Giving Shareholders a Say Over Political Contributions
Unions members have an established right to get a refund on the portion of their union dues devoted to politics. Yet shareholders have no right for a refund for corporate spending on politics.
A bill in California is seeking to rectify this double standard by requiring corporations to list political contributions made in California and allow shareholders to receive back the pro rata share of that spending if they demand it.
The bill, SB 1354, is sponsored by state Sen. Joe Dunn (D-Orange County), who argues, "We're looking for fairness in how corporations and unions handle political donations."
But the bill would also help shareholders end corporate secrecy over such political spending, which often conceals a host of other management misuse of shareholder money. As a report by the Center for Political Accountability detailed last year, political giving by companies like Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossing "were part of a pattern of risky and sometimes illegal behavior that ultimately sank the companies and cost shareholders hundreds of billions of dollars." More transparency in political contributions by corporations would alert shareholders to companies that use political fixes to cover up fundamental problems in their business operations.
In the ideal, representatives of shareholders like mutual funds would be pushing transparency themselves, but as a report by Common Cause detailed. mutual fund leaderships systematically refuse to vote for shareholder resolutions demanding disclosure of political contributions by corporations.
So it's left up to our government representatives to assure that political giving by corporations is transparent and that shareholders have the right to opt out and get their money back from political giving with which they disagree.
Crossposted from PLAN.
Sounds good to me.
-Dave Adams-
March 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT1111
March 2, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd want to go even further, e.g. to make all bundled political expenses illegal.
If a person wants to contribute directoly to a candidate, PAC, etc. that should be OK if it is published on the WEB over, say $100, within limits, etc.
BUT there should be no group contributions. e.g. Neither the Labor Unions, Corporations, Populist groups, etc. to politics. Thus one can decide to work somewhere, purchase stock, support charities, religious groups, fund assistance groups e.g. ARPA, etc. without having their money spent for politics.
March 2, 2006 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much money have the Oil Companies given to Candidates?
Can I get a rebate on my fuel expenses?
March 2, 2006 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shareholders aren't coerced into being shareholders. In many cases, where there are union shops, people are coerced into being union members or paying dues or fees whether they want to or not.
March 2, 2006 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this legislation goes far enough. I think that every contribution the corporation's managment recommends should be subject to a vote by its shareholders. Every dollar should be voted upon by its owners and not subject to the whim of the hired help. And, if the management makes contributions without precise and explicit approval, they should be subject to malfeasance and fraud charges automatically. Any hue and cry that management needs to be able to move quickly on supporting a particular politician only proves the claim that a quid pro quo can be assumed and that the "contribution' is therefore automatically an illegal bribe.
March 2, 2006 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds good, but that would have to be accompanied by a drastic reduction in giving limits, a crackdown on corruption and backdoor donantions, and improved taxpayer paid campaign finance. Mandatory airtime would be good to.
Otherwise wealthy donors would just use thier employees and family to max out contributions, which is something they already do, but is at least offset somewhat by organized drives by labor and such to represent middle/lower class people.
The game is that everyone wants to block the other guys rat hole. Unless there is suddenly a package to fix everything that pols would actually support (not likely) things will have to be fixed incrementally in tit for tat drips and drabs.
March 2, 2006 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
J. McCutchen "JmacSF"
San Francisco. CA
Fair enough I suppose, however, any claims re: the curative powers of shareholder governance, have always struck me as just so much snake oil.
March 3, 2006 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
See Newman? You can make factual and reasonable arguments if you try. (or were you just the lucky flying monkey with the good talking point today?)
Regardless, good issue. Now if you can only stay away from open borders theories or general demagoguery for a while... well let's not get too optimistic. Baby steps.
(oh, and try not to blow it later by arguing against the general principle that unions should have to offer that to members)
late edit:
lol, nice to see El Campesino is a Newman fan and rated this a 1. That's the guy who has been consistantly anti-labor, whose handle is some kind of joke, and joined this forum to bash the minimum wage in NOLA, after claiming to be a contractor. Then there is Boboccove, who has a flair for ALLCAPS posting and some of the most simplistic junk on the site.
Geeze, great crowd Newman draws.
March 5, 2006 6:22 AM | Reply | Permalink