Podcast (attitude): Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Part One:
We revel in the latest news presented by Mark Joseph Stern, Slate’s reporter on law and the courts. A 3-judge state court in North Carolina has unanimously struck down that state’s partisan gerrymandered election districts, finding that the districts as drawn violate three separate provisions of the NC state constitution.
This decision is especially helpful because it relies on state law, not federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that federal courts lack authority to adjudicate such gerrymandering cases based on claims under federal law. But this NC state court decision, based on state law claims, will be virtually impossible for the US Supreme Court to overturn.
Part Two:
We speak with Erik Gordon, professor of law at the University of Michigan, about whether corporations should focus exclusively on maximizing shareholder profits, or whether instead they should also contribute to the public good. The Business Roundtable recently issued a statement supporting the latter view.
While this is a good idea, the Roundtable has no legal authority over corporations whatsoever. That said, there is no law – either state or federal – that prohibits corporations from considering the interests of non-shareholders who are affected by corporate behavior, such as delivering value to their customers, investing in their employees, dealing fairly and ethically with their suppliers, and supporting their communities and embracing sustainable practices.
While the law is unlikely to change any time soon, public pressure might help CEOs and managers realize that the public expects more of their companies than simply maximizing profits for shareholders. This, in turn, could bring about needed changes in corporate practices.
