- Critique of political-spending provisions of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposals on corporate governance [Prof. Bainbridge] Plus, some WSJ letters on her plan [same; earlier here, here, and here]
- “The Impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on Small Business” [Michael D. Bordo and John V. Duca, Cato Research Briefs in Economic Policy]
- Something to keep in mind in New York Attorney General races: “The Martin Act Gives New York Politicians Way Too Much National Power” [Jeff Patch, Real Clear Markets, and thanks for quotes]
- Through its Charities Bureau the New York AG’s office can also make life difficult for private nonprofits of whose ideology it disapproves; Democratic nominee Letitia (Tish) James says she intends to use the power to go after crisis pregnancy centers and NRA [Zach Williams, City And State NY]
- Treasury based a list of supposed Russian oligarchs on Forbes mag list of wealthy Russians. Now a 79-year-old laser scientist faces sanctions who’s been a U.S. citizen for 10 years and says he isn’t friendly with Putin [Steven Mufson, Washington Post]
- “Why California’s Gender Quota Bill [for corporate boards] Is More Likely To Be Unconstitutional Than California’s Pseudo-Foreign Corporation Statute” [Keith Paul Bishop, California Corporate & Securities Law (Allen Matkins)]
12 Comments
Regarding the state “going after” based on ideology—the remedy should be that the state simply does not get to regulate/examine anymore. How can a court be certain that the state won’t retaliate after the state’s action is overturned?
A ‘death penalty” for the power to regulate should be in the toolbox. After all, in our system, the First Amendment is the categorical imperative.
On Sen. Warren’s proposal. Prof. Bainbridge’s comments sort of ignore the issue. He says three things; 1. Current law does not provide for what Sen. Warren wants, 2. the current law is good; and 3. If companies thought that a change in how they operate would be better, they could do it, and since they have not, that means they do not think that way.
The problem is that Prof. Bainbridge apparently thinks that the only reason for corporations is an amoral directive to make money for their shareholders. But corporations are composed of people and society mandates that people act in a moral way. As such, the corporate mandate suggested by Milton Friedman is contrary to societal needs. Of course corporations would not change from an amoral to a moral stance, since that would not comport to their corporate charter.
So, I agree with Prof. Bainbridge that the current system is at odds with Sen. Warren’s proposal. What I do not see is why changing it is bad, if society wants to have the purpose of corporations to be something other than making money.
We can argue all we want about what society should and should not want. Prof. Bainbridge does that. But what he does not do is explain what we should do if societal goals for corporations were to change in the way Sen. Warren proposes.
If societal goals change, then anyone can form a corporation along the Warren Model. There’s nothing from stopping anyone from doing so now. And if people believe this is the “right” way to do it, then it will succeed and other companies would adopt it by their own choice.
However Sen. Warren isn’t content on offering an alternate for how she believes corporations should be structured, she wants to impose it by mandate of law. The left like to rail about Trump becoming a dictator but it’s the left that want to force everyone else to their viewpoint instead of just letting people choose.
Freedom is an ugly word to the left.
The left is not much worse than the right. They just have different topics that they want to emphasize. Generally, the right is more libertarian on economic matters and the left is more libertarian on social matters. And the right supports measures that keep those in power in power (some to the point of fuedalism). The left supports measures that gives more power to those not in power (some to the point of communism).
Living in a society means giving up freedom. The question is how much and in what areas. I would suggest that even hard and fast libertarians would agree with this.
Cash handouts are not power, particularly in the amounts dribbled out by the left. How many high ranking democrats, where the power is, ever were without power? They’re just grabbing for more.
Having the freedom and incentives to better yourself have made more middle class and more rich which is a form of power than anything that the democrats have ever done. And remember, it wasn’t democrats that freed the slaves. There isn’t a tech sector because of democrat ideals, regardless of whether or not they have forgotten on which side of the bread the butter was placed.
Cecil,
There is a difference between Democrats and the left, just as there is a difference between Republicans and conservatives. It was NOT conservatives who freed the slaves. It was progressives, who happened to be in the Republican party. In the mid- to late-20th centruary, progressives progressively wandered toward the Democrats and conservatives coalesced with the Republicans. Thus, it was not the Democrats who did the most progressive things in the early 20th century, such as trust-busting or getting the vote to women. On the other hand, it was not the Republicans who did the regressive things, like prohibition and making marijuana illegal.
I would posit that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats promote policies that ehnance the ” freedom and incentives to better yoursel.”
I support the Democrats because, at the least, they want to implement policies they imagine will help the downtrodden. Republicans, on the other hand, don’t even do that. Furthermore, I would rather have tax and spend governmen (Democrats) than a borrow and spend goverment (Republicans). Until we can get a viable party that is both economically and socially libertarean, I am stuck.
“I support the Democrats because, at the least, they want to implement policies they imagine will help the downtrodden. ”
And in their imaginations are the only place the policies they want to implement will actually help the downtrodden.
“Furthermore, I would rather have tax and spend governmen (Democrats) than a borrow and spend goverment (Republicans).”
Except that’s not quite accurate. It’s more like:
Republicans. Spend X, tax X/2
Democrats: Tax 5X, Spend 10X
MattS,
A bit of hyperbole?
So, you think Democrats do not want to help the downtrodden? Their policies would do so, if they could implement them. But they cannot do so politically.
Republicans don’t pretend their policies would help the downtrodden. We don’t know what would happen with their policies, either, because they, too, cannot do so politically.
Democrats would happily tax at 10X to pay for 10X.
Republicans would happily spend 5X, so long as the spending did not go to the social safety net. And they would continue taxing at X…
“So, you think Democrats do not want to help the downtrodden?”
No, I think they do want to. However, no, good intentions are not enough, and no, the policies they push would not genuinely help the downtrodden if they were implemented.
“Democrats would happily tax at 10X to pay for 10X.”
Perhaps, but they have never demonstrated any spending discipline and revenues for tax increases have almost always fallen short of projections.
If they did manage to pass what they thought was a 10X tax bill, they would end up spending 20X and then find out the government only collected 7X in taxes.
There are no limits on the Democrat’s desire to spend government money. However, there are very real limits on the government’s ability to generate revenue through taxes.
Because there are approximately 731,529 other internet forums on which to discuss American politics generally, we try to discourage comment threads here at Overlawyered that stray too far from the original posts into general American politics. This discussion has now strayed a long way from its original subject of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s proposals to change corporate governance law.
I know it is frustrating to be cut off just at the very point at which we were about to convince each other to change our fundamental convictions about the two major American political parties or about Left versus Right.
But America’s business is business. đŸ˜€ Trying to make America’s business social justice cripples our ability to compete in the world’s market. Selling things made in America both at home and abroad provides jobs. When pulling one’s self up by the bootlaces, it really helps to have bootlaces…
I hope that this is more on target with the original post. If you do not feel it is, deny it in moderation.
Thank you.
Only 731,529, Walter?