, 2010 at 3:12 pm

      Any group like you suggest should have to say exactly where its funding is coming from and who is making the expenditure decisions.

  3. steve-stein says

    January 29, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    when was the last time a shareholder election went against what the BoD wanted?

    <

    p>Presumably, corporations would buy ads supporting candidates that would improve business, and against candidates that would harm it.  Why would shareholders be against that strategy?

    • david says

      January 29, 2010 at 3:56 pm

      is if the big institutional shareholders like pension funds started routinely voting “no,” not because they didn’t like the candidates, but because they didn’t want corporations involved in this kind of activity at all.

      <

      p>That said, you’re right that movements to increase shareholder involvement have not been wildly successful up ’til now.

      • jim-gosger says

        January 29, 2010 at 5:44 pm

        one person one vote?  In this way wealthy shareholders won’t get more influence than smaller shareholders.  That might change the way these boards operate.

        • david says

          January 29, 2010 at 7:18 pm

          I don’t see how that would be consistent with the way corporations are organized.  And I don’t think it’s necessary to junk the entire corporate form over this one decision.

    • cos says

      January 29, 2010 at 8:02 pm

      Even if the vote weren’t actually required to pass, just the requirement that a vote be held would have significant effect, IMO.  Even if every vote passes, it’ll still make management think twice before bringing up such a proposal, get the board involved in such decisions, and shine light on the ones they do let through.

  4. peter-porcupine says

    January 29, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    Will unions also have to have membership ratification to spend union funds on political activity?

    • power-wheels says

      January 29, 2010 at 4:57 pm

      only applies to publicly traded entities. Privately owned corporations, nonprofit entities, and unions are not included.

      <

      p>I guess this legislation assumes (as it must) that someone has free speech protection after Citizens United, but says that in the case of publicly traded entities it’s the shareholder’s speech that must be protected. There is certainly validity to that position. But, as you point out, there is also validity to protecting the union members’ free speech in the union context. Perhaps Rep. Capuano will also propose companion legislation that applies to unions.

    • hoyapaul says

      January 29, 2010 at 7:12 pm

      See Communication Workers v. Beck (1988) and Davenport v. Washington Education Association (2007), among other cases.

    • david says

      January 29, 2010 at 7:19 pm

      this is PP’s rejoinder to every proposal regarding Citizens United.  Entertaining, but relatively non-constructive.

  5. bostonshepherd says

    January 29, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    … if union leaders have to hold a secret vote of their membership for every dollar they wish to spend on political organizing and advocacy.  And I get to audit those votes.

  6. sk-jim says

    January 30, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    However well-intentioned this bill is, the first key problem is that it would only apply public corporations, leaving plenty of well-funded privately-held businesses to spend as they wish.  Second, I suspect one could make an argument that corporate governance, as opposed to the interstate purchase and sale of securities, is really a state law issue and not ripe for federal intervention.

    <

    p>If you really wanted to influence businesses in this way, you need to change state corporation (and LLC and partnership) laws to provide for this sort of regulation.  And the places to start would be Delaware, Nevada and New York, as I suspect most “big” businesses are incorporated in those three jurisdictions.  Change the laws in those states, as is their right (unless Citizens United prevents states from taking away statutorily given “rights”!), and you can impact campaign spending across the country.

    <

    p>So there’s a job for Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, if I ever saw one!

    <

    p>BTW, it wouldn’t hurt to introduce such a bill here in Massachusetts either.

    • david says

      January 30, 2010 at 3:26 pm

      why Congress couldn’t enact this bill.  There’s little doubt that almost all corporations do business in interstate commerce, which is enough for the Commerce Clause to give Congress the authority it needs.  If a particular corporation wants to make the argument that it only operates within the state in which it’s incorporated and has no impact on interstate commerce, and therefore should be exempt, good luck to it.

  7. farnkoff says

    January 30, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    In terms of the “corporate personhood” thing, I wonder if it would be helpful to bring a new test case to the Supreme Court, by perhaps trying to register BMG PAC to vote in the upcoming Gubernatorial election. If corporations are legal persons with a Constitutionally protected right to free speech, why shouldn’t corporations be able to vote? I know this isn’t the precise issue here, but I’ve often thought the Supreme Court needs to revisit and clarify whether it really believed corporations and unions are legal “persons”.  

    • dcsurfer says

      January 30, 2010 at 9:36 pm

      I think BMG Pac and Lori Ehrlich should just go ahead and get married already!  What are they waiting for?  Sheesh…

      <

      p>But, what would constitute consent to marry?  A majority of shareholders?  Or would the entire corporation have to consent?  Would shareholders be able to marry someone else, or what if they were shareholders in two corporations, and wound up somehow married to themselves?  Would that be incest?

    • christopher says

      January 31, 2010 at 12:00 am

      Forgive my ignorance as I haven’t read the whole opinion, but it sounds like the question is does an entity with a bank account can spend its money.  Obviously plenty of bank accounts do not belong to individuals.  To say that because a corporation can spend money also means they can vote seems like quite the leap of logic.

    • david says

      January 31, 2010 at 2:28 pm

      BMG PAC is not incorporated.  It’s registered with OCPF, so it’s a political committee, but it’s not a corporation.

  8. lasthorseman says

    January 30, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Left/right politics is the theatrical division of not only the military-industrial complex but now the globalist organizations which run the world.  We now have trillion dollar wasteful industries marketing crap to Charolette Iserbyte dumbed down morons who point to Austrailia and say we should invade Iran next.

    <

    p>The answer is to let corporations participate more fully in that fallacy?   No the real value here is to just waste money allowing US corporations to fail faster.

  9. sabutai says

    January 31, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    Perhaps a law demanding a separate, notarized, filed report with the SEC for every individual political expenditure.  Every ad buy requires a ten-page report on how it aligns with corporation interests, promotes the wellbeing of the stockholder, and is integrated into the strategic process outlined in the public filing.

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022I joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022That’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

ronaldvining Ron Vining @ronaldvining ·
25m

🇺🇸🐘📢Announced I'm running for http://MAGOPChair.com on Dec 12th! Want to know why I entered race? Here's a look back, as I seek to drive our Party, forward.☕️Grab coffee, 5-8min read...
#MApoli #MAgop #MASSgop #MAgopChair #Massachusetts #Republican https://www.magopchair.com/ronvining-re-entry-into-politics/

Reply on Twitter 1619767431525986305 Retweet on Twitter 1619767431525986305 Like on Twitter 1619767431525986305 Twitter 1619767431525986305
ronaldvining Ron Vining @ronaldvining ·
27m

🇺🇸🐘📢Announced I'm running for http://MAGOPChair.com on Dec 12th? Want to know why I entered race? Here's a look back, as I seek to drive our Party, forward.☕️Grab a coffee, 5-8min read...
#MApoli #MAgop #MASSgop #MAgopChair #Massachusetts #Republican https://www.magopchair.com/ronvining-re-entry-into-politics/

Reply on Twitter 1619766929509715968 Retweet on Twitter 1619766929509715968 Like on Twitter 1619766929509715968 Twitter 1619766929509715968
ronaldvining Ron Vining @ronaldvining ·
27m

🇺🇸🐘📢Announced I'm running for http://MAGOPChair.com on Dec 12th? Want to know why I entered race? Here's a look back, as I seek to drive our Party, forward.☕️Grab a coffee, 5-8min read...
#MApoli #MAgop #MASSgop #MAgopChair #Massachusetts #Republican https://www.magopchair.com/ronvining-re-entry-into-politics

Reply on Twitter 1619766816376782848 Retweet on Twitter 1619766816376782848 Like on Twitter 1619766816376782848 Twitter 1619766816376782848
mapolinet mapoli.net @mapolinet ·
46m

"a rabid pro-life conservative"

Frank Phillips is slyly trying to get Lyons reelected so he continue to write about stuff. It's obvious. #mapoli

Frank Phillips @GlobeFPhillips

2)Watch for a raucous State Committee meeting as Lyons, a rabid pro-life conservative,tries to quash move to block his reelection.He wields a wild gavel,blows through rules,could even defy a court order to sit one member.Still hasn't explained hidden party debts.#mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1619761913251889160 Retweet on Twitter 1619761913251889160 Like on Twitter 1619761913251889160 1 Twitter 1619761913251889160
notoriousvog Notorious VOG @notoriousvog ·
58m

Folks like to blame @GOP for lack of meaningful #PoliceReform. Truth IS; it's bipartisan and both parties present barriers to #PoliceReform. @massdems hide behind support of collective bargaining which has NO place in public safety POLICY! #UrbanAgenda #BOSpoli #MApoli

Notorious VOG @NotoriousVOG

Also UNIONS shouldn’t have influence over #PublicSafety. Any meaningful #PoliceReform MUST include set of CORE responsibilities & requirement which AREN’T subject so-called COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. Cops AREN’T cleaning ladies, they hold life & death in their hands. #BOSpoli #MApoli https://twitter.com/NotoriousVOG/status/1619730104476930050

Reply on Twitter 1619759048936787969 Retweet on Twitter 1619759048936787969 Like on Twitter 1619759048936787969 Twitter 1619759048936787969
globefphillips Frank Phillips @globefphillips ·
59m

1)Whether Mass. will ever get a two party system again to be decided Tues. when GOP leaders meet to decide fate of chair Jim Lyons, who has run amok bankrupting the party, losing elections - and faces probes from the AG +camp. finance regulators. #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1619758644324892672 Retweet on Twitter 1619758644324892672 2 Like on Twitter 1619758644324892672 4 Twitter 1619758644324892672
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2023 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.