held by stockholders. Wouldn't a corporation intending to back a candidate be required to take a vote of the stockholders to be able to spend corporate money in that manner?
For the same reason that the shareholders do not need to give their approval for other business decisions such as the issuance of additional shares to raise capital.
The shareholders place their faith in Management and the board of Directors to make responsible business decisions.
Any political contribution or action by a corporation requires the unanimous consent of all stockholders. Participation must be 100%. I'd go out, buy one share of everything I could, and sit on every ballot. Fuck 'em.
9. What about a foreign owned corporation? You have to be
a US citizen to vote but a foreign billionaire or foreign government owned corporation can select your government. Virtually any large corporation today is multinational and many are completely foreign owned. I work for a company that is 95% owned by one man in Russia and what stocks that are publicly owned are sold on the London Exchange.
if they don't have to take a vote of shareholders when they decide to spend money pursuing project X (be it r&d, management, marketing, etc) why would they have to consult shareholders on spending money on politics?
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.