iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Frank Battling White House On Proxy Access

Obama Flip Flop

First Posted: 06/17/10 02:29 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:50 PM ET

UPDATE, 6/24/10: Barney Frank and his House colleagues are standing strong against a White House effort to block shareholders from having proxy access to governance issues in corporations in which they have a stake. Investors, pension funds and labor unions reacted with alarm when Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced the Senate proposal that would effectively deny so-called "proxy access." The provision had not been approved by either the Senate or the House and several sources, both in Congress and in the industry, said the White House is pushing the measure. The White House proposal would require a shareholder to hold a five percent stake in order to have proxy access -- a level met by virtually no institutional investors.

Frank vowed at the time to fight it and today he did. After rejecting the Senate proposal earlier this week, Frank made the House counter-offer Thursday, suggesting that the authority to write rules remain with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which is currently drafting language to allow proxy access.

It shouldn't be difficult for Dodd to accept the counter-offer. Indeed, in 2007, Dodd wrote to the SEC arguing against the very proposal that he recently offered. "The proposed rule requires that a proposal be submitted by a shareholder or group that owns more than five percent of a registrant's stock in order to be included in the proxy, which would effectively bar most shareholders from ever filing such proposals. Since an institution has a duty to diversify its portfolio, the level of it[s] holdings in any one company would be small and insufficient to meet this threshold. This threshold should be eliminated," wrote Dodd, joined by other senators, including Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who joined Dodd in backing the opposite of what he'd previously proposed. Read the letter here.

* * * * *

June 17, 2010 - The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform.

A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC's authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday. Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

The White House move pits the administration against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who told Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to stand strong against the effort.

"I met with the Speaker today and she said, 'Don't back down. I'll back you up,'" Frank, the lead House conferee, told HuffPost. "Maxine Waters is very upset, as are CalPERS and others."

Advocates said that the corporations fought the issue primarily over executive compensation concerns. Given proxy access, investors could rein in executive salaries. The Business Roundtable is a lobby of corporate CEOs.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser and Obama confidante, is the administration liaison to the Business Roundtable.

An administration spokesperson said that the White House isn't flip-flopping because it has never made proxy access an explicit position it supports. "It was not part of our original financial reform proposals, and we have not taken a position explicitly. We have heard from and understand the various concerns on this critical corporate governance issue from multiple stakeholders including business, investors, labor and others. We are confident that the House and Senate conferees will come to a resolution and deliver a consensus view," said the spokesperson.

But two top administration officials publicly supported proxy access, and the Senate version in particular, at the Council of Institutional Investors annual conference in April. Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin addressed the provision. "The Senate bill will make clear that the SEC has unambiguous authority to issue rules permitting shareholder access to the proxy. We support that proposal. The SEC's rulemaking process will define the precise parameters of proxy access," he said. "But the principle is clear: long-term shareholders meeting reasonable ownership thresholds should have the ability to hold board members accountable by proposing alternatives and making their voices heard."

Valerie Jarrett followed Wolin. "The Senate bill will make it clear that the SEC has unambiguous authority to issue rules permitting shareholders access to the proxy -- essential, as I know you guys know," she said. "We agree that corporate governance means more transparency, more responsibility, more accountability, and once again -- I can't say it too often -- we stand firmly with you on that point."

The statements were heartening to the investors, who were blindsided by the reversal this week.

The investor-protection language was stripped and replaced by an amendment from Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who leads the upper chamber's negotiations in the conference committee. Dodd is retiring at the end of this Congress.

Dodd's amendment to the Senate language inserts a requirement that only an individual with a five percent stake in a corporation can nominate candidates to the board or otherwise participate in corporate governance. Even the largest pension funds don't come anywhere close to owning five percent of a major corporation. The biggest pension funds are more likely to hit the half-percent threshold in rare cases.

"I guess this is the way it works, but the sucker was like a bolt from the heavens. It came out of nowhere," said one advocate working on the issue.

Frank said that he wasn't certain the White House was involved. "There may be some sense that the White House -- I'll explain it this way: this affects, of course, not just the financial institutions, but all corporations and, yeah, I think there are some people in the White House who think, 'Well, we're fighting the financial institutions, but why fight with some of the others you know, the other corporations?' But all I can do is stand firm in our position, which we're doing. I think there may be some White House influence, but I don't really know. I would ask the Senate. It is interesting that they are reversing their own position," he said.

Backers of the underlying House and Senate language said that, as of last week, there was no indication that the provision would be stripped.

Because the conference committee deliberations are televised, a broad range of interested observers were able to watch corporate America gut the reform proposal live. On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) fought back, attempting to amend the language to strike the five percent requirement. It failed; the only Democrats to back Schumer in the vote were Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

The SEC is planning to issue rules related to proxy access. Those rules would be made meaningless by the language currently being pushed.

"We're just horrified that the Senate would try to weaken language that was similar in both bills. To set such a high threshold makes the reform totally unworkable," said Ann Yerger of the Council of Institutional Investors.

"It is very, very costly for investors to mount a proxy contest and to solicit votes against directors. Proxy access changes that by giving investors -- the owners of the business -- the same access to the proxy as management has for purposes of nominating a director," said
Lynn E. Turner, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant from 1998 to 2001. "It is extremely important [that] to avoid systemic risk investors be able to hold boards accountable. Otherwise, board members see no upside, only downside, to ever opposing management or putting the tough questions to them."

LISTEN to Jarrett at the CII conference:


This story has been updated to include the White House response. Lucia Graves contributed reporting

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
UPDATE, 6/24/10: Barney Frank and his House colleagues are standing strong against a White House effort to block shareholders from having proxy access to governance issues in corporations in which the...
UPDATE, 6/24/10: Barney Frank and his House colleagues are standing strong against a White House effort to block shareholders from having proxy access to governance issues in corporations in which the...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 4,372
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (96 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBadger
01:24 AM on 06/25/2010
What in god's name is the Obama administration doing protecting executive compensation from the stock holders????
12:46 AM on 06/25/2010
For all of those who are defending the President because he isn't obligated to push for sefic legislative provisions, I think that is BS. I did not ovte for this, and I will almost definitely be staying home the next election or voting third party. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have shown that they work for whomever is donating to their campaigns (large donations, not netroots).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamaicalover
Team Obama
08:21 AM on 06/25/2010
Did you read and fully understand the article?
09:53 PM on 06/24/2010
Barney, you have really helped to change what started out as some very bad news on Huff Post tonight.
08:45 PM on 06/24/2010
June 17, 2010 - The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations...

Huh.

Who'da thunk it?
07:16 PM on 06/24/2010
These breathless reports that make every little provision into a momentous debate do not do much to tell citizens which politicians are basically good and which are basically evil. In this article, Senator Harkin comes across as one of the good guys. In the article about equity indexed annuities, he comes across as a heel. I am not sure that this much moment-by-moment transparency does anyone much good. At some point, the politicians have to do their horse trading and get a final conference report ready for a vote in both houses of congress.

Maybe we should bring back the smoke filled rooms.
07:28 PM on 06/24/2010
It turns out that the bill involving equity-indexed annuities is separate from the big financial reform package.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andrew Petruzzi
07:08 PM on 06/24/2010
Someone give Obama this message "We're going to kick your two faced ass so hard out of this office that you wont even know your name when were through!"
07:33 PM on 06/24/2010
You know, as president, Obama does not have any obligation at all to offer suggestions to congress. He could just keep himself busy watching over the wars, enforcing existing law, and overseeing the heads of the executive departments. Then the Democrats in congress might have to learn to think for themselves, and the congress might have to behave as an independent branch of government that has far more constitutional power than the president has. The president's only real obligation in the legislative process is to give congress a warning if certain provisions would lead to his veto.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
07:43 PM on 06/24/2010
I don't know what you're talking about, but Obama is behind scrapping rights for stockholders to have a say in CEO pay.

That is the exact opposite of what he campaigned on.
08:46 PM on 06/24/2010
"Watch over the wars"...

Yep.

That's Obama alright.
06:27 PM on 06/24/2010
I'm concerned about who or what group determines what we shareholders will be voting on besides electing officers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dianhow
former Repub till W
06:35 PM on 06/24/2010
stock go up and go down Thats the risk stock holders take
I do not worry about them
100's of Millions of stock holders got slammed in Bush Cheney
2008 stock market meltdown
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hmp49
I....have a mole?
07:01 PM on 06/24/2010
You obviously don't understand the issue.

Read the article more carefully. This has nothing to do with stocks "going up and down" it has to do with the management and board of directors controlling companies for their own benefit, and effectively shutting shareholders, even large ones like Calpers, from having a voice.

Among other things, it allows CEOs (who site on each other's boards) to award themselves huge salaries, bonuses, and golden parachutes, no matter how badly they manage the companies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Not-drinking-their-wine
Allergic to Fox News.
06:24 PM on 06/24/2010
I cannot believe that Barney Frank is all of a sudden a Right Wing Rush Limbaugh Wacko.
What next? Is he going to support a bill calling for the Death Penalty for a person being Gay?

He is just another phoney. WE need real Progressives in the House
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dianhow
former Repub till W
06:38 PM on 06/24/2010
Barney like Limbaugh ?
NO one is as disgusting as Limbaugh
he lies- greedy- spreads rumors- smears Obama daily-
GOP fears crossing Limbaugh Not one will openly disagree with Rush
What A $$ kissing cowards
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hmp49
I....have a mole?
07:03 PM on 06/24/2010
You're not reading the article carefully.

On this particular issue, Barney Frank is taking the side of investors, against THE WHITE HOUSE and Senate (Dodd) who are selling us out to the Business Roundtable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcaunter
Profile: schizoid, INTJ
06:13 PM on 06/24/2010
If you are still enabling Democrats/Republicans by voting for them no matter what they do (in the states without electronic voting machines that allow voters to decide elections still), you are enabling the oligarchic government they represent.

Find a third party, if you are allowed to vote that is (you can't in states with electronic voting machines), and support it. That's the only way the two parties of the Wall Street oligarchy will ever feel threatened enough to change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dianhow
former Repub till W
06:41 PM on 06/24/2010
3 rd party ? never again I tried that with Perot Wasted my vote
Fact is Reagan Bush & Bush had power- we lived under GOP policies- from 1981 -
Bush 2008 meltdown Only 1 DEM Pres in 28 yrs 1980-2008 Bill Clinton
So I'll stick with Obama is decent- and is working his butt off taking on 1
disaster after another NONE of his making
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kimpeach
Progressive Independent and proud of it!
06:09 PM on 06/24/2010
I am beginning to to think Obama pulled a fast one on us in 2008. He is not the man of change (like he claimed), he is the man of more the same! This has Rahm written all over it, but if Obama is willing to take his advice over being right then Obama will go down with the ship!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davidpkronmiller
06:17 PM on 06/24/2010
Take all of this with a grain of salt - they don't have any solid sources - just aides and rumor as to who's doing what - etc.

Consider the source: "The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal. "

This is almost identical to wording used in nearly every other HP article - literally - always citing congressional aides (never saying which ones or which party or which congressional office they come from) and OUTSIDE advocates.

Financial reform will take time - it's stupidly complex - and HP is trying to push it's own economic agenda - vis a vis - putting Krugman or Reich on Obama's cabinet. Since he passed over Krugman some time ago this site has done nothing but bash any of Obama's economic plans and talked about unnamed sources, etc.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:08 PM on 06/24/2010
Since he passed over Krugman some time ago this site has done nothing but bash any of Obama's economic plans and talked about unnamed sources, etc.

It is more than just passing over Krugman, though. It is about who they selected They get Geithner, Summers and retain Bernanke; might as well have put Goldman Sachs in charge of our money (wait; they did!)
Krugman would not have done that!
Nor Volcker, for that matter.

I'll take that salt now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dianhow
former Repub till W
06:47 PM on 06/24/2010
thats just nonsense peach Rahm and many advisors begged Obama to drop health reform He did not BO has a very sharp mind and works very hard dealing with 1 mess after another
this OIL spill is a direct result of many yrs under reign of 2 greedy OIL TYCOONS
who let big oil write their own rules- took many short cuts to save few bucks - thats what led to this disaster so can we all be realistic ?
Obama = 18 months vs Reagan Bush & Bush - under GOP polices 1981 - 2008
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:21 PM on 06/24/2010
this OIL spill is a direct result of many yrs under reign of 2 greedy OIL TYCOONS
who let big oil write their own rules- took many short cuts to save few bucks - thats what led to this disaster so can we all be realistic ?
Obama = 18 months vs Reagan Bush & Bush - under GOP polices 1981 - 2008

Even if all of that is true, they knew of the problems at MMS when Salazar was appointed; a culture of corruption had been documented there, and they should have cleaned house. They could have revamped the inspection process of the preceding administration (let the oil companies fill them out in pencil; MMS people trace over them with ink) replaced the drug abusers and cronies and compromised and hired actual professionals.
The spill would still not be Obama's fault, but now he has to accept that he failed to make the needed changes that we still need at MMS.
I think Salazar (who is a proponent of offshore drilling) needs to go too.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
separatingwheatfromchaff
05:48 PM on 06/24/2010
Sometimes all you can do is shake your head and walk away.Extremely disheartening.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dianhow
former Repub till W
06:09 PM on 06/24/2010
yes and very very disgusted but we should NOT be shocked This is the GOP CREED
08:49 PM on 06/24/2010
Obama = the GOP CREED?

Is that what you're saying?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamaicalover
Team Obama
05:37 PM on 06/24/2010
Unless you are a shareholder in a coporation how does this affect you?

"Barney Frank and his House colleagues are standing strong against a White House effort to block shareholders from having proxy access to governance issues in corporations in which they have a stake. Investors, pension funds and labor unions reacted with alarm when Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) introduced the Senate proposal that would effectively deny so-called "proxy access." The provision had not been approved by either the Senate or the House and several sources, both in Congress and in the industry, said the White House is pushing the measure. The White House proposal would require a shareholder to hold a five percent stake in order to have proxy access -- a level met by virtually no institutional investors."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hmp49
I....have a mole?
07:08 PM on 06/24/2010
Because shareholders (even large ones like the Calpers pension fund) do NOT have input, companies are exclusively run by CEOs and the Board of Directors for their own short term goals that give them the maximum short term gain.

You end up with companies like BP taking short cuts that affect everyone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
07:53 PM on 06/24/2010
Exactly and since most people have less than 5% there is no way to stop CEOs and board members from giving themselves tens of millions for nothing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
10:47 PM on 06/24/2010
Do you have a 401k, a pension, belong to a Credit union?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamaicalover
Team Obama
08:14 AM on 06/25/2010
Yes, I have a Credit Union with an IRA but I've never been able to peek at what the CEO earns.
05:34 PM on 06/24/2010
If this story is true, this is bad for the Obama adminstration. If it is false, and not being agressively refuted, this is even worse. This kind of thing explains much of why Obama's approval ratings have fallen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davidpkronmiller
06:23 PM on 06/24/2010
Do you really understand the details in the article above? To me most of it appears very nuanced and frankly overly complicated (real reform would scrap what we have and create an entirely new system for the 21st century - but that would also probably collapse the economy and cause a bit of chaos - ah co-dependence!)

I don't like the coverage on this since they once again quote: " The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal. "

see - outside advocates (folks with an agenda) and congressional aides - note they don't say which congressional aides, etc.

Regardless - some of this doesn't bother me - why does it bother you? Specifically?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hmp49
I....have a mole?
07:11 PM on 06/24/2010
so far it appears to me very few commenting have any understanding of the issues.

Granted that as a former Member of the American Stock Exchange I'm in a better position to understand, but I think anyone even mildly knowledgeable about corporate America should understand the issues better than what I'm reading in these comments.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Doug Watt
Not ready for 2012
07:55 PM on 06/24/2010
Remember Obama's campaign promise to rein in COO salaries and Golden Parachutes? In this move Obama is trying to make sure that CEOs still get outrageous salaries that no shareholders can stop.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dianhow
former Repub till W
06:25 PM on 06/24/2010
Obama ratings have fallen becasue he has had to deal with one disaster after another in his 1 .5 yrs in power Folks are angry & upset- so they naturally lash out - blame the President
Thats not at all surprising But if we look at this realistically We will see that B P -
BIG OIL has been allowed to write their ' own rules' for many years -take short cuts to save few bucks And For 8 yrs 2 Greedy oil tycoons gave them free reign to do as they pleased
They did just that . Fact is: NO Pres since FDR in 1930 's had had to take on this
many toxic global- domestic problems - not created by him So I do not blame Obama
for this he has my vote I will never' agajn ' vote GOP
They make me sick with Reagan Bush toxic policies - 2 very long OIL wars - lies-
Greed war profiteering- fear tactics - Tax cuts to fat cats -while our wages fell
05:28 PM on 06/24/2010
" the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable."

If the Obama administration is going to side with the Business Roundtable against ordinary Americans, they should not be surprised if the Democratic base stays home this November.

Obama is getting atrociously bad advice from some of his advisors.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamaicalover
Team Obama
05:33 PM on 06/24/2010
What does proxy access and investors have to do with ordinary Americans?

"Given proxy access, investors could rein in executive salaries"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hmp49
I....have a mole?
07:24 PM on 06/24/2010
You pay for high executive salaries in many ways.

High executive salaries allow them to buy influence - as they are apparently are doing right now.

High executive salaries lead executives to take short cuts for their own benefits, and encourage a culture of greed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davidpkronmiller
06:25 PM on 06/24/2010
I'm sorry - does the above article mention any quotes - any at all - anonymous or other wise - from inside the White House? No. It doesn't.

It's a story HP is pushing - and that's it - they have this crazy agenda I think to push Krugman and the rest over what Obama is deciding - it's a bit of sour grapes I think mixed with an overly complicated financial system that no one fully understands being used to stir up anger and ultimately clicks and revenue for this site.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamaicalover
Team Obama
04:53 PM on 06/24/2010
Has any verified this information before slamming the President?

June 17, 2010 - The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform.

A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC's authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday. Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

The White House move pits the administration against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who told Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to stand strong against the effort.

"I met with the Speaker today and she said, 'Don't back down. I'll back you up,'" Frank, the lead House conferee, told HuffPost. "Maxine Waters is very upset, as are CalPERS and others."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davidpkronmiller
06:27 PM on 06/24/2010
They use the exact same language from other posts here:

"The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal. "

I swear I saw this last week about BP or something.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jamaicalover
Team Obama
07:50 PM on 06/24/2010
What strikes me as strange is some of the reactions to a article that says "source"