Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
|
Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
Tell me exactly why we shouldn't know what a publicly traded company spends their money on a political cause. Shouldn't share holders know that?
"More than 1.2 million Americans, along with securities experts and institutional and individual investors, have pressed the SEC for a rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. Last year, a bipartisan group of three former SEC chairs and commissioners urged the commission to take action, noting that a rule on corporate political spending disclosure fits squarely within the primary mission of the SEC: to protect investors."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/fi...l-spending
I would love to see someone defend this.
|
|
09-26-2016 01:30 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
What about unions? What about PACs? What about 401© whatever's?
|
|
09-26-2016 02:02 PM |
|
dfarr
Murse Practitioner
Posts: 9,402
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 166
I Root For: UAB
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
Just because they're publicly traded doesn't mean that they should divulge everything to the general public.
|
|
09-26-2016 02:14 PM |
|
QuestionSocratic
Banned
Posts: 8,276
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
Mach probably got up this morning and decided that he needed to be outraged over something connected to the Republicans.
I wonder if he was as outraged when Harry Reid blocked zika funding with a lie. Or when Harry told us that Mitt Romney didn't pay his taxes. Hmmm, lots of lies from good ole Harry.
|
|
09-26-2016 02:14 PM |
|
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
Terrible. Get the money out of the shadows and into the light. Full disclosure is necessary and one party tries their damnedest to keep it in the dark. Pathetic.
|
|
09-26-2016 07:39 PM |
|
usmbacker
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17,677
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 1320
I Root For: Beer
Location: Margaritaville
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
(09-26-2016 01:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Tell me exactly why we shouldn't know what a publicly traded company spends their money on a political cause. Shouldn't share holders know that?
"More than 1.2 million Americans, along with securities experts and institutional and individual investors, have pressed the SEC for a rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. Last year, a bipartisan group of three former SEC chairs and commissioners urged the commission to take action, noting that a rule on corporate political spending disclosure fits squarely within the primary mission of the SEC: to protect investors."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/fi...l-spending
I would love to see someone defend this.
Well, I'm waiting for someone to defend Harry Reid.
|
|
09-26-2016 07:41 PM |
|
EverRespect
Free Kaplony
Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
(09-26-2016 01:30 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Tell me exactly why we shouldn't know what a publicly traded company spends their money on a political cause. Shouldn't share holders know that?
"More than 1.2 million Americans, along with securities experts and institutional and individual investors, have pressed the SEC for a rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. Last year, a bipartisan group of three former SEC chairs and commissioners urged the commission to take action, noting that a rule on corporate political spending disclosure fits squarely within the primary mission of the SEC: to protect investors."
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/fi...l-spending
I would love to see someone defend this.
Hence Trump.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
|
|
09-26-2016 07:44 PM |
|
EverRespect
Free Kaplony
Posts: 31,322
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1156
I Root For: ODU
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
(09-26-2016 07:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Terrible. Get the money out of the shadows and into the light. Full disclosure is necessary and one party tries their damnedest to keep it in the dark. Pathetic.
You were onto something until "one party". They both suck.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
|
|
09-26-2016 07:46 PM |
|
BEARCATDALE
All American
Posts: 2,630
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 428
I Root For: UC
Location: passed out somewhere
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
|
|
09-26-2016 08:38 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
(09-26-2016 07:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Terrible. Get the money out of the shadows and into the light. Full disclosure is necessary and one party tries their damnedest to keep it in the dark. Pathetic.
What about unions? What about PACs? What about 401c-whatevers?
|
|
09-26-2016 08:51 PM |
|
Machiavelli
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity
Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
THEY ALL SHOULD BE SHIWN TO THE LIGHT. IVE ALWAYS BEEN VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT. A politician should have to wear a sponsorship jacket like NASCAR.
|
|
09-26-2016 08:54 PM |
|
JMUDunk
Rootin' fer Dukes, bud
Posts: 29,501
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 1724
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Shmocation
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
(09-26-2016 07:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: Terrible. Get the money out of the shadows and into the light. Full disclosure is necessary and one party tries their damnedest to keep it in the dark. Pathetic.
Sure.
One of you enterprising interweb guys find a simple X x Y graph program or whatever it would be and help me illustrate the following:
SOS takes office in year X (Is that the horizontal axis? been a while)
Y= the caish FLOODING into the clintoon front group fund.
Has that been done before? Anyone seen that? I haven't, might be instructive.
Maybe go back to when the syndicate was first set up, where the cank was handed the sos, then how things have prospered since then.
One may imagine a spike somewhere there in the middle...
|
|
09-27-2016 12:52 AM |
|
Hood-rich
Smarter Than the Average Lib
Posts: 9,300
Joined: May 2016
I Root For: ECU & CSU
Location: The Hood
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
|
|
09-27-2016 06:36 AM |
|
QuestionSocratic
Banned
Posts: 8,276
Joined: Jul 2013
I Root For: Buffalo
Location:
|
RE: Again, McConnell proves he's a total scum bag.
OK, let me take up this challenge.
But first I admit that I do think that there generally should be transparency regarding political contributions. Nonetheless, I do agree with McConnell on this.
First, many corporations have submitted resolutions to their shareholders to require reporting of political contributions. I believe that I voted on several of these in my current batch of this year's proxies. And since the argument made was that shareholders have the right to know, wouldn't letting shareholders make this decision be the correct way to go. You can probably find a million people to write to the SEC asking that corporate execs wear purple ties. What would that prove.
Now here is the big point. Why is this something that Congress has to get involved with. As noted, the shareholders have the power to require reporting, so it is unnecessary for another law to be created.
And again we get the government trying to add to the already burdensome regulations of business. This one reeks of Sarbannes-Oxley, which was a knee jerk reaction to the Enron debacle, which was clearly a one off. Yet corporations have spent billions complying with Sar-Box; billions that could have been spent to expand businesses and hire new employees. As is most often the case, the unanticipated effects of government's actions are far more damaging that helpful.
|
|
09-27-2016 11:23 AM |
|