Things I have done today, so far
Feb. 28th, 2012 09:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
muck_a_luckUpdated the exercise community that I haven't participated in for weeks
Grilled fish
Watched some raunchy britcom
Had a nap
Edited a novella (only partially, of course)
Assisted with science project measurement problem
Resolved a network connection problem
Created an SQL database
Washed dishes
Packed lunch
Made (and consumed) delicious strawberry coconut smoothie
Sang songs
Dried tears
Discussed the importance of Spanish homework with a Timmy/Sasha, the stuffed Husky
Took a temperature
Tied (someone else's) shoes
And absolutely died laughing listening to this guy on NPR: Allen Dickerson (sp?), Legal Director for the Center for Competitive Politics, "We've recognized for decades that disclosing information that is not economically material can be misleading." He goes on to say, and here is were I nearly cried laughing in my car: "In practice, what [disclosure] will do is require any corporation that wants to use its Constitutional right [to make unlimted political donations] to submit to a highly politicized, highly partisan debate every year on how they go about doing it."
Seriously? I'm supposed to feel like that is a bad thing? Corporations want to give out millions of dollars in corporate profits that could be going to reinvestment, or employee wages, or basic research, or shareholder dividends, or socially useful charities - they want to give those millions of dollars to some of the most highly politicized, highly partisan political players in the country (read nasty underhanded muck slingers) - namely super PACS and C4s - but they don't want their shareholders to review this behavior in a partisan and politicized way? Come on. If these political donations are, in fact, "investments" that will benefit the corporation, then shouldn't the corporate big-wigs be thrilled to show their shareholders how they are pursuing a responsible political agenda that will forward their profit-making capacity and benefit the entire corporation, including the shareholders? And if they are NOT using the corporation's money wisely, isn't that something shareholders should be entitled to know?
Boo, hoo, Mr. Legal Director for the Center for Competitive Politics. If these large donations are "not economically material" then why is a corporation making them at all? If they aren't for the economic good of the corporation, sounds like they are material WASTE to me, and shareholders should know.
Grilled fish
Watched some raunchy britcom
Had a nap
Edited a novella (only partially, of course)
Assisted with science project measurement problem
Resolved a network connection problem
Created an SQL database
Washed dishes
Packed lunch
Made (and consumed) delicious strawberry coconut smoothie
Sang songs
Dried tears
Discussed the importance of Spanish homework with a Timmy/Sasha, the stuffed Husky
Took a temperature
Tied (someone else's) shoes
And absolutely died laughing listening to this guy on NPR: Allen Dickerson (sp?), Legal Director for the Center for Competitive Politics, "We've recognized for decades that disclosing information that is not economically material can be misleading." He goes on to say, and here is were I nearly cried laughing in my car: "In practice, what [disclosure] will do is require any corporation that wants to use its Constitutional right [to make unlimted political donations] to submit to a highly politicized, highly partisan debate every year on how they go about doing it."
Seriously? I'm supposed to feel like that is a bad thing? Corporations want to give out millions of dollars in corporate profits that could be going to reinvestment, or employee wages, or basic research, or shareholder dividends, or socially useful charities - they want to give those millions of dollars to some of the most highly politicized, highly partisan political players in the country (read nasty underhanded muck slingers) - namely super PACS and C4s - but they don't want their shareholders to review this behavior in a partisan and politicized way? Come on. If these political donations are, in fact, "investments" that will benefit the corporation, then shouldn't the corporate big-wigs be thrilled to show their shareholders how they are pursuing a responsible political agenda that will forward their profit-making capacity and benefit the entire corporation, including the shareholders? And if they are NOT using the corporation's money wisely, isn't that something shareholders should be entitled to know?
Boo, hoo, Mr. Legal Director for the Center for Competitive Politics. If these large donations are "not economically material" then why is a corporation making them at all? If they aren't for the economic good of the corporation, sounds like they are material WASTE to me, and shareholders should know.
