4 ms·

HEY FULL TIME ANGEL INVESTORS AND VCs: Any federal district judge in the country can say these aspects of the Exchange Act (and the Securities Act) chills spe

HEY FULL TIME ANGEL INVESTORS AND VCs: Any federal district judge in the country can say these aspects of the Exchange Act (and the Securities Act) chills speech. The only reason this hasn't been challenged is because it doesn't affect accredited investors like you, and the people it does affect don't even know it affects them BECAUSE THE SPEECH IS CHILLED! Please help. These laws are nearing 100 years old, but it has only been the last 20 or so where its been a problem because companies are going public so late as well as few and far between, all while the market efficiencies have improved enough where it makes sense to easily give out equity and things that may be construed as securities. But these laws have always chilled speech and recent case law can be used to extend "free speech" into corporate and financial matters. So please, go for it! Hire the same law firm that did Citizens United, they always go for 1st amendment no matter what the context!

xevb3k 8y ago
Could someone spell this out for me, I don’t really understand how speech is chilled here.
- arkades 8y ago
  Because spending money is now “speech:”
- evbots 8y ago
  I think the line of reasoning here is that money == speech
Kinnard 8y ago
Flagger, why did you flag this comment? I think it's an excellent comment.
- usaphp 8y ago
  Not a flagged but maybe because of caps?
toast0 8y ago
The real question is if this is meaningful stock ownership or not. If it's meaningful ownership, then the company needs to do the public disclosure. Otherwise it's very hard for the stockholders to have the right information to value the stock. I think you could do the disclosures, not have a public offering, include restrictive covenants on sales, and be able to give shares away.
bogomipz 8y ago
>"Any federal district judge in the country can say these aspects of the Exchange Act (and the Securities Act) chills speech." Could you elaborate on how and why this provision(701) chills free speech? Thanks.
stale2002 8y ago
This misrepresents what Citizens United was about. The idea of Citizens United was not that corporations are people, and therefore have free speech rights. It is instead that corporation is just another word for "groups of people", and that groups of people retain their rights, even when they join together to do something.
- gammateam 8y ago
  The comment wasn't about Citizens United, it was about hiring the same law firm for representation because they're good OHHH I think you thought that was the case law I referring to! There will be plenty

xevb3k 8y ago

Could someone spell this out for me, I don’t really understand how speech is chilled here.

arkades 8y ago
Because spending money is now “speech:”
evbots 8y ago
I think the line of reasoning here is that money == speech

Kinnard 8y ago

Flagger, why did you flag this comment? I think it's an excellent comment.

usaphp 8y ago
Not a flagged but maybe because of caps?

toast0 8y ago

The real question is if this is meaningful stock ownership or not. If it's meaningful ownership, then the company needs to do the public disclosure. Otherwise it's very hard for the stockholders to have the right information to value the stock. I think you could do the disclosures, not have a public offering, include restrictive covenants on sales, and be able to give shares away.

bogomipz 8y ago

>"Any federal district judge in the country can say these aspects of the Exchange Act (and the Securities Act) chills speech." Could you elaborate on how and why this provision(701) chills free speech? Thanks.

stale2002 8y ago

This misrepresents what Citizens United was about. The idea of Citizens United was not that corporations are people, and therefore have free speech rights. It is instead that corporation is just another word for "groups of people", and that groups of people retain their rights, even when they join together to do something.

gammateam 8y ago
The comment wasn't about Citizens United, it was about hiring the same law firm for representation because they're good OHHH I think you thought that was the case law I referring to! There will be plenty