Texas Congresscritter wants to gag small investors who object to large CEO paychecks


#1

Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/06/28/orwellian-choice-act.html


#2

Texas Congresscritter is too kind


#3

Why not just ban anyone from owning more than say 10% of a company’s stock? That would get rid of the whole pesky “small investor” problem. Who needs 'em anyway? :rolling_eyes:


#4

“What’s that? That sound? It’s frightening.”
“The kleptocrats are active again. They mostly come at night. Mostly. But now we’re starting to see them in daylight too.”


#5

A stupid and sleazy thing to do, but it reality I don’t think it would affect things. Small, non-institutional investors have zero effect on corporate governance already.


#6

The less money you have, the fewer rights you have. It’s a variation on “only property-owners should be allowed to vote”, it ensures a continued oligarchy.


#7

Damn. Motherfuckers gotta fuck mothers, I guess, but these people…


#8

Once they screwed over the working class and the middle class it was only a matter of time before the GOP would start going after the lowest reaches of the ownership class.


#9

Texas
Republican
Politician
Gag the little guy

I’m waiting for the punch line.


#10

Well, of course he does. The CEO has more free speech than they do, because money.


#11

I have to hand it to these people. They’re constantly coming up with new ways to be evil that I hadn’t even begun to imagine.

I assume that CHOICE is an acronym for “CEO’s Have Only Instinctive Contempt for Evelyn”.


#12

I respectfully disagree. It’s certainly close to zero, but it does have an effect. After all, if it didn’t, then these sort of rules wouldn’t be necessary…


#13

I really think this is probably aimed at activist investors, more than anything else. All it really takes is someone making enough noise (no matter how small a stake in a company) to get some press attention on serious problems.

But yes, we should be concerned about people having their voices gagged on behalf of corporations by our politicians. That is indeed first amendment infringement.


#14

Because it would be silly?


#15

After Citizens United, I don’t see how this proposed legislation isn’t a violation of the First Amendment.


#16

This has already passed through house on 6/8:
Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 233 - 186

If you’re wanting to fight this, call your senators and tell them you aren’t happy with this upcoming legislation:
https://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

Also help give me the serenity to not rage vomit onto my cell phone I attempt to leave a polite and firm message to T… T-ed (urp) Ted Cruz about what this does to my rights as a shareholding employee of the company I work for.


#17

The funny thing is, this would hamstring the kind of “Hedge Funder ‘job creators’” who need the Ultimate Freedom of the Free Market to thrive and create jobs or you know, whatever it is they do in their Scrooge McDuckian silos full of cash.

Just this week, Daniel Loeb’s hedge fund dropped $3.5bn on a 1% stake in Nestle, then /immediately/ started agitating for structural changes to maximize the share price.


#18

When it comes to small investors, they aren’t necessary. I think @Mindysan33 probably hit the nail on the head: this is probably aimed at activist investors (you know, billionaires like Carl Icahn).

The posting:

Small investors are likely to put forward motions limiting executive compensation, opposing layoffs, and advocating for ethical business practices in terms of pollution, subcontracting and accounting.

is very misleading. Activist investors, for example, are probably much more likely to push for layoffs, 'cause that’s how they make their billions.


#19


#20

The proper term is

Congresswhore