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

boing
21

That being said, gagging any investors is an infringement of their first amendment rights. That’s the real problem here, not who the law is aimed at. I doesn’t matter if it’s meant to shut up Carl Icahn or Grandma, it’s not right or even legal.

10 Likes
22

Isn’t that insulting to sex workers?

9 Likes
23

I don’t disagree.

It’s just another example of the republicans greasing the wheels of commerce by reducing regulation…

… oh, wait…

24

Maybe often true, but not entirely.

For example, in 2011, the NYC Pension Fund, owners of less than 1% of Halliburton subsidiary KBR, forced a successful vote on the adoption of an LGBTQIA anti-discrimination policy.

4 Likes
25

Better late than never.

2 Likes
26

I’m sure you that this fine gentleman has a compelling account of why, in this case(and probably this case only) employees must be carefully protected from the brutality of owners of the company even proposing things they might not like.

27

In a nakedly cynical effort to secure a Pedant Pendant:

Well, it will be legal one they make it the law …

28

To do so, they’d have to change the constitution, though. It’s not as easy as passing a law.

2 Likes
29

Maybe, although I suspect they’ll put more effort into ‘fixing’ that than doing anything about the 2nd …

30

But doing so is no trivial thing. There’s a reason why we only have 27th. It’s far more effective to litigate our understanding of the constitution through the courts. But that has far less permanence to it.

31

I have to take my shoes off at the airport. You’re just going to have to try again on that one.

1 Like
32

Banning anyone with less than 1% achieves the same purpose and has a patina of fairness.

And it is named the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017. How could such a bill restrict choice?

Little sidenote about the bill’s title: while, say, the “PATRIOT” of the PATRIOT Act of 2001 was an acronym and ostensibly stood for “Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”, this “CHOICE” seems to stand for nothing. If you read the text of HR 10, there can nowhere be found any evidence that “CHOICE” is an acronym. Now, apparently, they just capitalize certain random words in a bill’s title. (Perhaps the one’s that reveal the irony in the bill’s true nature?)

1 Like
33

I think “CHOICE” refers to CEOs choosing their own bloated compensation. It’s a little congressional joke among themselves.

3 Likes
34

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.