NLPC seeks to promote integrity in corporate governance, including honesty and fair play in relationships with shareholders, employees, business partners and customers. In doing so, NLPC places special emphasis on:
* Asserting that the social responsibility of the corporation is to defend and advance the interests of the people who own the company, the shareholders. True responsibility is fidelity to one’s own mission, not someone else’s, or someone else’s political agenda.
* Exposing the seeking of influence on public officials by corporations, which is the inevitable result of high levels of government spending and intervention in the marketplace.
* Combating practices that undermine the free enterprise system, including philanthropic giving to groups hostile to a free economy.
As has been the case on issues such as global warming, oil and gas pipelines, and gun manufacturing, the radicals’ have increasingly targeted big banks, which they attempt to shame and coerce into de-funding businesses associated with projects with which they disapprove. Those financial institutions, averse to unpleasant public relations, often cave to their demands.
One recent example of their capitulation is the funding of private companies that contract with the federal government to manage prisons and detention centers for immigrants who have entered the United States illegally. Two of these … Read More ➡
For decades labor unions have utilized the tactics of corporate campaigns, which single out and target individual companies with public pressure via shaming and critical attacks, in order to get them to surrender and accept unionization of their workers.
Other activists behind various progressive causes have adopted the strategy in order to advance their agendas. Not the least of these are the shrill climate change warriors, who battle against the “evils” of the fossil fuels that energize almost every aspect of our everyday modern lives.
So far environmental pressure groups like Greenpeace and 350.org have gone after the obvious targets: coal and oil companies; public utilities like Duke Energy and American Electric Power; the automobile industry; and tech companies like Apple and Amazon who churn massive amounts of electricity for cloud computing services and the like.
National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) is asking the National Basketball Association (NBA) to endorse the demands of the Hong Kong protesters.
In a letter to NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, NLPC Chairman Peter Flaherty wrote, “The league’s present position of neutrality on events in Hong Kong and China is morally untenable, and even that neutrality is fake.” The complete letter appears below.
On Monday night, supporters of the Hong Kong protesters demonstrated inside the Washington Wizards-Golden State Warriors game at Capital One Arena in Washington, DC. Sporting t-shirts and waving signs, the group chanted “Free Hong Kong.”
Flaherty stated, “The protests in Hong Kong are not going away. We are here to demonstrate that they are not going away here either.”
In October, Warriors President Rick Welts said on CNBC about the controversy, “I think this will pass, and I think our future in China is pretty remarkable.”
Don’t mistake the lull with the issue going away. With the standoff in Hong Kong ongoing, the National Basketball Association still has a China problem.
The NBA should now endorse the demands of the Hong Kong protesters. After all, Hong Kongers ask only for what the league already has endorsed for this country. The NBA promotes voter rights; Hong Kongers demand universal suffrage. The NBA embraces Black Lives Matter; Hong Kongers want an independent inquiry into police brutality. League officials endorse criminal justice reform; Hong Kongers seek due process and amnesty for arrested protesters.
The fact that the NBA is unlikely to embrace the protests is no reason for the demand not to be made. Instead, it is a reason for it to be made time and time again. The virtue of some causes is so obvious that the chances of prevailing are beside the point.
If there was any doubt about why the political Left has suddenly turned against Facebook, it has become clear: It is because they think the social media behemoth is helping President Donald Trump.
Revelations last week by top executive Andrew Bosworth, a vice president who was in charge of advertising during the 2016 election season, won’t disabuse liberals of that. Bosworth, however, did not give Facebook credit for the Trump campaign’s success in 2016 – rather, he attributed it to where it belonged.
“He ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period,” Bosworth wrote in a private Facebook post that he later made public after the New York Times published a story about it.
“[Digital Director Brad] Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work,” added Bosworth, a self-proclaimed liberal who is reportedly close to CEO … Read More ➡
In announcing yesterday that Saudi shooter Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani – an aviation trainee who killed three U.S. service members and wounded eight at the Pensacola (Fla.) Naval Air Station in a mass shooting last month characterized as “jihad” – Attorney General William Barr said Apple Inc. has provided no “substantive” help in unlocking the late assailant’s two iPhones.
Apple disputes that claim.
The disagreement boils down to whether Apple is providing any useful information from Alshamrani’s data for the Justice Department investigation, or not.
“Within one day of the shooting, the FBI sought and received court authorization based on probable cause to search both phones in an effort to run down all leads and figure out with whom the shooter was communicating,” Barr explained, adding that the shooter damage both phones, one of them by shooting a round into it.
So has Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg suddenly become a free speech devotee?
If you observe how the political Left is reacting and obsessing over his decision last month to not police political advertisements, you’d think he might have.
His announcement was juxtaposed against the polar opposite move of social media rival Twitter, and its CEO Jack Dorsey, who in early November said his platform would completely ban political ads. The contrast between the two near-simultaneous declarations likely heightened the blowback against Facebook.
The policy means that Facebook won’t subject political ads placed by candidates or advocacy groups to the site’s fact-checking review, as it does with news articles. Nor will ads accused of being false be removed.
Specifically, Zuckerberg said, “In a democracy, I don’t think it’s right for public companies to censor policies or the news.” He downplayed the speculation that he was allowing the ads … Read More ➡
As member nations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change take their 25thstab at an international agreement to limit so-called greenhouse gas emissions, some American corporations are trying to make up for the absence of the United States as part of the deal.
President Donald Trump famously announced in June 2017 the U.S. withdrawal from the nonbinding Paris Climate Agreement, which was previously negotiated in 2015 with the willful participation of then-President Barack Obama. Even though the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, as is required, the U.S. acted as though it was legal and pretended to adhere to the accord. But then last month Trump gave formal notification to the U.N. of America’s departure from the pact, effective the day after Election Day, in 2020.
Expect nothing substantive to change at Google and parent company Alphabet, following Tuesday’s announced departures of co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin from their roles as CEO and president, respectively, of Alphabet.
The moves made big headlines, but the pair is mostly invisible anyway, leaving Google CEO Sundar Pichai – who will now hold that title for Alphabet also – to take the frequent slings and arrows that are now regularly thrown at the companies, as he mostly already has in recent years. But in reality Page and Brin will still call the shots, thanks to their ownership of special classes of “super-voting” stock that gives them majority control.
The announcement of their moves admitted as much.
“We are deeply committed to Google and Alphabet for the long term, and will remain actively involved as Board members, shareholders and co-founders,” Page and Brin wrote. … Read More ➡
The resolution, announced a year ago by NLPC president Peter Flaherty, followed the height of the #MeToo movement in which women who had been sexually harassed – or even assaulted – came forward to expose what happened to them in the workplace. The proposal sought accountability and transparency in how Alphabet/Google has handled various claims of such misconduct, and also called for more ideological balance on the heavily left-leaning board of directors. The annual meeting was held in June.
The current investigation by a select committee of Alphabet’s board, along with the hiring of a law firm to aid the probe, was revealed this month in a report… Read More ➡