Embarrassed about their association with extremist right wing organizations - is the only conclusion I can make.
Bruce Edward Walker
Bruce Edward Walker was managing editor of InfoTech & Telecom News from 2010 to 2012. Prior to joining Heartland in 2010, Bruce worked at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy as science editor of the quarterly magazine MichiganScience and communications manager for the center’s Property Rights Network
This yahoo - is acting as if the corporations have no speech at all - when in fact I have documented that they have WAY TOO MUCH speech under Citizens United when it comes to influencing legislation at the federal and state levels.
Monday, May 20, 2013CommentaryShutting down corporate speech in name of social justice?BY BRUCE EDWARD WALKERPublished: May 20, 2013SNIPThe nuns and friars submitting the proxy resolutions are members of the New York City-based Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility,SNIPWhat seems to upset the religious activists, or actually ICCR, is the lack of disclosure of “lobbying expenditures to influence legislation in states,” including “trade association payments” and “membership in tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council.”
No - it's
“lobbying expenditures to influence legislation in states,”
AT meetings of the American Legislative Exchange Council
Any "endorsing" that occurs is on the back of bank drafts.
,,, one might even attach the sobriquet “justice” to the freedoms that Lockheed Martin, Altria and Northrop Grumman enjoy, including making contributions to ALEC.
Lobbying = justice - In whose universe?
Contributions? Which contributions to ALEC - there are so many.
Paying for scholarships to pay for ALEC legislators to attend ALEC meetings for free - to meet with corporate lobbyists behind closed doors - in private - outside the pruview of the general public who will be affected by ALEC's so-called "model legislation"?
In other words, encouraging boards of directors ”to require comprehensive disclosure related to direct, indirect and grassroots lobbying” efforts as noted in the ICCR proxy resolutions derives from the desire to publicly shame the corporations in question for supporting groups that advocate in their best interests. Ultimately, the goal is to end these relationships altogether. Is this not an injustice, by any measure?
NOPE, not injustice. Free market speech. Do this - or we'll do that.
Shareholders do have power to exert and why shouldn't they/
But I guess in an ALEC-world, you don't question the corporations - you only do what they tell you to do.
They should be publicly shamed for being part of an organization that is destroying our democracy and replacing it with fascism.
Because groups such as ALEC lean toward drafting free-market, lighter regulatory policy solutions, it can only be surmised that ICCR simply wants to shut down one side of the discourse with which it disagrees.
Oh get real.
Lighter regulatory – ALEC wants to get rid of regulation – totally.
ALEC wants to get rid of anything that ALEC corporations deem as interference to their profit.
And don’t give me that free-market bullshit. When ALEC uses their state legislators to distribute legislation – written by ALEC corporations – that artificially manipulates the free market – there is no free market.
ALEC shuts down the discourse by hiding behind closed doors and by it’s secrecy.
There indeed exist many valid reasons for assuring the privacy of corporate donations to advocacy groups such as ALEC, which has been a major target of liberal/progressive critics.
Advocacy group – ALEC – really???
Come on – get real.
Come on – get real.
Advocacy for ALEC corporate member profits, maybe.
Definitley NOT advocacy for the general public or the general commons.
And THAT is why they speak out at corporate board meetings.