Robert Reich: It's Time for a Shareholder Protection Act

[tonysam]

Five members of the Supreme Court have defied logic by assuming that corporations are people. They are not. They are legal fictions, nothing more than bundles of contractual agreements. They are owned by their shareholders.

So what do we do now, other than wait for another Supreme Court opening, and for the President to appoint another Justice who understands this?

Push Congress to enact the “Shareholder Protection Act.”

For many years, anti-union lobbyists have pushed what they call “pay-check protection” laws, supposedly designed to protect union members from being forced, through their dues, to support union political activities they oppose. Under such laws — already in effect in several states — no union dues can be spent for any political purpose unless union members agree.

link

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. But would this law curtail the actions of FOREIGN companies?

What if their securities are sold on a foreign exchange? This ignores the national Security aspect of foreign countries/companies corrupting and influence peddling in our elections. It's a great idea in and of itself, but it does not address a major concern of the SCOTUS decision.

[tonysam]

2. I don't even think it matters because the decision wasn't about corporations anyway.

That's just a smokescreen. This is about getting the Republicans back in power--permanently. The GOP IS the Big Biz Party.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

4. The decision was all about Corporations. They will be the vehicle

for getting and keeping Republicans in power for the foreseeable future.

[tonysam]

6. It's about Republican funding and thus their power. Their funding IS from corporations.

Let's not separate the two. The GOP and Big Biz are one and the same.

This is Norquist and Rove's dream come true. The Democrats will be reduced to token status.

[Demeter]

3. It's a Start

and it's going to be an uphill battle. But it must be done.

[Imperialism Inc.]

5. That sounds like a promising angle to take.

[whattheidonot]

7. good angle.

this is a good start. this would be a major pain and expenditure for corporations. The down side is that most shareholders would follow the corporations because most shareholders want that profit that corporations want and seek. Shareholders follow the biggest profit. the biggest , most consistent profit wins and power goes to the few who own and run these companies. have to promote a new kind of company with new kinds of shareholders concerned about more than just the bottom line profit. That could be a tough sell and puts companies with the most need for capital in a tough position. You need the super rich with vision to buy in. Anything that harasses and makes imposing power tougher is good. it has to under control and legal. We have to become a bunch of pests. organize , object, sell your stocks if you are in position to. You can take your money out of stocks just like you can out of big banks. we have been captured by big corporations and their lower prices. What price are we really paying? Where have all the independent businesses of all kinds gone? You might as well shop 200 miles from home now. What difference does it make?

[ParkieDem]

8. That sounds good ...

... but I think it would be too cumbersome to enforce, and not worth the effort.

It's different with a labor union -- first, most people's union dues are compulsory, particularly if they are in a closed shop. Most stock ownership, however, is voluntary -- if you don't like the political activities of Exxon or Costco, no one's forcing you to own stock in them.