The Magazine of Corporate Responsibility

Tag Archive for ‘U.S. Supreme Court’

A Growing Consensus on What to Do About Citizens United

While the Supreme Court in Citizens United envisioned a world where shareholders could hold managers accountable for political spending, corporations have clever legal ways to hide their role in politics from the public. Over the past few weeks, a growing consensus among shareholders, corporate leaders and corporate law experts has emerged. All are urging increased transparency for corporate money in politics.

11 Reasons Why We Need the Shareholder Protection Act

The Shareholder Protection Act, introduced today in the U.S. Congress, addresses governance problems left in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which enables corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money on political advertising. The bill is modeled on the U.K. Companies Act, which requires prior shareholder approval of corporate political donations.

Citizens United: Waking a Sleeping Giant

A constitutional law expert says the U.S. Supreme Court ’s January ruling in the Citizens United campaign spending case raises a host of corporate governance issues that should be addressed by legislation before the 2012 Presidential election. “One of the reasons that this is such an objectionable decision,” she argues, “is it allows corporate managers in publicly traded companies to spend what Justice Brandeis called ‘other people’s money.’”

Target, Best Buy Investors Seek Review of Political Contributions

Three leading sustainability investment firms filed shareholder resolutions at Target and Best Buy seeking to have independent directors review the companies’ political spending practices and policies. Target and Best Buy have been under fire for contributions made to an organization that backs a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who opposes gay marriage.

Political Contributions by Target and Best Buy Stir Criticism

Retailers Target and Best Buy find themselves the focus of unwanted attention following their contributions to an organization that backs a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who opposes gay marriage. The case is one of the first major controversies since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions could spend freely on political campaigns.

Shareholders Press for Political Spending Disclosure

The Center for Political Accountability, examining results of disclosure proposals for the 2010 annual meeting season, found that shareholder support for disclosure rose to a record 30.25% at 28 meetings.

Supreme Court Ruling Leaves Sarbanes-Oxley “Fully Operative”

The Court ruled that an accounting board created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was unconstitutional but said the board could continue to function as the result of changes stemming from the court’s decision. The justices also ruled that the broader Sarbanes-Oxley Act “remains fully operative as a law.”

Supreme Court Ruling Narrows Honest Services Law

In a decision with far-reaching implications for the prosecution of corruption and fraud cases in the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government’s “honest services” law could be constitutionally applied only to cases involving bribery and kickbacks. The decision was a partial victory for two high-profile executives – Jeffrey Skilling, former CEO of Enron, and Conrad Black, former chairman of Hollinger International.

Politicizing the Board: Directors Face Powerful Pressures

Serving as a corporate board director will soon become more similar to serving as a county commissioner or city assemblyman than serving on a traditional for-profit corporate board, and as a result some directors may choose not to serve, according to a leading U.S. corporate governance expert.

U.S. Supreme Court Nears Ruling on Honest Services Law

The statute is an issue in three cases before the Supreme Court this term – involving former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling, Hollinger International chairman Conrad Black and former Alaska lawmaker Bruce Weyhrauch – and it could have implications for hundreds of criminal cases involving public officials and business executives convicted or charged with fraud.