Once you take public money your board has a duty to all shareholders. If they want to operate like a closely held business they shouldn’t have sold stock on the public markets.

Reposting since there are so many people making the wrong argument here:

He might not know what he’s talking about, as he hasn’t raised the argument, but this is about fiduciary duty to shareholders, not about who’s allowed to vote what shares. The voting shares elect the board, the board has a duty to all shareholders. The board hires the executives.

Look into corporate boards and fiduciary duties, you’re entirely wrong here.

A condescending commenter should know that having the voting stock concentrated in a couple of owners doesn’t absolve the board nor the company of its fiduciary duties to shareholders.

But you do buy stock with the understanding that the board of the company has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders — I can’t believe how many people are focused on the part that has no legal significance at all.

That doesn’t matter in terms of the duties that publicly traded companies have to their shareholders.

Why does it matter who controls the voting shares? Sure they can pick who they want, but the company and its board still have a duty to the shareholders to do what’s best for the company — it’s an awful big coincidence that handing the company down to the heir is better than any other leader they would find on the…

Who controls the voting shares matters not one tiny little bit in the context of duties to your public shareholders — way to latch onto an irrelevant fact and then feel superior about it.

You don’t know how having public shareholders works — Facebook’s found also controls the majority of the voting stock, but that doesn’t mean the company has any less of a duty to its shareholders. There are fiduciary duties to shareholders no matter who is voting.

Publicly traded but with the voting shares under the control of the founding family also describes Facebook. That means it’s publicly traded. As soon as you offer stock you have all the fiduciary duties to shareholders that come with doing so regardless of who has the voting shares.

Fair enough, though if they want to be taken seriously our third parties need to start putting up legitimate candidates. What Stein and Johnson each have been shown not to know is embarrassing and shows neither to be a serious candidate for president. IIRC Stein went full vaxxer earlier in the campaign, no?

There’s a criminal investigation too.

Texas is in play this year. I appreciate the part where you referred us to the wiki for the electoral college without bothering to check your own state’s polls first.

Easy there — no one said you couldn’t throw away your vote or not vote. Just be honest with yourself that your protest vote isn’t a protest because no one else gives a shit about it. If you’re upset that there aren’t better candidates where you live, run for something.

Tell your friend he or she is completely punting and letting everyone else do the work. There are two potential outcomes in this election: Trump and Clinton. A “protest” vote isn’t a protest vote in a country where less than half the eligible voters don’t vote. Instead it’s just deciding you don’t care who wins but…

Thanks for saving me a few bucks. My old wireless headphones died last night and I was about to buy these.

Thanks for saving me a few bucks. My old wireless headphones died last night and I was about to buy these.

Don’t think the OP was making a legal argument, just pointing out that Komen is a fucking scam. FWIW, Wounded Warriors did all the right paperwork too, it doesn’t mean the money is going where the ads say it is.

Fuck. I read that one after about ten others that made that point seriously — of course I pick the good joke to reply to. Forgive me, I’m a former Buffalonian and a Bills fan, so I’m feeling particularly shitty about how my hometown handled Kap’s visit.

If it was just the fundraiser, I’d probably side with you on this, but considering the founder has also endorsed Trump, I think some pressure on Komen is necessary in order to see whether they are standing by him. Particularly in light of Komen’s already checkered history (e.g. Planned Parenthood stuff, and I believe…