All Articles Tagged "corporations"
-A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that merely 13 percent of the small businesses in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut that applied for bank loans in April and May got the full amount they requested. Another 36 percent got a partial amount. More than half of applicants asked for a “microloan,” a loan of less than $100,000. “But lenders were more likely to turn down microloan applications than larger loan applications, likely because they were skittish about lending to newer firms and more likely to turn down startups,” reports The Huffington Post.
-A Pennsylvania judge upheld that state’s voter ID law. Liberal groups are already planning their appeals on the grounds that the laws will unfairly impact minority and poor voters. Judge Robert Simpson, a Republican, said the law is “a reasonable, nondiscriminatory, nonsevere burden when viewed in the broader context of the widespread use of photo ID in daily life.”
-Interactive Product Group, a division of fashion mag publisher Condé Nast, has created a new video game meant to appeal to the ladies. ”Fashion Hazard” places fashion models on the runway with the goal of avoiding obstacles that could ruin the show, like a flying cup of latte. The game will be available for iPhones and iPads starting today for 99 cents. Women and girls make up about half of the gamers today. In 2011, about $16.6 billion worth of games were sold in the U.S.
-Research conducted by Policy Studies, a liberal think tank, found that 26 large U.S. companies paid their CEOs $20.4 million on average, but paid little to no taxes on their profits. The average net income of those companies was more than $1 billion in the U.S. For example, James McNerney Jr., CEO of Boeing, made $18.4 million last year and the company got a $605 million tax refund. How do we get in on that deal?
-Big news lighting up Twitter this morning is the decision by the government of Ecuador to grant Wikileaks founder Julian Assange political asylum. Not sure what it’s all about? Here’s a good summary.
(ProPublica) — Their names suggest selfless dedication to democracy. Fair Districts Mass. Protect Your Vote. The Center for a Better New Jersey. And their stated goals are unarguable: In the partisan fight to redraw congressional districts, states should stick to the principle of one person, one vote. But a ProPublica investigation has found that these groups and others are being quietly bankrolled by corporations, unions and other special interests. Their main interest in the once-a-decade political fight over redistricting is not to help voters in the communities they claim to represent but mainly to improve the prospects of their political allies or to harm their enemies. The number of these purportedly independent redistricting groups is rising, but their ties remain murky. Contributions to such groups are not limited by campaign finance laws, and most states allow them to take unlimited amounts of money without disclosing the source.
(LA Times) — The Supreme Court sent a wave of corporate and union money flooding into campaign ads this year, but it did so with the promise that the public would know — almost instantly — who was paying for them. ”With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in January. “This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” But Kennedy and the high court majority were wrong. Because of loopholes in tax laws and a weak enforcement policy at the Federal Election Commission, corporations and wealthy donors have been able to spend huge sums on campaign ads, confident the public will not know who they are, election law experts say.
(Time) — When the Supreme Court ended its term last week, its ruling extending gun rights was the big news. But the real headline of the term was the court’s decision earlier this year giving corporations and unions sweeping new rights to spend money to elect candidates to office. It is not an overstatement to say that the 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which was handed down in January, could permanently change American democracy.