Obama Forcing Private Companies to Have Board Votes on Illegal Policy

Yes, Obama and his illegal quest for power is alive and kicking. STILL. This is really unbelievable.

Behold Obama’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Which last week handed down from on-high a mandate that telecommunications companies AT&T, Verizon and Sprint MUST have Board votes on Network Neutrality.

SEC to Telcos: Yes, Net Neutrality is a Significant Policy Issue

The problem for Obama’s SEC is – Net Neutrality isn’t even a LEGAL policy issue. Because Congress has never passed a law making Net Neutrality actual policy.

The federal government – via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – first tried to unilaterally impose Net Neutrality in 2008. And the D.C. Circuit Court in April 2010 unanimously threw the government out on its ear.

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules–even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so.

But it didn’t doom Genachowski and Obama’s illegal Net Neutrality intentions. It didn’t even daunt them. Just eight months after this stinging rebuke, Obama’s FCC went ahead and illegally jammed through Net Neutrality anyway.

biggovernment.com...

Obama does this by granting legislative authority to entities that were never intended to have it. SEC, EPA, FCC etc etc. CONGRESS is our legislative authority. Obama and his handlers are out of control. Imagine what will happen if he wins a lame duck second term. If he is this brazen now during an election campaign, a second term with no chance of reelection will be dangerous for our nation.

The trouncing of our constitution must STOP!!

reply to post by jibeho


agreed it must stop,but i beleive we are already in danger!!

We're seeing the behavior of a King or Dictator, not an elected leader within a healthy system of checks and balanced, in my humble opinion. Things got a little noisy the last time Americans discovered themselves under the thumb of a King.

The people are stupid. If their fool enough to re-elect the man. Then the fools deserve what is coming to them. I know, I am not voting for Obama.

reply to post by jibeho


He doesn't even do this in the White House, so now he wants other people to do what he's not doing? This lack of self-reflection and hypocrisy is bordering on parameters of mental illness.

Shocking, whys he not in jail? Or yeah theyre all equally corrupt.

Keep em comming buddy,
I appreciate the reportage you bring ....it adds to the melee here and nobody is gonna say they werent informed if they stay tuned ....

LOL, Andrew Breitbart is TROLLING again, and this time he really shows what a complete moron he is!

Here is the truth:
AT&T Must Let Beastie Boy Vote on Net Neutrality, SEC Says

What prompted this is one AT&T board member, Michael Diamond ("Mike D" of the Beastie Boys) and several other shareholders of AT&T wanted to have a board vote on Net Neutrality. AT&T blocked their vote. AT&T wouldn't even allow the proposal to be put forth to shareholders. That prompted a class action suit to allow shareholders to hold this vote.

The request is coming from SHAREHOLDERS - not "Obama's SEC".

Trillium is representing three individual AT&T investors -- Michael Diamond, better known as Mike D of the hip-hop band Beastie Boys; his wife Tamra Davis, director of films including “Billy Madison” and “Half Baked”; and John P. Silva, of Silva Artist Management, which represents recording artists Foo Fighters and Beck.

AT&T argued the proposal “would directly interfere with its network management practices and seriously impair its ability to provide wireless broadband service to its customers,” David B. Harms, a lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, wrote in a letter to the SEC on behalf of the company. Mike Balmoris, a company spokesman, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the response.

The proposal to vote on Net Neutrality came from shareholders, which the telecoms requested be blocked in a filing with the SEC, which the SEC rejected. so now these shareholders will get their chance to hold their vote.

SEC to Telcos: Yes, Net Neutrality is a Significant Policy Issue

Back in December 2006, as part of its agreement to merge with former regional Bell operating company BellSouth, AT&T made a pledge to the Federal Communications Commission. In that pledge, AT&T promised it would maintain a fair and neutral policy toward all Internet packet routing, applying no privileges based on packets' origin, content, or destination.

It's perhaps the clearest definition of net neutrality that has ever been devised. So a group of AT&T shareholders have been wondering why the company is running from it. Last month, they sought a shareholders' vote to effectively embed AT&T's 2006 net neutrality language as network policy. AT&T sought the Securities and Exchange Commission's permission to block that shareholders' proposal. Yesterday, after five Democratic senators weighed in, the SEC denied AT&T's motion, and the proposal now must go forward.

SEC sides with Beastie Boys' Mike D, says AT&T must allow shareholder vote on net neutrality

Michael Diamond may be best known as Mike D of the Beastie Boys, but he's also an AT&T shareholder, and he's now played a central role in forcing a shareholder vote on net neutrality. He, along with his wife Tamra Davis and John P. Silva of Silva Artist Management previously submitted a proposal to AT&T arguing that shareholders should be allowed to vote a resolution that recommended the company "publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles." AT&T unsurprisingly rejected that proposal, stating that it would "directly interfere with its network management practices," but the SEC has now stepped in and said that net neutrality has become a "significant policy consideration," and that it can no longer be excluded from shareholder ballots.

This is one of Breitbart's best spin jobs yet. Maybe if more of his readers would look into the actual facts in the case instead of sucking at his teet they might see his spin for what it is.

Company boards do not have the right to lockout their shareholders or deny them the right to be heard. THAT is what prompted this action by the SEC.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Trolling?? Illegal is illegal

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has told AT&T Inc. and other telecommunications companies they must include a resolution supporting wireless net-neutrality in annual shareholder votes.

In a letter posted on the SEC website, the agency asserted that net neutrality -- the idea that Internet service providers must treat traffic equally -- has become a “significant policy consideration” and can no longer be excluded from shareholder ballots. AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. and Sprint Nextel Corp. must now grant shareholder requests for votes this year on resolutions that would support net neutrality.

Mike D is simply part of a small group shareholders...

The shareholder resolution would recommend each company “publicly commit to operate its wireless broadband network consistent with network neutrality principles,” the letter said. The companies should not discriminate based on the “source, ownership or destination” of data sent over their wireless infrastructure.

Interesting angle considering that there is NO LAW on the books regarding this issue.

www.businessweek.com...

Let see,

The op made a thread about the current Potus and the largest expansion of power in this nation since FDR as the evidence piles up nope that's not the issue.

It's "Brietbart is trolling".

The simple fact we live under a "king" he just gets called "President" and the power grab is A-ok by those who claim to be liberal and yet have no clue of what the word means.

Meh

reply to post by jibeho

Mike D is simply part of a small group shareholders...

So he's "simply a part of a small group of shareholders" thus the corporate board can squash any vote proposed by him? Shareholders, believe it or not, do get to have some say in the company they invest in, that why he appealed to the SEC to force AT&T to stop blocking his proposal for a vote.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Its not a law!! Period end of story. Mike D or no Mike D. Obama's administration is attempting to circumvent Congress who has not passed any law whatsoever in regards to this topic. They are attempting to grant legislative authority outside the bounds of the constitution.

Mike D can climb on board with Al Franken and attempt once again to get this law passed in accordance with our laws of the land. Not going to happen though.

That's also NOT THE QUESTION here. The SEC is only enforcing the right of these SHAREHOLDERS to hold this vote.

Look at these headlines/articles again:

• AT&T Must Give Shareholders Net Neutrality Vote - Bloomberg
  
• SEC: AT&T, Sprint, Verizon Must Allow Shareholder Votes on Net Neutrality
  
• SEC sides with Beastie Boys' Mike D, says AT&T must allow shareholder vote on net neutrality

It was the SHAREHOLDERS who wanted to hold this vote - and were denied by the corporate board - so these shareholders appealed to the SEC to allow this vote to happen - on other words, it was this group of shareholders who forced this issue, not the SEC.

Board and shareholders votes often don't have anything to do with "laws", THAT isn't the point - they could just as easily be voting on whether the moon is made of cheese - if shareholders demand this be put to a vote, then they have the right to it. If the company denies them this right, then the SEC steps in, since this is a publicly traded company.

The SEC is UPHOLDING THE LAW when it comes to the rights of these shareholders - it just happens to be about Net Neutrality - but it could just as easily be about some other issue. The only difference then would be you wouldn't have a wingnut blogger distorting the issue.

If AT&T doesn't like having one of it's shareholders forcing this issue, then they can buy out Mike D's shares, until then he can make this as big an issue as he wants.

Net Neutrality is an international treaty that preserves national sovereignty and attempts to maintain open channels of communication for Information and Communication Technology. Obama can choose to ignore this treaty, like the Geneva Convention, but it does put added stress on international relations.

All this bickering on who votes and gets to say what just looks standard progress in working through the local implications of a global agreement.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


The shareholders have a voice at the annual meetings. It's not the job of the SEC to force the vote. What we are seeing now is the SEC flexing new muscle granted to it via Dodd-Frank.

Regulating the substance of corporate control standards is a matter for state corporation law not the SEC. SEC is supposed to focus on anti-fraud, disclosure and procedural rules.

Why the urge to force this issue? Net Neutrality in all of its various forms and alias' will simply serve to open pandora's box and to leave the back door open to endless govt. interference.

Originally posted by neo96
Let see,

The op made a thread about the current Potus and the largest expansion of power in this nation since FDR as the evidence piles up nope that's not the issue.

It's "Brietbart is trolling".

The simple fact we live under a "king" he just gets called "President" and the power grab is A-ok by those who claim to be liberal and yet have no clue of what the word means.

Meh

Oh the hypocrisy. ALL factions do not look at weather the actions of their dear leader are within the boundaries of the checks and balances imposed on the political system, when they heartfully agree with what he is doing. It did not happen when reagan did it, wont happen now.

Kudos to those few individuals who are consistend though, regardless of which part does it, but they are rare and far in between.

reply to post by jibeho

The shareholders have a voice at the annual meetings. It's not the job of the SEC to force the vote. What we are seeing now is the SEC flexing new muscle granted to it via Dodd-Frank.

Regulating the substance of corporate control standards is a matter for state corporation law not the SEC. SEC is supposed to focus on anti-fraud, disclosure and procedural rules.

Why the urge to force this issue? Net Neutrality in all of its various forms and alias' will simply serve to open pandora's box and to leave the back door open to endless govt. interference.

This is EXACTLY what the SEC is doing - upholding procedural rules. This has NOTHING to do with Dodd-Frank. Do you even know what you're talking about?

Shareholders have the right to ask that a topic - ANY TOPIC - be voted on. Most of the time company boards will allow, but not always. The shareholders have the right to appeal to the SEC if they are denied. THAT is what happened here - The shareholders have appealed to the SEC to force three companies to allow them to vote on this issue.

The SEC isn't requiring telcos vote on Net Neutrality specifically because it's Net Neutrality. They are complying with a federal regulation procedure for allowing shareholders to present a proposal in a proxy statement if they have a $2000 or 1% interest in the company (Title 17: Commodity and Securities Exchanges). The company can request the SEC to exclude a proposal on various grounds outlined in the link above.

In the past 3 telcos have argued that Net Neutrality is not significant enough to include it. The SEC has basically just said that it is a large enough of an issue in recent years to allow a vote, especially since Trillium Asset (Mike D and others) have also petitioned it's inclusion. The SEC isn't taking a position one way or another on how voters or a company should go, only that they need to allow a vote.

SEC: Carriers must let shareholders vote on net neutrality, thanks to Beastie Boys’ Mike D

The U.S. Security and Exchange Commission said Wednesday that AT&T and other wireless telecom companies will have to let shareholders vote on net neutrality, thanks in part to a proposal from a group that includes Mike D of the Beastie Boys.

Net neutrality, the notion that online traffic must be treated equally by ISPs, is now a “significant policy” issue, the SEC said in a letter posted on its website. The agency is recommending that AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon include a resolution in their annual shareholder votes declaring that they won’t treat data differently based on its “source, ownership or destination.”

The move comes in response to a proposal sent to the SEC by Trillium Asset Management, which represents Mike D and two other AT&T shareholders. Previously the SEC found net neutrality wasn’t a large enough issue to include in shareholder votes. But thanks to the policy push by the likes of Trillium, as well as the FCC’s own support of net neutrality for landline ISPs, it seems the tide is finally beginning to shift in favor of those who want fair wireless-web access.

Of course, the SEC’s recommendation doesn’t guarantee that carrier shareholders will vote in favor of net neutrality. But at least shareholders can now get their say, instead of just accepting the carrier’s position.

Read that last line again, maybe it'll sink in:

Of course, the SEC’s recommendation doesn’t guarantee that carrier shareholders will vote in favor of net neutrality. But at least shareholders can now get their say, instead of just accepting the carrier’s position.

This is one of the reasons the SEC exists, to ensure that EVERYONE, shareholder and investor alike, have an equitable say in how their company works. The only reason Breitbart can't accept this is because he is a fascist who thinks everyone must accept from on high the decree of the all-mighty corporate CEO.

Hey, if you don't want AT&T to allow Net Neutrality, then you do ahead and buy shares in the company, then you can vote against it at their shareholder meeting. At least the likes of Mike D and others will have the opportunity to HOLD that vote, thanks to the SEC.

The REAL conspiracy here is how these 3 carriers colluded to block Net Neutrality from being voted on by their shareholders. But then collusion between Telcos is nothing new.

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Dodd-Frank granted the SEC sweeping authority over areas in which they never had it before. To the point that the SEC is now overwhelmed. You see this as procedural I see this as Corporate Control. This is state level stuff not the domain of the SEC. The SEC is now bloated more than ever, their budget is short by a couple of hundred million and the need to hire close to 800 new workers to handle the new workload.

Yes, Dodd-Frank has granted the SEC more power and a bigger set of stones to step in places where they don't belong. All Dodd Frank will accomplish is increasing the size of our bureaucracy and another avenue to spend money. It is the biggest piece of govt. dung since the recovery act of 1933.

Let's just end the debate. The greatest power that a shareholder has is the power to exit. You don't like what the company is doing. SELL you Shares!! and invest in a more like minded company. That's free enterprise.

This is a STATE corporate law issue involving internal corporate affairs! SEC is out of bounds and on a quest for more power. Breitbart is correct... The encroachment continues.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

 

Dodd-Frank granted the SEC sweeping authority over areas in which they never had it before. To the point that the SEC is now overwhelmed. You see this as procedural I see this as Corporate Control. This is state level stuff not the domain of the SEC. The SEC is now bloated more than ever, their budget is short by a couple of hundred million and the need to hire close to 800 new workers to handle the new workload.

Yes, Dodd-Frank has granted the SEC more power and a bigger set of stones to step in places where they don't belong. All Dodd Frank will accomplish is increasing the size of our bureaucracy and another avenue to spend money. It is the biggest piece of govt. dung since the recovery act of 1933.

Let's just end the debate. The greatest power that a shareholder has is the power to exit. You don't like what the company is doing. SELL you Shares!! and invest in a more like minded company. That's free enterprise.

This is a STATE corporate law issue involving internal corporate affairs! SEC is out of bounds and on a quest for more power. Breitbart is correct... The encroachment continues.

Again, this has NOTHING to do with Dodd-Frank! How is Dodd-Frank even remotely responsible in this case??? You're attempting to setup a straw-man argument by lumping Dodd-Frank into this then attacking Dodd-Frank. The SEC regulation being used here was in place loooong before Dodd-Frank. Dod you even bother to read the link I posted above to the specific SEC provision? No, you're to busy wallowing in the mire of Breitbart's lies and distortions.

And the mentality of "You don't like what the company is doing. SELL you Shares!!" - are you suggesting shareholders should just turn tail and run? Run like a coward instead of FIGHTING FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN? They, as shareholders, have EVERY right to demand the corporation they are part owners of hold a vote on this issue. THAT, and ONLY that, is what the SEC is ruling on.

You seem to desperately cling to the notion this is an "internal issue" of a private company. This is a publicly held company with shareholders and it's those shareholders who requested this action. Not Obama, not the SEC. If those companies don't want to comply with the SEC or shareholders then they should buy back all those public shares. Short of that then they MUST comply.

This is what makes Breitbart such an unreliable source, he grossly distorted this issue between boards and shareholders into a straw-man attack on the SEC which turned into a straw-man attack on Obama. That my friend is political trolling at it's finest.

Alittle bump for partisan display ......................