Market Currents
Though academic research suggests that the stocks of companies that make political donations...
-
Sunday, May 27, 2012, 9:05 AM ETThough academic research suggests that the stocks of companies that make political donations perform worse than ones that don't, this year's elections could see corporate political spending skyrocket with a Supreme Court ruling having opened the door for unlimited spending on campaigns. Shareholders at Boeing (BA), IBM, PepsiCo (PEP) and BofA (BAC) seem to get the picture - having put forward motions to curb political spending. But their resolutions failed, so execs may squander more resources on campaigns with no benefit to investors.
Other date
Latest Macro Articles
This news story has 17 comments:
I say the unions control more politicians than all the corporations combined.
If I see that one of the companies I own stock in donates tons of money to whoever, I will sell them. This is not in my interest. I like the share holder actions at aforementioned companies in this context, but I do not own stock in any of those anyhow.
Great! Then the rich candidates can use their money to outspend the average candidates and, when they win, get back their money through federal grants to their pet projects.
You own Apple shares, so start selling.....Apple donates money to Capitol Hill.
Warren Buffet?
That said, what is it people are upset over? I can only guess there is "feeling" among "liberals," a word distorted over the past thirty years to mean its opposite, that corporations will now be able to give more more money to the oligarchs on the right. The tribal feeling being only my oligarchs should get massive support to influence politics, say like unions. I would suggest the liberals study GE very closely to see how corruption works on their side.
We have, thus, a political distress that one side will gain an advantage. There are two paths: "so what?" and "no one should have any influence!" The latter is great, but you know it will never happend. eg. Lie about GM, kill GM, kill bondholders, then move control to the unions. Brute fascism cannot be stopped by a silly law. Lobbyists are needed because they need to tell our representatives what to vote for. What to do?
Since all side are essentially corrupt and corporations have to contribute to both sides lest they be obliterated after an election, notice Baine contributed to Obama, then another solution is necessary to address the entire morass. Canada has simple take: very short election cycle where access is given to all parties to address issues before the people.
That system is logical and works, more or less. Now, would the US accept a cheap way to run politics? The people would, but the parties' establishment would consider such an idea more "flake" stuff, like reigning in the FED or requiring a candidate for the Presidency by natural-born.. CNN and Hannity would be instructed to attack such crazy ideas. The solution is to forget looking to government for a way to control it.
The solution, as always, is vote out everyone, regardless of party, unless they present a compelling defense of their tenure with respect to defending the Constitution and individual rights. The burden of proof would be upon them. Sure, you could also vote against someone who is just stupid. It is as simple as that, we need NO career politicians. They have already shown experience is not required and only provides an understanding of the techniques of corruption.
It always comes down to our tradition of individual freedom and responsibility versus the old-Europe statism hiding behind socialism.