Justice Defends Ruling on Finance
Posted on February 4th, 2010 by MoverMike
The NY Times reports that Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas “vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.”
He further tells us the motive behind one corporate free speech impairment and states, also,
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Again, it appears liberals are unhappy that the playing field is leveled!
His statement is good in theory - a corporation is a group of beneficial owners. One could argue that this group should be able to speak its mind and act in its own best interest. However, in the real world, a corporation does not represent its owners as effectively as the smaller groups that Justice Thomas referenced. A major cause for this is the inefficient corporate proxy voting system. As many, many, many people have reminded us, it does not facilitate the feedback loop from beneficial owners that is necessary for successful corporate governance. These problems do not exist with groups of 10.
WhoDat, there’s not much future in arguing with five of nine justices. What is, is!
MoverMike - What you think of the proxy voting system that is offered to retail investors? Any insight into the articles by Bogle, Latham, and the shareholder coalition that were linked to above? Thanks, WhoDat
WhoDat, I need more info. The link didn’t take me to info about articles by Bogle, Latham, and the shareholder coalition. Can you provide link?