GROW Live Chat on TICA – 4-27-2010

kesmarn : I’ll bid you good night, too, AdLib and c’lady. To be continued… x

AdLib : Night Choicelady and Kesmarn! I will email everyone tomorrow to recap!!! x

AdLib : CL – Yes to all you mentioned. I think all this would be needed even with a single item prop as corps and the CoC would oppose any restriction harshly. x

choicelady : Let’s keep this ball rolling indeed! Thank you all. Sleep well, and sweet dreams! x

choicelady : AdLib – I did not clearly answer your question. A proposition with lots of moving parts tends to produce confusion for voters. Not always – see my reference to Prop. 13 – but often, and usually. So if we do this, we will need to team up with Lakoff and other smart messaging people to get the word clear. AND we will need Hollywood types, paid ads with cool slogans, and anything to make it EASY to vote YES on our measure. x

AdLib : Well, it is getting late, shall we wrap it up for tonight and continue on this exciting course tomorrow? x

AdLib : Especially after the economic crash and wages being depressed? x

AdLib : CL – Gotcha. When you mention that it would have to ride a wave of voter anger, who but extremist Repubs are going to vote against Corporate responsibility? x

kesmarn : c’lady, do you think there would be an advantage to picking the one change that would be our highest priority and focussing on that one in the short term? x

choicelady : AdLib – by “fatal” I mean too confusing for voters. If soemthing is not clear, and I think we could MAKE it clear with Lakoff helping on the message, people will vote NO because they don’t understand it. x

AdLib : Patsy – I’ll check out your post to fix the graphics! x

AdLib : CL – So when you mentioned how it would likely be fatal, did you mean a prop with many provisions vs. a single provision? x

kesmarn : I like the title, c’lady. I hope we can get the wish list in. x

choicelady : Good night Patsy – all strength to you for tomorrow! x

choicelady : kes and AdLib – I bet we could work it all into one initiative as noted “Corporate Accountability and Taxpayer Fairness Act” that would include all or almost all of our wish list. It’s just REALLY tricky to write. We will need help. x

kesmarn : Good night, Patsy. Sleep well. You’ve been fighting the good fight for hours now! x

AdLib : Thanks Patsy! Rest well, good work on the Teacher front! x

AdLib : Right! x

PatsyT : Friends I must say goodnight. We have had a battle royal with our local school board and I am all tired out… AdLib I hope there is a way to fix the pics on my post I can not seem to make them line up. I tried it all, maybe I am just to tired. This was a great Idea to night and I hope to have more energy next time. Thanks all. x

choicelady : AdLib – I’m not saying don’t do it. I am saying we need to know what we’re in for. But if we can get help from the Center for Corporate Responsibility, and other folks, it just may be very doable. It’s actually no worse than Prop. 13 in 1978 – that was a very complex bill that totally screwed over the people voting for it, and they read no further than – control your property tax rates. Little did they know they concentrated power in the Capitol and took it from the local governments. So if we do the corporate accountability and taxpayer fairness act… : ) x

kesmarn : I hear you, AdLib, but you’d be amazed at how many of them throw out the story that they’re “independents. ” My eye! As you say, where were they during the Bush Regime. They are Repubs, even if they refuse to see it themselves. x

AdLib : CL – So the question is, can some of these provisions be seen as under the umbrella of a single topic? x

kesmarn : Ouch. That’s a wee bit discouraging. So each idea would have to be a separate prop? x

AdLib : Kes – I don’t think so, most Baggers are Republicans. This is not a legit group, it is astroturf financed by FreedomWorks, Koch and other corps. So I don’t buy the MSM BS that they are a 3rd party. Where were they when Bush was violating all their “principles”. x

choicelady : AdLib – glad you asked because the law limits ALL propositions to SINGLE topics. So we are going to have to pick ONE of these things. The only way around is to have a very complex initiative with “California corporate reform act” with subsets of controls on corporations, and for that we will need a very cool, progressive, and, I hope, low cost corporate knowledgeable lawyer. That IS one way to do it, and it is usually fatal since unless we ride a golden wave of voter anger, these don’t get signed and do tend to fail. Lots and lots of dead unsigned circulated petitions in the landfills…. x

kesmarn : Just to briefly address the binary thinking issue: I think they actually believe they’re voting for the “3d Way.” They’re not happy with either party and they think the T-Party is the answer. Don’t they get it that it’s warmed over far-right Republican Party standard fare? x

AdLib : CL – That doesn’t mean they’ve learned critical thinking. I think it’s self evident that they didn’t. And a college diploma doesn’t mean what it used to. Bush was a Harvard grad. x

AdLib : Cl – One question, do you know if it’s cool for a prop to have a variety of provisions as we’re discussing? x

PatsyT : kes I am going to have to use that x

choicelady : AdLib – but aren’t the baggers actually fairly well educated and older and slightly more affluent than the rest of the nation? I guess I’m back to: can’t fix stupid. x

kesmarn : Thanks, c’lady, have a Black friend to credit for that one, I must admit. x

AdLib : Kes – Heh! Now that’s what I call a Double Down! x

AdLib : CL – It is the binary thinking of those who are poorly educated swing voters. If they like the way things are, re-elect. If not, vote for the other party. No critical thinking required, no need to ask themselves if they want to return to the 8 years under Bush just because all that damage can’t be reversed in two years. x

choicelady : kes!!! That is perfect!!!! LOL!!!! x

kesmarn : Yes, CL, I got baited into a t-bag discussion today and said: “This is like the chickens voting for Colonel Sanders!” The person hung up on me in fury. x

PatsyT : CL So true x

choicelady : AdLib – with any luck the wish list will remind me. With any luck at all… x

choicelady : kes and AdLib – and yet there are scary stories about the Dems losing the House this fall. WHY????? What have the reeps ever done FOR anyone. TO us, I can answer, but FOR us? Nothing! x

AdLib : Slang a long time ago for Marijuana was “tea”. x

kesmarn : As the saying goes: “they got nuthin’.” And yet they cling to it in the face of all rationality. They make me crazy, and they seem to be popping up everywhere. Even at my 87 year old father’s optometry office today! x

AdLib : CL – When you receive my summary of our wishlist via email, will that remind you to reply with the bill info? x

choicelady : Patsy – I have a friend who is so pissed at the teabaggers because she says tea should represent friendship and hospitality and relaxation. So some of us sent cards to legislators with tea POTS and kind words to convey that idea that tea is soothing and comforting, not mean and nasty. x

AdLib : Kes – Very lame. They are sabotaging themselves with such transparent BS. x

PatsyT : CL LOL x

choicelady : AdLib – I will send you the bills and their sponsors and summations of the content. Can you email me at my main email and remind me – I’ve got a memory like a steel sieve these days! Too much going on! x

kesmarn : I’ve heard a little spin on Wall St. reform from the local t-bags: namely that the Repubs have “good ideas, but Obama won’t talk to them.” And: “Obama took $$ from Goldman Sachs, so where does he come off?” Typical brainless blahblah. x

AdLib : They’ve got their bags full. x

choicelady : Patsy – I never need teabaggers, so… x

PatsyT : Hey where are the baggers when you need them? x

AdLib : So the clawback and employee-ownersh ip item is what’s in their bill? x

choicelady : AdLib – well, “oppression” is in the pocketbook of the beholder, ain’t it? x

choicelady : AdLib – it is the coalition around CA Labor Fed that is sponsoring the 4 or 5 bills on “clawbacks” and total public accountability of corporate promises in regard to tax breaks and benefits. We immediately signed on, and this is the best slate of bills I’ve seen in the decade I’ve been doing this job. They definitely are the folks to bring in with us – or we with them or whatever – and have pretty deep pockets, too! Always good if you are doing an initiative. x

AdLib : Notice how on Wall Street Reform and AZ government taking away rights of people who aren’t white, two topics that are supposed to be central to Baggers, all we hear are crickets? x

AdLib : CL – Hadn’t thought of that but I bet there’s some truth to that. Heh, they’d probably oppose this saying, “I don’t want big government coming between me and the corp that’s oppressing me!” x

kesmarn : c’lady…and they’re probably all wanting to keep the government out of their government contracts, too. x

PatsyT : I have noticed that the talk of baggers has gotten quiet x

choicelady : AdLib – I have long suspected the teabaggers ARE public contractors hollering against reforms because it will cost them money! x

AdLib : But think of all the unions, grass roots and other entities that would jump on board this with both feet! x

PatsyT : Thanks You never know what other people come across x

AdLib : CL – DOubt it. I wouldn’t hold my breath for Teabaggers either. x

kesmarn : You’re right, AdLib. I guess I just wanted to get a snapshot of how things are now…to see how thing might move in a better direction. x

choicelady : Patsy – that’s easy. Nothing.!!!! x

AdLib : Any other items we should add to our wishlist? BTW, if you think of something tomorrow or along the way, please email me and I’ll add it to the list. x

PatsyT : Sorry if OT x

choicelady : kes and AdLib – I think AdLib is right that if we addressed any and all contracts with tax payer dollars spent, we would cover the ground. I wonder if the Howard Jarvis people would come in on this? Bet NOT!!!!! x

PatsyT : CL What do you know of the Education Alliance? x

kesmarn : c’lady, thanks! I suspected that it would be complicated. State govt always seems to be. x

choicelady : Brthlycynwod, Cher. Sleep glythly. x

AdLib : kes – Not sure that it would be a big issue if the section addressed any and all entities using tax revenues from the state of CA. x

choicelady : kes – it is my understanding, and I will check this out, that every department has a procurment section for their contracts. CalTrans has one for sure, and I’ll bet every major section – health and human services, prisons, etc. – each have one. So looking for standardization? Nooooo. x

PatsyT : Cher always a pleasure x

kesmarn : Good night, Cher! Sleep well and branwylclydynn. x

AdLib : No worries, Cher, wonderful to be working with you on this (and everyone else too!) x

Chernynkaya : Very cool Adlib! Thank you all so much for this opportunity to do something good. Sorry I have to leave but we will all be in touch soon. x

kesmarn : Does anyone know how to go about researching corp contracts with a given state: terms, dollars, sub-contracts, wages, etc? What state office(s) deal with that? x

choicelady : One really important thing – worker owned and managed (NOT just worker owned) corporations are C corporations but are run very differently because they are immune from the Taft Hartley restrictions on workers’ bar on investment and operating decisions. Worker owned businesses are MORE profitable than conventionally owned ones. They might especially benefit from becoming B corporations. WE will have to learn the inside dope on B corps and what goes on. x

AdLib : Once the items in the prop are vetted, we’re ready to start strategizing and organizing and launch GROW! x

AdLib : Cher – I will summarize our wishlist in an email and we can respond to all by email to toss around more ideas and revisions of existing ideas. I think the most constructive thing would be to firm up what we would like to have in this prop then once that’s solid, work with CL to get things vetted. x

choicelady : AdLib – there are already corporations wishing to be B cororations. I want to find out what goes on in MD and yes, see what incentives exist there. x

choicelady : AdLib and all – right now we’re trying to move DeSaulnier off the damned “flexible corporations” (setting up as a non-profit – VERY poor idea for a previous and probably future FOR profit. A rip off I think.) and going for the B corporation instead. I think it would pass and be a HUGE benefit to the state. And we would treat them the same – you promise you’ll hire X numbers of people for this tax credit – show us the people! But they would be very much more oriented to saving their neighborhood, etc. x

PatsyT : That is a fine recap and in such a quick bit of time… Did all that come up tonight? x

Chernynkaya : Friends, I have to leave soon. Are there any next steps/ meetings? x

kesmarn : c’lady on the “promise to be good boys/girls”: haven’t CA citizens noticed where self-policing has gotten us so far? :lol” x

AdLib : CL – Since corps are only dedicated to profit, I think it is far better to hold out a carrot to become a B corp, giving them tax benefits/credits , then thinking one can convince them to be better. And the case could easily be made that a B Corp that gives back to society would more than reimburse the state for its tax benefits. x

Chernynkaya : Patsy– that was my second thought. The first was thre naughty word too! x

choicelady : AdLib – yes to the severability clause. Many a good law has gone down for lack of that! x

AdLib : Or at least better. x

AdLib : CL – Gotcha. I’m not interested in asking Corps to be good, this is all about forcing them to be good. x

Chernynkaya : Thanks fot the heads up clady. x

choicelady : Cher – “By God – I think she’s GOT it!” Must be the truth! x

choicelady : One caution Californians – Rabbi Michael Lerner is trying to get C corporation to sign his “New Corporate Bottom Line” statement that they WILL be good boys and girls. Despite quite a lot of (unwanted) advice from me, he will NOT realize that you cannot “will” this into existence since the laws now prohibit C corporations from doing that sort of thing. So if he comes tap tapping at your door, he really has nothing to offer here. His Network of Spiritual Progressives has accomplished precisely this in five years of work: 0 So don’t spin your wheels, is my suggestion. x

PatsyT : Cher, I was going to say something naughty but I like your version. x

AdLib : CL – WOuld this prop need to establish the class of B Corps since they don’t exist in CA? x

kesmarn : Tax credits for B corps! Great! x

kesmarn : I didn’t even know such a thing existed! Good idea. x

Chernynkaya : Patsy and clady– the C in C corps is cut throat. x

AdLib : Hey, how about tax credits for corporations that become B corps? x

AdLib : And BTW, such a proposition would need to have a severability clause so that if one provision is found not to be applicable, all the others remain intact. x

kesmarn : AdLib–sounds like a great recap! x

choicelady : Patsy – yes, B is for Benefit. To the best of my knowledge, the C in C corporation means nothing equivalent!!! x

Chernynkaya : AdLib– I think you got ti! x

PatsyT : C is for ….. x

kesmarn : I see! And thanks for the explanation of the B corps, too! x

PatsyT : CL B is for Benefit x

choicelady : kes – I think that did fly by – and I think it may already be true, but it is the definition of “bad” that may well need refining. x

AdLib : UPDATED: A recap on our wishlist so far: 1. Exec salary caps and a max salary ratio between execs and workers in situations where the State of CA finances projects/busines ses. 2. Truth in Advertising, including political ads. 3. Hold Managers criminally responsible for the crimes of their corps including deaths that would be defined as manslaughter if done by an actual person. 4. Businesses getting CA tax credits/cuts that fail can have their businesses at a write down price, bought up by employees or a community. 5. CA not to finance invest or provide tax benefits/credits to corps identified as bad citizens (the specifics for being a “bad citizen” would need to be defined). x

choicelady : Patsy – all B corporations can pick how they wish to ‘benefit’ society – good environmental practices, really outstanding worker supports and pay, deliberate affirmative action to benefit a low income area, etc., etc. Their business plan now allows them to use capital to do GOOD things in and around their operation where C corporations can have stockholders sue them for doing such things. This B corporation plan is only about 2 years old as a really viable operation. I see it as a huge alternative to C corporations for many busness endeavors. x

PatsyT : AdLib Truth in Advertising Especially political ads x

AdLib : Kes – Yes! That’s 5. I’ll do a revised list, one sec… x

AdLib : It’s not vetted yet but already, I’d vote for that killer prop that had all of those provisions! x

kesmarn : Was there something about states refusing to award contracts to businesses with bad track records? x

choicelady : AdLib – that’s how I remember it. Great summary! Thank you! x

PatsyT : CL so B corp in CA is beneficial to CA? x

AdLib : CL – I know, I was just joking about Exxon. x

Chernynkaya : You got them, adLib. They look great! Dude! x

kesmarn : Oops. One more time. x

AdLib : A recap on our wishlist so far: 1. Exec salary caps and a max salary ratio between execs and workers in situations where the State of CA finances projects/busines ses. 2. Truth in Advertising, including political ads. 3. Hold Managers criminally responsible for the crimes of their corps including deaths that would be defined as manslaughter if done by an actual person. 4. Businesses getting CA tax credits/cuts that fail can have their businesses at a write down price, bought up by employees or a community. Have I left any out? x

choicelady : Patsy – C is “bad” (though even non-profits are C corporations but with vastly different sub categories) and B is the Benefit Corporation designation that now is legal in ONE state – Maryland. We’re working on CA as the next. x

kesmarn : Given my late entry: x

Chernynkaya : can we discuss next steps x

PatsyT : C good or C bad? x

Chernynkaya : Kermarn! x

choicelady : I think the B corporation movement will actually move into the federal arena within the next five years or so. THAT will be a place where GROW can thrive! x

kesmarn : Ahh…cladwynnbl aggryfflandryfyl . x

PatsyT : So CL just to recap the A B C corp thing B good? or B bad? x

choicelady : Exxon has to WANT to become a B cororation. It’s harder to get them to convert than to start anew, but there are quite a number of B corporation wannabes waiting in the MD wings. VERY exciting! x

Chernynkaya : Guilty as charged Kes– it started when I so misspelled stuff that I claimed it was perfect Welsh. x

kesmarn : I thought you were Russian, Cher! Didn’t I see you rearing your head? x

Chernynkaya : Maui no ko’ hoy is my motto. But they all just relax me totally. I just sit. and Mom cooks Chinese for us every day. x

choicelady : kes – it may be too long a story. Born out of a typo and never gave up from there! Pay no mind. x

AdLib : CL – It’s a deal. Now, can we make Exxon a B corporation? x

PatsyT : Sorry kes Cher is now our resident welsh expert x

AdLib : All the islands are wonderful, my fave is Kauai. x

kesmarn : I’m lost! I missed the whole welsh thing. x

Chernynkaya : Eah patsy me gayrl. x

PatsyT : bew ..more welsh eah? x

choicelady : Cher – sounds perfect, just the ticket! Enjoy! x

Chernynkaya : My mother in law lives on Oahu. We are meeting some other friends on the big Island, if we can get away. I’ll bew happy to sit and breathe the air. x

choicelady : Ok AdLib – but make it a B corporation, ’cause if I can’t do good, I would not know what to do at all! x

kesmarn : Overhead luggage costs almost as much as another person now. Maybe we could work something out…? x

AdLib : CL – I would rather have you in charge of a big business. I’d find a way to help you out on what to do with the money. x

PatsyT : AdLib LOL you know Cher has inlaws from a funny place x

choicelady : I have to say I’d like to make more than a lowly non-profit pays, but I’m so mingy what good would all that money DO me? I’m too cheap to spend it! x

AdLib : What island? x

PatsyT : CL LOL Yes Cher get a pic of it! x

Chernynkaya : Wish I could put you all in the overhead luggage! Well, I can via computer anyway. x

AdLib : HA? They live in a funny place? x

choicelady : Oooh Cher – have a wonderful time. Check in on Obama’s birth certificate while you’re there, will you? Make sure it’s still safe? x

PatsyT : kes, you too? x

AdLib : Yeah, just waiting for that CEO shortage to occur. WHo would want a $10 million salary just to be a powerful boss? x

kesmarn : Cher…okay, now I’m just straight up envious. x

kesmarn : Patsy, what are keys? x

Chernynkaya : I will check in– just visiting the in-laws. Who luckily live in HA. x

PatsyT : kes I can lose my keys, Am I hired? x

choicelady : Cher – keep in touch as much as possible! We will MISS you when you’re gone! x

AdLib : Cher, take care! And stay in touch! x

kesmarn : You must check in just the way Khirad does, Cher!! x

PatsyT : Thanks Cher.. hope it’s for fun x

Chernynkaya : Right, Kes. x

kesmarn : The Wall St. job, Patsy? Me too! I can break things and lose money with the best of ’em. x

AdLib : Cl – Absolutely! Dr. Suits agrees. We absolutelt should hit the nail on the head that corps are “people” according to fed law and if that’s what they choose to be for all the benefits, they must accept the responsibilities of being a person too. Hey, can you imagine an animated cartoon ad from GROW with Dr. Suits laying this all out? x

Chernynkaya : Guys, before I go, I want you to know I’ll be out of town starting May 5 for about ten days. I’ll have my computer but my schedule will be erratic. x

PatsyT : Kes I am sure I can do that job x

choicelady : Cher – that’s one reason we’d have to do this carefully. Insurance can flee easily. Asphalt pavers, not so much. x

kesmarn : The “I’ll leave the state threat” is kind of like the Wall St. argument of paying enormous salaries to “retain talent.” There would be a bazillion talented people willing to work for a mere million or two a year. x

PatsyT : 40 guys and gals $250,000.00 sound like a job maker to me x

AdLib : cl – That is true about contractors, a good place to start that can spread. We do have to be realistic, there is so much that needs to be changed, we can only do and affect so much in a single proposition. But what we’ve been discussing is great stuff! x

choicelady : All – we need to bill this as individual and personal responsibility. If corporations are ‘fictitious people’ then they need to abide by rules just as real people do. x

PatsyT : Beef up the middle class x

Chernynkaya : Good point CL– about embeddedness. I have had 2 employers– big insurance firms relocate so I guess I always think that. x

choicelady : kes – the issue of being a job creator is actually VERY sound. In contracting the contractor could say he/she would hire X number of people and then be mandated to live up to that. It’s consistent with the plan for “clawbacks” of tax breaks for creating jobs. You don’t create them – give back the tax money. x

AdLib : Patsy – Me too, this is a live chat, no grading of papers, I got and agree with your proposition. x

kesmarn : I got your math, Patsy! Exactly! x

choicelady : Hi= most contractors with the state of CA could not leave easily. They are already embedded here. It’s certainly less true of things such as pharmaceuticals, etc. where we buy GOODS, but work done will always be lucrative – dredging the harbors, paving roads, building new offices, etc. We would have little pull on the overall impact of limiting compensation on drug purchases for state hospitals, but we still could fix a percentage limit on “indirect costs” and/or “administration ” etc. x

AdLib : Kes – I agree, the more money a company pays workers and has to spend on their business, instead of CEO salaries, the better off they are and the more money they have for more jobs. x

PatsyT : My math is off tonight but that is an good idea if you drew it out. x

PatsyT : Pay one guy or gal 10+ mill or how about 20 guys and gals a nice 500K x

Chernynkaya : It really isn’t AL, but what could be said is, no new employers come to CAl. and other big employers leave. they doen’t want restrictions. x

AdLib : Patsy – We have to learn from the Dems and HCR. The opposition will use the same accusations whether you go for real reform or not, they will claim that ANY reform will make them non-competitive and leave the state no matter what’s in a bill that reins them in. I say, just accept it and go for the best provisions. x

PatsyT : Kes thats a good point x

choicelady : Cher – wage cap for whom? We would not be setting a cap for CEOs but limiting their compensation to a percentage of a contract. They can and do get money elsewhere. We already have a MINIMUM for regular workers – a living wage is essential in every contract that the winning contractor MUST pay. x

kesmarn : I wonder if our side could spin it as a job CREATOR, though, Cher. More money to workers, less to the half dozen at the top? x

AdLib : Cher – How is capping CEO salaries a job killer? x

Chernynkaya : Why wouldn’t this be seen as a job killer in CA? What wouldn’t a corp choose to do business elsewhere are it would be hard to get bids? Cali is in deep shit and I wonder if this could be spun as a bad time to do this. x

PatsyT : Cher I was thinking they would put up the argument of non competitiveness. x

choicelady : Cher – those are federal payments (medicare and SS) but Medi-Cal is not – it is CA payments. We can deal with those. Where we contribute to Medicare or SS (CA has a complicated part of that I don’t totally understand) we may get our toe in the door. x

AdLib : CL – Still, when CA is paying for a project, they can make whatever requirement they want of the contractor and if the contractor doesn’t want to conform, they don’t have to, they can just not apply for the job. x

Chernynkaya : I have to voice some concerns about the wage cap– not to be e downer, but to address; x

PatsyT : How CEO’s just work harder to make more money? x

kesmarn : Agreed, Cher. If not an actual contract, something very like in nursing homes. Almost no one is a private pay client in those places. x

choicelady : If the nursing homes are getting paid CA Medi-Cal for the patients, then we have the right to vet the contracts and look to see how much is going to patients and how much to the fat cats. I would think we could do a formula for compensation of executives. But if they get dozens of contracts, trust me, even 1% adds up! x

AdLib : Right, what we’re talking about is any project that the state puts money into, having to conform to a concrete cap on exec salaries and a ratio of worker pay to CEO pay that is also enforced. Then, a greedy CEO who wants to make the max…will have to pay his employees a lot more. And it should be a maximum ratio, allowing workers to receive raises, they could be on a 1 to 1 ration with a CEO in the most extreme scenario. x

kesmarn : c’lady, hah! I can see why McConnell and Co. are fighting this to the death! x

Chernynkaya : kes, Medicare and SS payments in the nursing hime would seem to qualify as govt contracts– or payments anyway. x

choicelady : As far as executive compensation, the laws again are federal and changes in the proposed finance reform WILL give stockholders the right to restrict that in the private sector. Newt and company gave all power to the managers, NOT the stockholders, so they got proxies and voted themselves HUGE salaries and bonuses and stock options. It’s actually theft of capital. And that’s going to be restricted IF we get this finance reform done. x

kesmarn : Not sure if the nursing home situation is a govt contract per se, but definitely a strong relationship and lotsa $$ involved. Prisons, roads, etc. I imagine would be official contracts. x

AdLib : CL – Yep, this would need to be really thought out, how to prevent slimeballs from sneaking around the provisions. But I think it could be done. x

Chernynkaya : AL and again, I have to remind self that we are talking govt contracts, right? whole different game there. x

PatsyT : CL it conjures up the image They are the modern day thief x

kesmarn : c’lady, your knowledge and background on this is absolutely invaluable. You’re right, when tax dollars are at stack people are less inclined to look the other way. x

choicelady : AdLib – that is right on. When the STATE is paying, the corporate execs can make money but not a killing. This is very sensible. Now one thing – I will try to find out if we HAVE this law on the books, and if it IS, is it actually used in vetting bids on contracts? x

AdLib : Cher – I hear you, just agreeing that making $10 mill a year is enough for any human being. Not thinking like a greedy and immature pig isn’t something we can legislate. x

choicelady : Patsy – you know my best line! At the end of letters on the CA budget, I say, “Pitchforks! torches! To the streets!” So far, I’m alone. Glad to see you! x

Chernynkaya : Oh AdlIb, hehe, no need to convince me. But maybe I am being unrealistic about how idiotic most peoples are. x

AdLib : Especially when the state is paying their salaries, they have no right to complain. If they don’t want to work for a state financed entity, go somewhere else. x

kesmarn : Cher, I hear you. I know two tea-bag leaning Repubs who will defend corps and exec rights, even though one of them was brutally fired on no notice by a corp and the other is being wickedly harassed by WellsFargo over a debt!! x

choicelady : When it’s tax dollars, you have enormous leverage. It’s damned hard to control the private sector save on the issues of real harm (we DID control human trafficking well and wage slavery). But with tax dollars NO corporation should get fat – I bet there can be some kind of limitation. I have BEEN a federal contractor (sub contracts as an historian – no one gets fat there) on what are called “fixed contracts” of flat rates. Then how it gets divvied up is up to the contractors and sub contractors, but we would have to make clear that labor gets so much. One fiat – the “suppliers” would have to be shown to be REAL outsiders and not sub sets of the main contractor so they double dip. Ohhhh there is no END of duplicity in corporate CA!!! x

AdLib : Cher – This wouldn’t prevent people from getting wealthy. So, they can make $5 million a year, that ain’t hay. But not $100 million. x

PatsyT : This one could have pitch forks and torches…lets go get those thieving corp execs! x

Chernynkaya : As populist as the wage cvontrol seems, I bet there are plenty of idiots who dream of getting their obscene riches too. I know people like that, and they see wage controls at the top as preventing THEM from ever becoming rich. x

AdLib : An overall note, I am thrilled with the POV we’re taking on this. It is a hard cold fact that the CoC and Corps would spend whatever they can to defeat any reigning in of their abuses. If EVERY element of such a proposition was strongly populist, they would have a very tough time convincing people to oppose it. x

kesmarn : I like that exec:worker ratio idea! x

choicelady : Patsy – I do think it’s populist. (Not tea bag populism, of course.) I think people are starving for control on corporate waste of our tax money! x

AdLib : Bye Sue!!! x

AdLib : CL – That is a huge point. What about mandating a minimum percentage between exec and regular workers’ salaries that returns the ratio back to where it was before the corporate madness took over? x

choicelady : Bye Sue! x

kesmarn : Bye, Sue! Sorry I didn’t get to talk more with you! x

PatsyT : See you soon Sue.. x

Chernynkaya : Bye, Sue! x

PatsyT : The wage thing again could be populist sounds like it to me. x

SueInCa : It is 8, I have to go. x

choicelady : AdLib – there is a set of sites on every department level about money expended via bonds – accountability features. One thing Ah-hold has done well. That could exist at the FPPC site as well for precisely this issue. x

Chernynkaya : The wage thing is beginning to capture my imagination too. x

AdLib : Cher – Great point! There could be a “material fact” clause that states that all material facts must be presented to give the most truthful representation possible. The same process could occur, a notification then if not modified or pulled, they can be sued in arbitration. x

kesmarn : So we have: states refusing to do business with shady corps, a truth in advertising requirement, and possible Exec salary caps, so far? x

choicelady : AdLib – about the limits on executive pay – we now DO mandate living wage for workers, so i think this is in line – protect people by raising wage levels for those who do the work (called ‘waste’ by the Reeps) and controlling costs on exec. compensation. If we do cost-plus contracts, it needs to be fixed costs and fixed profits, not the huge over-runs of the feds. CA is much better than the feds on this lack of endless payments for slow and sloppy work. x

AdLib : CL – And there should be some kind of website or some public notice given when an entity agrees to drop a false ad after being notified. So that corps can’t concoct a strategy of spreading lies than pulling them. Also, there would need to be a repeat offender provision so that a corp that keeps running then pulling lies is sued to stop and pay for correcting the record. x

Chernynkaya : AL not to get too detaily, have you considered what to do when a corp doesn’t lie, but omits facts– for example, telling you what a food does not contain (transfats) but not what it DOES (high fructose corn s.)? x

kesmarn : c’lady, so glad you feel that’s doable. This has been a hobby-horse of mine for years! x

choicelady : ADLib and all – on the taxpayer contracts, I really DO think you could limit the percent going to executive compensation. x

kesmarn : AL and CL, that sounds great! x

SueInCa : I have to go in a few, is there going to be a note sent out or put on POV recapping the discussion? x

AdLib : CL – There are many entities where CA itself finances, whether in tandem with the Feds or not, they could make it a condition on new contracts that CEOs won’t be permitted to get over a certain percentage or CA won’t invest. x

choicelady : ADLib – back to the advertising – I like your steps on complaint filings. Very sensible. x

kesmarn : I caught just the beginning of the hearings. Carl Levin was slicing and dicing! x

PatsyT : Think of the political ads being taken apart ooo what fun throwing tomatoes at them x

kesmarn : Yes, especially when it’s something like a nursing home or for profit prison. There’s a real incentive for shoddy treatment and horrible conditions to fatten up the high exec’s pay checks. x

AdLib : Kes – After today’s hearings, ANYONE who lost money investing with GS should and probably will sue for fraud. x

SueInCa : At the state level, it might be enacted for any business that wants to do business with the state itself x

choicelady : It could be tricky on some things such as highway contracts – the contractors do almost all their work on tax paid jobs. But I’m thinking they could limit the percent of ANY contract that goes to the top dog. x

AdLib : Kes – I like the CEO salary thing and that would surely be a state issue for businesses that the state invests in or finances. x

choicelady : kes – I do think that may be a really doable issue – capping salaries when the money comes from the taxpayers. At least we could dictate that only 1% or so can go to certain key managers if they have for-profit income as well. x

kesmarn : ,c’lady, I had not thought about the civil suit side of Goldman! Goody,goody,good y!! They are evil! x

PatsyT : I know it AdLib I am suggesting making it a site interactive of course x

AdLib : Patsy – Just made it up. x

PatsyT : Is this a web site? The Public Stock Market? x

SueInCa : Kes I agree with you, there are rumblings in DC about that as well, but I don’t think much will happen without the people x

Chernynkaya : Kes, I think we could only do that on a federal level because the feds gave them the $, but LOVE the idea! x

AdLib : CL – I have been considering how this could be abused which is why I suggest that there be a requirement for any complainant to first notify a corp. If a corp pulls its ad or makes changes once notified, then there would be no penalty. I think “good guys” would be smart enough to do so and would not be penalized. x

choicelady : kes – Goldman may face massive civil law suits for fraudulent lending. It might even be possible to have it on a state by state basis, but it totally depends on the law. LIKE the Public Stocks Market – I could offload all the backyard tomatoes that don’t make it! x

Chernynkaya : I think a next step is to see what the law says now about adsvertising and truth. x

kesmarn : If we’re talking wish lists: any way we could try to control CEO salaries when the company’s $$$ come from taxpayer funds? I’ve mentioned before the nursing home chain whose CEO’s stock options are worth $180 million. OUR money went to him– not the patients! If the company takes govt money, we should be able to cap salaries and bennies. x

choicelady : On the truth in advertising thing – we would have to vet this with groups such as ACLU and with the FPPC, but I bet there is a void in the law. Newspapers sometimes do a ‘truth in campaign commercials’ review, and it’s true that sometimes even the “good guys” say stuff that’s not quite right, so we’d have to be careful, but it’s a good idea! x

AdLib : CL – How about “The Public Stock Market” where you can buy the tomatoes to throw at corporate execs locked up in stocks? x

SueInCa : groups x

Chernynkaya : It’s sounds like a winner to me. And it empowers citizens to be critical thinkers. x

SueInCa : CL good idea. It would help to partner with established bgorups x

AdLib : Patsy and Cher – That’s what I was thinking. What citizen is going to vote against a “Truth in Advertising” law? That protects them from being lied to? And the CoC and corps would be forced to insist that they need to be able to lie to the public or their business would be harmed? x

PatsyT : Yes CL thats the ticket! x

choicelady : PAtsy and AdLib – bring back the public stocks! x

PatsyT : Sue LOL x

SueInCa : Patsy they already did that to Palin, and she is still going x

kesmarn : AL, do you think there’s a way that entities like Goldman Sachs, who denied repeatedly that they bought insurance against a housing collapse (but did) could be nailed? They didn’t exactly advertise that lie, but they got it out there. x

choicelady : AdLib – I think this would generate a lot of support assuring that corporate advertising was not lies. Let’s really think who can support us in an initaitive. Sue – GROW would have to partner with my organization, with whoever will get behind this movement. We do have people all over the state in many groups that would like to see some accountability – EBASE in Oakland/Berkeley etc., Lots of different groups. But it would be a good kick off for GROW. x

AdLib : SPLAT! x

PatsyT : Can we put bad corp in the public square and toss tomatoes at them x

AdLib : Kes – Excellent point, such a law should cover both a statement or a proposition of something that is an outright lie. x

PatsyT : Cher I like the ad thing too I think it could be very populist x

Chernynkaya : AL– love it! the ad thing I mean. x

choicelady : AL – yes, KQ and I are big employee owner-manager advocates. I bet he’d get some hearing in N.Carolina with the textile mills limping along – workers would run them, while corporations run them into the ground! And walk away with the cash! x

AdLib : CL – So here’s my idea. If a corp advertises something false, an effort must be made by a complainant to notify them of the truth and document it. If the corp doesn’t pull the add within a reasonable time frame from being notified, the complainant can take the case to arbitration and have it swiftly decided. The corp, if guilty, pays all costs, a strong fine and must pay to produce and advertise a retraction, spending the same amount of money on the media buy as they did on the lie. x

SueInCa : how many people CL? We are a fairly small group right now x

choicelady : AdLib – this “clawback” issue is on the table in legislation. My takeover suggestion is getting a hearing from Mark Paul of the New America Foundation. It would not necessarily require an initiative, but we all COULD move on the much cheaper and more manageable legislative level. It would take a BIG grassroots movement, and I think GROW would be perfect for the kick off! x

kesmarn : Hey, AdLib, didn’t realize i was Welsh, but apparently I am! I was thinking of your “truth” suggestions, and wonder how to we deal with the current trick of presenting a slander as a question, rather than statement. You know: “Obama’s SEC? Just as porn obsessed as ever?” x

SueInCa : both suggestions are good ones. x

Chernynkaya : The advertising angle really really appeals to me on many levels!!! x

choicelady : AdLib – I think you are definitely onto something here with the political advertising. It may already exist in law, but we can certainly put teeth into it. The new head of the Fair Political Practices Commission is a GREEN PARTY person, so I bet we can get answers! x

AdLib : CL – LOVE YOUR SUGGESTION! I know KQ is a big supporter as well of employee-owned businesses. x

PatsyT : Truth in Advertising .. Advertising is just fancy lying now x

AdLib : Hey Kes! x

AdLib : Cher – The CoC would oppose helping little old ladies across the street if it was asked of corps. Their opposition, as you’ve explained, is de facto no matter what. x

choicelady : Hi kes! x

Chernynkaya : AL in lieu of SCOTUS it is crucial. I’m all for it. x

choicelady : Ok – wish list? My pet peeve and it’s huge – is that when corporations shut down, WE, the federal tax payer, pay them billions in refunded back taxes. It’s the reason it was better business to close steel mills than to run them. BUT if someone wanted to buy said mill, they charged “market” rates. My wish is that if they have had tax cuts, etc. from CA, and have failed to perform their task – job creation, etc. – then we TAKE the business at the write down price and sell it to the community or the employees, AND we make the existing corporation pay back the money – called a “clawback”. x

Chernynkaya : PT__ x

AdLib : I want to throw one thing out that may or may not make sense in such a proposition but it would be a powerful tool to combat corporate manipulation. What if there was a truth in advertising provision that provided for citizens to take action when a corporation advertises anything that they know to be false? The concept is, if this is presented as a consumer thing, it could also apply to political advertising by corporations. Freedom of Speech does not extend to slander or libel. I have a detailed approach to this which I could provide but what do you think of the concept? Would it make sense for this prop? x

PatsyT : more welsh! x

SueInCa : hey kes x

kesmarn : Thank you kindly, mah friends! x

Chernynkaya : So glad you’re here Kes! x

PatsyT : Hi kes x

kesmarn : My employer’s version of a day off was getting off at 9 p.m. instead of 11. Hi everyone! I’ll read and lurk a bit to try to catch up> x

SueInCa : The only place I can really think of is the Federal Tax ID people x

choicelady : AdLib – I like that – inject responsibility. However, the CA Chamber of Commerce will call anything we ask a “job killer” and talk about “outrageous restrictions on free enterprise” – Gag. x

SueInCa : CL what kind of investigation goes on when a corp wants to come to town? x

Chernynkaya : So, maybe instead of saying all the things we insist a corp do, we start with things that they will not be allowed to do? x

choicelady : Cher – I do think we can forbid our state to do business with rogue corporations. Problem is defining them as such. CA just moved to void contracts with the state of AZ over this immigration disaster, and I think we could figure a way to prohibit, if not cancel, business with bad corporations. x

Chernynkaya : WISHLIST: x

AdLib : Cher – You’re right, we have to be affirmative, injecting responsibility as opposed to inhibiting the ability to do business. x

choicelady : If we open our wish list to how we want corporations to be accountable in CA, then I can try to take it to people who know about these things. We also should hook up with the Center for Corporate Accountability = have an ally there who should be helpful. x

Chernynkaya : Same page here CL. x

AdLib : Sue – If the law says that managers are responsible for the crimes of the corp, manslaughter without intent is a crime that is proven all the time. x

SueInCa : CL isn’t that the prob with AZ new law? Fed usurpation? x

Chernynkaya : CL– Yes! What can a state do? we can certainly, as a matter of Cali Law, say that OUR state cannot do business with bad corps, and they cannot do biz in our state. It would never pass an initiative, but legally we could, right? x

choicelady : Cher – I do not believe legally a CA ballot proposition can overturn federal law. We will need some legal advice on this (I think I can get it) but our first step – well, second since this is our first step – is to figure out what we CAN mandate of corporations with respect to CA. x

AdLib : CL – Yes, jurisdiction is everything. My thought is that we throw our wish list into a pot and as we progress, those things that are beyond a state’s jurisdiction are modified or removed. x

SueInCa : again, manslaughter no intent, you would have a hard time convicting an officer of the corp x

choicelady : everyone – I think the issue is where we can find state jurisdiction and where federal law trumps a state revision. x

SueInCa : No adlib i was answering chers question regarding enron x

AdLib : Sue – No, manslaughter does not involve intent necessarily. A person can be convicted of manslaughter for killing someone in a car accident. x

Chernynkaya : OK thanks for the info on B companies. how about making those C co’s who do not WANT to do good? Can an initiative make them? x

choicelady : AdLib and all- managers HAVE been charged with murder (a cyanide poisoning in a photo lab). I do not believe any one has ever been convicted. x

AdLib : Sue – Right, that’s why this campaign would be a national one, trying to cover the corps based in each state…starting with CA. x

SueInCa : adlib you have to prove intent and that is very hard to do x

SueInCa : enron was a tx company, progb incor in delaware so no Cali could not prosecute x

AdLib : CL – That’s fine, what matters is holding the Managers responsible for the crimes of the corporations. And death should be more prosecutable than stealing money, which it isn’t now. As things are now, corporations can and do kill people and I am not aware of a single exec who has ever been charged with that crime. x

choicelady : The movement for B corporations came from people like Ben & Jerry. There is a whole set of web sites now: BLab, etc., that can explain it, and there are a good number of corporations already lining up. They WANT to be good citizens. This is a good step, but it does not change Exxon into a “good guy”. x

Chernynkaya : I think the point of the Enron prosecution is tht it was the FEDS, not the states. Cali couldn’t prosecute, right? x

choicelady : Patsy – I believe that the folks in MD believe that allowing corporations to incorporate as B corporations (sorry for the muddle here) is a benefit to all the state in terms of social returns, environmental stewarship, etc. x

AdLib : CL – I’m aware that state case law can be used to define when execs can be held responsible so I don’t know that it would be a fed thing. x

SueInCa : as would killing someone be different x

Chernynkaya : So, why do corps want to change to B corps? x

PatsyT : Is this benefiting MD x

SueInCa : no corp executive has ever been held liable for a death though, fraud is different, they committed it personally x

choicelady : AdLib – that is correct – if crimes were committed the MANAGERS (Ken Lay etc.) may be held liable, but NOT the stockholders. x

AdLib : From Enron, that is. x

choicelady : AdLib – the liability issues are embedded in federal law, not voidable by states. REAL headache trying to tackle that. x

AdLib : Sue – The corporate veil can indeed be pierced, meaning that the principles can be held liable, especially if crimes were committed. Remember Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay being convicted? x

choicelady : Regular corporations may not expend money to be socially responsible. They may only make money for their investors, period. That IS a change from older law when doing good was considered “intangible” assets – goodwill, etc. So we may have a problem since this is federal law. That is why Maryland introduced the right of corporations to charter in MD as B corporations – it does not mandate social responsibility because no state CAN do that since federal law trumps state law, but it can permit B corporations to exist. First state to do this. The author of the ‘flexible corporation’ bill is Mark DeSaulnier from Contra Costa county. x

SueInCa : partnerships are liable individually x

Chernynkaya : AL, I agree! But isn’t the whole reason for incorporating to prevent liability of individuals? x

SueInCa : unfortunately adlib i don’t see that happening. corp are founded to avoid liability, only the actual company can be liable x

PatsyT : Agree AdLib x

AdLib : I would like to see executives at corps held legally and criminally responsible for the actions of their corp. As with the mine disaster that has now killed 30 people, a court should be able to find the owner guilty of manslaughter. x

SueInCa : good question patsy, there must be a motive x

Chernynkaya : {Patsy, Thanks– I wnat to know that. x

PatsyT : Why do these corps want this ability to convert? x

SueInCa : Is there any thought as to when a B corp initiative might be on the ca ballot? x

choicelady : Of course, if we do this legislatively, we do not HAVE to pay for an initiative. However, if our goal is to get traditional C corporations (now forbidden by federal charter law to do ANYTHING but make money for investors) to become more responsible, then we probably would need an initiative. x

Chernynkaya : Corporate responsibility is not a new concept, but that we make it mandatory IS new, I think. I would like to focus on % of gross going to environmental and social programs. x

AdLib : CL – Can you give more detail about a B corp? x

choicelady : Hi- No, this is legislative. There is a bill to create “flexible corporations” meaning they can convert profit corporations to non-profit. That is NOT a good idea, IMHO, but there is a national move to create, state by state, B Corporations (benefit corporations). At present ALL corporations are C corporations (unless they are personal then they are S corps = irrelevant here). B corporations are charterd to permit – encourage – social responsibility, environmental responsibility, etc. Maryland just passed a bill to permit them there. I am trying to talk the sponsor of the ‘flexible corporation’ bill to dump that and pump for B corporations. x

AdLib : Meanwhile, I was thinking we could brainstorm on what such a proposition could entail. What could or should we require of corporations in such a proposition? x

AdLib : Yes, CL, please do share what props are going to be on the ballot and what is in the works. x

AdLib : Choicelady, while I explain a bit more, could you type a little primer on the process and what we’ve discussed on how we could organize around and finance a proposition? x

Chernynkaya : CL_ when you say what’s in the works– do you mean previous imititatives? x

AdLib : This should however be seen as a national group, GROW that is, and a national initiative, going state by state. x

PatsyT : Yes x

Chernynkaya : Yes, and I started to read about the process, but it was expensive and sounded just a little complicated but not too. x

choicelady : May I, with everyone’s indulgence, let you know what’s on the table in the CA Legislature? And what’s NOT? x

AdLib : Since many interested in GROW are in CA and we have the benefit of Choicelady’s experience and expertise, starting in CA makes the most sense to me. x

SueInCa : a lofty goal, where do we start? x

AdLib : I’ve shared with all of you my enthusiasm for focusing the start up of GROW on the creation of propositions in states to restrict corporations, enforcing a social responsibility. x

Chernynkaya : And thanks for organizing us AL! x

AdLib : OK! So, to kick this off, I really want to thank everyone for their interest and enthusiasm on taking meaningful action on fighting back corporations. x

choicelady : No. x

choicelady : Oh am I stuck again? x

SueInCa : i am here x

PatsyT : sure x

choicelady : AdLib – sure! x

Chernynkaya : Yes, let’s do. x

AdLib : I’m not sure if anyone else will be joining us tonight so shall we begin? x

choicelady : Cher – teach me Welsh would you? My great grandmother was Welsh but don’t know from where. x

PatsyT : Cher LOL x

Chernynkaya : I gaess… x

PatsyT : Oh so thats Welsh x

Chernynkaya : I guess I’ll be speaking Welsh tomight. x

choicelady : AdLib – would not MIND a miracle weight loss pill providing it IS a miracle! x

AdLib : Hey Patsy! x

choicelady : Hi Patsy! Glad you’re here! x

Chernynkaya : Hae, Patsy! x

AdLib : Oh! I remember emailing it to you at the proper address…guess I shouldn’t have used to opportunity to promote a miracle weight loss pill. x

PatsyT : Hi Everyone x

Chernynkaya : One of the biggest blessings in my whole life has always been my teachers–throug h college. x

choicelady : ADLib – it got buried in a mess of spam, but I found it. Thanks! x

choicelady : Great to see Sue, Cher, you, AdLib. Sorry I’m late. I’m picking up the Sue and Cher thread – I also loved my kindergarte through 4th grade teachers. It was all downhill after that though! x

SueInCa : hey cl x

AdLib : CL – Just got your email! But you made it! x

Chernynkaya : cool! x

SueInCa : not at all cher, my brothers partner is jewish x

AdLib : Hey CL! Great to “see” you. x

Chernynkaya : Hey C’lady! x

choicelady : Hi AdLib = DID get the conection. Hi everyone! x

Chernynkaya : Sorry Sue, I try not to assume. x

SueInCa : i already knew that cher x

Chernynkaya : It works but then I can’t read it– what a kvetch! That means whiner in yiddish, y’all. x

AdLib : It will shrink the size of the font and all, of course. x

AdLib : Cher – You can go to the “View” menu item in your browser and select “Zoom” to Zoom Out. If that works for your screed. I mean screen. x

Chernynkaya : Hehe– screen– not my screeds! x

AdLib : I can’t remember that age as clearly, just bits and pieces. x

Chernynkaya : Before we start– any suggestions about how to make my screes smaller, so that my typing area and the top of the page are closer together? x

SueInCa : geez my grandson is older than your daughter lol, he is 10 x

Chernynkaya : I actually have pretty vivid and clear memories of kindergarten and 1st grade. I loved my teachers. x

AdLib : Yes. 1st grade…that’s way back in the ol mental library. x

SueInCa : hey cher x

Chernynkaya : Hiya, Sue! x

Chernynkaya : Wow– those are wonderful times, AL. x

AdLib : Hi Sue! Welcome! x

AdLib : Pretty good. Just got back from my daughter’s open house at school. I hardly remember those days myself. x

SueInCa : hi i am here x

Chernynkaya : Great AdLib– you? x

AdLib : Hi Cher! How are you this fine evening? x

Chernynkaya : Hello! I’m, here. x

AdLib : It’s 7:00 PM, welcome to our GROW chat. Please say hi when you arrive! x

Chernynkaya : I’ll be back at 7– Hi everyone! x

SueInCa : I am here, just away from my laptop x

kesmarn : Your techieness is verified yet again,AdLib! x

Chernynkaya : Cool! x

AdLib : Great! x

SueInCa : Worked for me x

AdLib : Welcome to the page for the GROW Live Chat! x