It is the role of the OWNER, and not the GOVERNMENT, to keep the employees of their business in line, up to and including the CEO. If the OWNER says the CEO can do whatever the hell he wants, he's an idiot, but it's his money.
The government's role is not to ensure that businesses make good decisions. You are confusing intelligent/dumb vs Right/wrong. You can be Right/Dumb (Political ad that alienates your customers), Right/Intelligent (wise spending of money), Wrong/Dumb (Causing harm by ignorance of laws), Wrong/Intelligent (Stealing, Fraud, Malice)
So to recap again: Yes, the CEO is generally in a position to choose how money is spent. His check/balance is the board of directors, their check is the voting stock. Owners are responsible for the actions of their companies by their (owners) action or inaction. Workers really have very little to do this with this whole equation. Workers do what they do, and they either keep their jobs or get fired (or go to jail if they break the law).
I don't think that the money belongs to the CEO Stagger. I believe that he has the ultimate responsibility for how it is spent, though, through various reporting structures that lead up to him. I don't get how you don't get this - maybe you haven't worked in corporate America so this isn't something you've seen in action. For example, let's say I do something at work. The check on me is my manager. His manager is the Director. The Director is under a VP. The VP reports to the Pres who is also the CEO for our company. Even though I am making a decision at my level, it can be over-ruled by everyone above me in the chain, and if this were a publicly traded company SarbOx would say that the CEO better have procedures in place to know and understand what people are doing all the way down the chain.
I don't believe that our CEO has all of the money that our company has - but he has the ability to assign resources, under the direction of the board of directors and within budget constraints set by them. I would assume that if he did something outside of the approval, there would be issues with him retaining that position. There are also legalities such as theft, embezzling, etc. if he were to simply pocket all of our money. That being said, making a bad business decision (let's say he decided to buy a superbowl ad but we didn't have any product made to deliver after it ran) isn't against the law - it's just bad for your business.
This has been my (hopefully) final installation of "how to flog a dead horse".
Originally posted by Amos CochranYeah Guru, not sure how you can be cool with a CEO using his company's money to make a statement of his personal political beliefs, but not cool with him spending it on whatever the Hell he wants.
I'm not even sure what you are saying.
The CEO is not going to use the money to push her own agenda - she is going to push the agenda of the company. If she pushes her own agenda, she should expect to be fired by the board of directors.
The CEO can spend the money on what she wants, within reason (checked by the board of directors). If she foolishly spends the money, she can expect to be fired by the board. The government isn't there to run your business - that's the role of the board and the owners.
The Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bid.
No, that should probably be illegal. Having it be legal is the bad idea.
PS> If I concede to you that this was not on the up and up, and if I concede that it was an inappropriate grant, would you concede that any lobbying that happened probably happened prior to the law changing, so the system was already broken?
PPS> I'm not conceding that at all - I don't have anywhere near enough information to determine what happened.
Originally posted by StaggerLeeThe Obama administration this month awarded a $25 million federal contract for work in Afghanistan to a company owned by a prominent Democratic campaign contributor without entertaining competitive bid.
I hear the guy donated $4400 to Obama going back to '07, plus some to various DNC affiliates. Shocking indeed. This never happened befor...
Originally posted by foxnews.comPentagon spokesman Larry DiRita noted that there had been congressional hearings on rebuilding Iraq which included discussions of reconstruction contracts.
He said the Pentagon e-mail was discussing how to announce a decision made months earlier to give Halliburton the no-bid contract, and that Cheney had no involvement in the decision.
The March 2003 no-bid contract handed out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers promised the company about $2.5 billion for rebuilding Iraq's oil industry. It was replaced in January 2004 by two contracts totaling $2 billion, with Halliburton retaining work in southern Iraq for $1.2 billion.
Or am I forgetting that history started on Jan 20, 2009?
(Not that I condone no-bid contracts, but for Pentagon work, this appears a bit penny ante.)
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Speaking to the Supreme Court decision, I think in the end, corporations (foreign and domestic) had plenty of loopholes to funnel money for and against causes and politicians before - I'm more concerned about disclosure than spending caps. If anything, the horrible optics of what the 5-4 decision could mean will bring attention to the issue.
But it's not like Aetna was going to spend $60 million on ads against health reform and put their own name on it anyway.
Originally posted by Guru Zim If the CEO can already, as an individual, make the comments - why shouldn't he be able to use his companies resources to make the same speech?
Originally posted by Guru ZimThe CEO is not going to use the money to push her own agenda - she is going to push the agenda of the company. If she pushes her own agenda, she should expect to be fired by the board of directors.
Isn't there a contradiction here? If the company is pushing the company's agenda, and not the agenda of any individuals, then how do you argue that an individual's free speech rights are at stake?
Company agenda: You like our products, and you should buy them. Personal opinion: You should buy our products if you like them.
Both of those statements are speech. There is nothing illegal about either of them. The CEO has the right to her own opinion in private and can state it, and as the companies representative can make statements about the company agenda in their capacity at work.
Company Agenda: High corporate taxes are bad. Vote No on Proposition X! Personal opinion: I am for proposition X.
In this case, the CEO would have the option of speaking as a private citizen in favor of Proposition X, but the company would want the opposite view endorsed. It would be a bad idea for private citizen CEO to speak out against the wishes of their company, but not illegal.
You don't have to believe what you are saying in order for your speech to be protected. The CEO should still have the right to speech on behalf of the company in her role as the CEO. That CEO could be asked by the owners / board to place an ad because the bottom line impact to the company would be $Y, and the ad to keep it from happening is Z% of $Y - so it's a good investment.
As the CEO - they should do what is best for the company. They do this to maintain their job, just like we all do. If a CEO goes rogue and spends their company's resources on unauthorized items, they should expect to be fired.
So wouldn't the next question be, how the hell did Princeton Review quantify that? Look, Princeton Review is as bad as VH-1 about making lists. They make lists for top party schools, top drinking schools, etc.