Reply #30

In the discussion thread: With all the corporate political contributions, why aren't stockholders hitting the ceiling? [View all]

Response to former9thward (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 13, 2012, 02:47 PM

banned from Kos (4,017 posts)

30. I agree with you. Unfortunately I replied to your post.

It was meant for others.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

37 replies	Author	Time	Post
With all the corporate political contributions, why aren't stockholders hitting the ceiling? [View all]	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	OP
They are expecting these "investments" to yield significant returns.	SharonAnn	Jan 2012	#1
+1	The Traveler	Jan 2012	#3
Pretty much the best investments that exist	Capitalocracy	Jan 2012	#25
Probably because the perception is	The Traveler	Jan 2012	#2
That's interesting	laundry_queen	Jan 2012	#4
I don't know if contributions would fall under the "business judgment rule"	jsmirman	Jan 2012	#7
I wouldn't complain about charitable contributions to the communities...	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#16
Those can be serious end-arounds, though	jsmirman	Jan 2012	#17
I agree on WS. I am particularly concerned about the mega computer banks trading 24/7.	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#21
It is too long a topic to get into in depth	jsmirman	Jan 2012	#35
Because stockholder lawsuits are so hard to bring?	Sanity Claws	Jan 2012	#5
Yes, I've wondered about executive pay, as well.	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#9
For one, stockholders are generally ignorant	jsmirman	Jan 2012	#6
Folks, some pretty essential information is right here ^^^^^	jsmirman	Jan 2012	#18
I have read and stored the information you presented. I appreciate your thoughtful input.	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#31
Good to hear	jsmirman	Jan 2012	#34
What corporate contributions? Link please. Obama took no corporate money in 2008.	banned from Kos	Jan 2012	#8
I was referring to the new corporate contributions to political campaigns without limits. I didn't	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#10
Well, there is no evidence of that either - from what I can tell.	banned from Kos	Jan 2012	#13
Each time I contribute to a candidate	Yupster	Jan 2012	#37
Really?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#12
The $35,000 a plate donations go to the DNC, don't they?	banned from Kos	Jan 2012	#14
"Wall St got screwed by Obama"	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#15
You spend too much time at ZeroHead. Mark-to-market has been legit since 1993.	banned from Kos	Jan 2012	#19
Huh?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#33
Because political influence is effectively the corporations' best profit center?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#11
Did they release a listing?	joeglow3	Jan 2012	#20
I often wonder about the stockholders. Not only about these contributions but don't they give a	jwirr	Jan 2012	#22
I agree. Must be that the yearly reports are in such small print and so complicated to read...	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#23
This is one of those differences between corporations and unions	gratuitous	Jan 2012	#24
Also, the power of shareholders vs the Exec boards is shrinking	librechik	Jan 2012	#26
We ape each other in many ways.	Frustratedlady	Jan 2012	#36
It has been illegal for corporations to contribute to federal candidates since 1910.	former9thward	Jan 2012	#27
And here is the list of recipients from the PAC organized by Goldman Sachs for 2008.	banned from Kos	Jan 2012	#28
No I don't notice.	former9thward	Jan 2012	#29
I agree with you. Unfortunately I replied to your post.	banned from Kos	Jan 2012	#30
If you had a bunch of money in these corporations, you'd be one of the 1%	hobbit709	Jan 2012	#32

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.