Reporters generally think it's their job to just report what the major actors in a political debate say, but do they also have a responsibility to point out when the comments are absurd? In the debate over Representative Barney Frank's bill requiring companies to have non-binding shareholder votes on CEO compensation, some of the opposing comments definitely fit into "the Martians are coming" category. According to the NYT, Representative Spencer Bachus complained that with this bill Congress would be substituting "its judgment for the American people." When Congress gives shareholders a vote on CEO pay, how is it substituting its judgment for the American people? It sounds like its giving the judgment to the American people instead of corporate insiders. Pete Sessions, another opponent of the bill seemed to inadvertently make exactly this point , �This provides outsiders such as big labor bosses, environmentalists and so-called consumer activists the ability to compel boards to do their bidding.� Of course none of these villains gets any voice unless they are shareholders in the company. So, Mr Sessions is arguing against giving shareholders a voice in running the companies they own. I know the reporters don't want to editorialize, but it might be worth getting some neutral commentator to point out that the comments from opponents of the Frank bill don't make sense.
--Dean Baker
