Obama To Take On McCain Over Bloated CEO Salaries
This morning, Obama will call for "passage of his legislation to require corporations to hold a nonbinding shareholders vote on compensation packages offered to executives," according to his campaign.
Obama is set to hold a press availability in Indiana to discuss his proposal -- and plans to take on John McCain over the issue, setting the stage for a general election showdown over the economy and the GOP's hands-off approach to it.
"I know Senator McCain had some sharp words the other day about what some CEOs are getting paid," Obama will say. "And I was glad to hear it. But when he’s had the chance to do something about this problem, he’s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years."
Obama's full prepared remarks after the jump.
I’d like to say a few words this morning about the state of our economy. You know, we talk about “issues” in a campaign. But for families across Indiana and the country, the economy is more than a discussion point. That’s because the cost of everything from health care, to a tank of gas, to college tuition has shot up while wages have stayed the same. So families are feeling the pinch. On top of that, millions of Americans are also facing foreclosure or seeing the value of their homes decline, and millions more are out of work.
So I wasn’t particularly surprised when I read the other day about a poll that shows folks are now more downbeat about their futures than they’ve been in nearly fifty years.
But we also know that’s only half the story – because Wall Street executives have been doing just fine. Some CEOs make more in one day than their workers make in one year. There was a story about this in the paper the other day. They did a study and found that the top 50 CEOs made around $15.7 million last year – despite the fact that many of their companies have been falling behind.
We all believe in that fundamental, American value that if you do good work, if you’re successful, you should be rewarded. But if you’re a Wall Street CEO today, it doesn’t seem to matter whether you’re doing a good job or a bad job for your shareholders and workers: You’ll be rewarded either way.
Take the home building company, KB Home. They lost nearly $1 billion last year. But their CEO walked away with a $6 million cash bonus, and that’s on top of his $1 million base salary. And just the other week, we learned that when Countrywide Financial was sold a few months ago, its top two executives got a combined $19 million. Nevermind that Countrywide is as responsible as anyone for the scandalous mortgage crisis we’ve got today – a crisis that’s the source of many of our other economic problems.
This is an outrage. But as I said in a recent speech at the Cooper Union in New York City, this isn’t an accident. It’s because of decisions made, not just in boardrooms or trading floors, but in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales, using their clout to rig the game against everyday Americans.
So what we need to do is restore balance to our economy and put in place rules of the road to make competition fair, and open, and honest. One place we can start is by restoring common sense to executive pay.
That’s why last year, I proposed legislation that would give shareholders a say on what CEOs are getting paid, and help ensure that companies are disclosing the rationale for the salary and benefits that CEOs are getting. This isn’t just about expressing outrage. It’s about changing a system where bad behavior is rewarded – so that we can hold CEOs accountable, and make sure they’re acting in a way that’s good for their company, good for our economy, and good for America, not just good for themselves.
We’ve seen what happens when CEOs are paid for doing a job no matter how bad a job they’re doing. We can’t afford to postpone reform any longer. That’s why Washington needs to act immediately to pass this legislation.
Now, I know Senator McCain had some sharp words the other day about what some CEOs are getting paid. And I was glad to hear it. But when he’s had the chance to do something about this problem, he’s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years. And this seems to be a trend with Senator McCain. Yesterday, he finally proposed some steps to deal with our housing crisis. And I’m glad he’s moving in the right direction, but what he’s proposing isn’t enough to really help struggling families.
So I respect John McCain. He’ll be a worthy opponent. But we can’t afford another four years of policies that don’t make a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans, and that’s what John McCain is offering.
We need a President who understands the fundamental truth that’s been at the heart of America’s economic success – that each American does better when all Americans do better; that the well-being of American business and the American people are aligned. That’s the kind of leadership the American people deserve. And that’s the kind of leadership I intend to offer as President.















Kick his ass Obama!!
April 11, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent. Obama's populism comes to the fore. And exposes McSame for the hypocrite he is.
April 11, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh brother, just as penalizing the nice oil companies for providing you gasoline in a reliable fashion and at a cheap price will blow up in your (moronic) faces if anyone in DC really wished to do so, this is more jerk-off non-sensical populism. You really can't regulate CEO salaries, and shareholders are not going to vote down the salaries of their CEOs anyway, it would be against their own self-interest. So this is essentially pap for the left of the party, but it is still disturbing to see how much the supposedly smart Obama says some really dumb shit. At least it's not crazy shit like his preacher. Just dumb.
April 11, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you pretending to know what the shareholders (or for that matter, the voters), would want?
Last time I checked, the shareholders wanted companies to be run well.
And there are WAAAY more poor people in this country than rich people. Thanks, in no small part, to the Repub administration.
So I say, "bring it on". The people are taking back their White House.
April 11, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, shareholders love when CEOs eat up their profits. I'm sure Yahoo and Qwest shareholders who fought against outrageous compensation packages are the exception. Milorad, Buggeroff.
April 11, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
To MiloRad Buggeroff -
But this doesn't regulate salaries. It just requires salary approval by the shareholders, who are in fact the CEOs' bosses. The government won't make the decision. The shareholders will. Sounds like capitalism to me.
If there's nothing wrong with the executive compensation system, then CEOs have nothing to worry about.
Brilliant move on Obama's part.
April 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a smart move. It doesn't force anyone to do anything, it simply puts pressure on CEOs and Boards of Directors not to overcompensate CEOs, especially when shareholders can say, look only X% of us support this pay package. The issue is one of corporate governance, and that's the level at which Obama is seeking to solve it.
Most shareholders are institutional investors such as pension funds, investing small amounts of money from large numbers of people, and I can guarantee you that they don't want to continue seeing runaway CEO salaries. The California pension plan CalPERS, probably the biggest institutional investor in the world, has been active on this topic.
Studies have shown that CEO compensation doesn't correlate with performance anyway. Boards should compensate based on medium and long term performance, not just short term stock gains that incentivize taking actions that are beneficial today but harmful tomorrow.
April 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah it really is amazing how the Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't know anything about business, the case studies and litigation he's reviewed on this subject makes him wholly unqualified to talk about corporate governance. Clearly, you're a genius and have immediately spotted the flaw in his plan. LOL.
There are clear cases of executive nepotism where slack-offs are paid like crazy. He should have probably mentioned that some exec's make big numbers because they are expected to stage a turn-around and sometimes thats just not possible. Share-holders given that they have a direct stake in this, are the appropriate vehicle to check this behavior. The board's favorite golfing buddy is not always the best choice. Making sure there is a check on those kind of decisions isn't bad policy; its appropriate.
If you believe it won't result in any change at all. You must be one of those super intelligent guys who believe markets are 100% efficient.... 'we can't have idiots in charge, look how much money they make'. After all that never happens huh?
April 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a shareholder for a company that recently gave a CEO the boot and a nice 50 million dollar golden parachute, I can say that many of the other shareholders would never have voted for that package. I don't know that they would win a majority in the vote but the boards who hand out these packages need to have greater accountability to the other shareholders and Obama's plan would help that directly!
April 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good to know, because I don't follow Wall Street that closely myself, outside of my 401(k) investments. Now I have a practical example of how this could help; thanks!
April 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
A nonbinding vote? How is that going to help anyone? And while this might help cut down on the absurd "golden parachutes" where CEOs basically raid the company for millions after destroying them. But still non-binding?
Is there a good reason for making it non-binding rather then binding? I suppose there could be. (I'm not an expert in corporate governance here) I'm also not particularly anti-corporate but this does seem a bit shallow.
April 11, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
The board would have a hard time overruling a shareholder vote, even a non-binding one. That would be, in effect, deliberately angering their boss. Plus, it would get a lot of publicity (right now, these give-away compensation packages don't get nearly enough publicity).
No, I don't know the rationale for making this vote non-binding, but I'm sure it would work quite well. If board members ignored it, it's unlikely they'd be around much longer.
April 11, 2008 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Robbers tend to avoid stealing in daylight where everyone can see them. Transparency is a first step. Pretty tough for anyone to argue against it. If it doesn't help get compensation packages more in line with what CEOs merit and company results, it will be that much easier to push through something binding. But, I suspect it will have real results as board members will have a greater fear of shareholder backlash.
April 11, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two questions: 1) What's a nonbinding vote to gain you? 2) Beyond minimum wage, what business is it of government what companies pay their employees and management? Speaking for myself, I do not want the government to come in and tell me how much money I can make and therefore I absolutely do not want government doing the same for other profit companies. If they want to approach this with non-profits, fine, as they get tax benefits and hold a special position.
I think that this is simply pandering and a complete non-starter. My guess is that this might gain Obama with some lower income folks that can be convinced to be jealous or outraged, but Independents and others are going to be far less willing to buy into this intrusive government control. This is not populist and definitely not democratic or progressive. It is anti-capitalist, tending toward socialist or communist. It is DOA here in America and it will eventually even conflict with Obamas richer contributers, like his oil company bundlers and all.
I'm not sure where Clinton is on this but hopefully she'll not go to far into this pander-fest with Obama. Maybe he is trying to on-up her?
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 11, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking for myself, I do not want the government to come in and tell me how much money I can make
How do you think your employer would feel if you just decided how much you wanted to get paid each month and then took it. Not too happy, I'd assume, but we've got a CEO class in this country where they all sit on eachother's boards rob shareholders blind. The owners of the companies should be allowed to set CEO compensation, not the CEOs themselves.
And of course, since they all set their own salaries, those salaries go up and suddenly the 'market rate' goes up as well.
April 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I own my own company and set my own salary. But even before being in this position, I never felt it was government's business setting salary caps on businesses.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't misrepresent. It's the shareholders, the actual owners of the company, and not government who will decide on the compensation of the CEO, who happens to work for the shareholders. There is nothing more capitalistic than a notion that reinforces the will of shareholders.
Siding with Ken Lay will not persuade anyone.
April 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will say. "And I was glad to hear it. But when he’s had the chance to do something about this problem, he’s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years."
Obama’s has voted to fund the war time and time again. He has not done much to push a date certain for withdraw. Actions do speak louder than words and there has been little action from Barack. What has he done to back his words.
Barack does have a new kind of campaign going though, fundraising by having his supporters call women F*cking Wh*res is certainly something I thought I would never see in my lifetime. In fact why are you Obama supporters wasting time blogging? I am sure there are women you can call f*cking wh*res somewhere.
April 11, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, go off-topic much?
Randi Rhodes was reacting to stuff Clinton did, and while she used deplorable language, I have never heard her formally endorse Obama or associate herself directly with him. If you have seen specific Obama supporters saying that kind of thing, then you need to address them directly (you know, like an adult might) as opposed to branding millions of people with what Rhodes said. She ended up resigning because of it; revel in your schadenfreude.
As for what has he done to back up his words...he's running a campaign, genius. Telling us what he'll do if elected president. Hillary and McCain are doing the same thing. Aren't you familiar with how this works by now?
And if that really angers you that much, you need thicker skin, brother. There's been bad-natured stuff said on both sides, dude. Like Bill said, chill out.
April 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama will say. "And I was glad to hear it. But when he’s had the chance to do something about this problem, he’s opted for continuing the do-nothing approach of the Bush years."
Exactly the same as Hillary.
April 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dembillc, your obsession with the fucking whores comment is positively pathological. I think it says far more about you than about Obama supporters.
Of course, it's been pointed out multiple times that that neither Randi Rhodes nor the event she was speaking at were connected to the Obama campaign, and that she was, in fact, disciplined for the remarks by Air America.
So seriously, buddy, if you can't stop posting it, you might want to think about upping your meds.
April 11, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yo Obama!
Enforce the Sherman Anti-trust Acts and ask Congress to return the tax rates to the level they were when the Republican administration of President Eisenhower. The CEO straw-man issue will disappear.
April 11, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This will certainly cement the Republican vote and likely cause less crossover for those that were briefly enamored by Obama.
I doubt many are pleased with some of the compensation stories but many also know that tinkering with this through legislation is going to have negative unintended consequences. And, I guarantee that corporations will find a way to work around any new legislation. This concept just once again points out naive Obama is.
April 11, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not good enough. The law must be changed to allow binding votes by the owners of the company (shareholders).
April 11, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
April 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember how conservatives said welfare was a reward for bad behavior? How about golden parachutes for executives who fail? Merrill Lynch former CEO Stan O'Neal walked away from the disaster he created with over $160 million in stock options.
Tax golden parachutes at 95 percent.
April 11, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink