4 ms·

How is this type of legislation not government restrictions in free speech? While I disagree with citizens United, it’s currently defining the law and most like

by mint2 4y ago

How is this type of legislation not government restrictions in free speech? While I disagree with citizens United, it’s currently defining the law and most likely supported by these groups. This seems like a similar disallowed restriction. I guess one difference is that they’re not explicitly banning the companies from those investments, they’re banning the state of Texas from doing business with the companies.

fwlr 4y ago
It’s really hard to tell anything about what’s going on here - the article is too busy telling you to get outraged, and it’s talking about legislation that apparently hasn’t even been proposed yet. It does quote one speaker as saying “if they’re going to mess with money that belongs to Texas retirees and undermine the very Texas economy, we’re gonna teach them some manners” which gives some indication of why Texas might have the right to interfere with the choice of investment and might care to interfere. But even then, once you null out the outrage, there’s so little here to go on.
- travisporter 4y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out. I had to really wrestle with my initial reaction to my first read of this article.
- freejazz 4y ago
  The Texas law on ESG is so poorly written, hard to imagine this one would be any different. Any Texan should be outraged that their state is wasting time and money on this sort of nonsense (suing blackrock because blackrock doesn't invest enough in Oil co's, except of course for the fact that it's the #1 investor in Oil co's).
advisedwang 4y ago
Citizens United was that spending money on getting a message out about electoral candidates - "express advocacy" - is protected. That doesn't mean spending money on other topics is protected. Now I can easily see the argument being extended - and it has is some small ways (e.g. FEC vs Cruz) - but Citizens United is pretty controversial even in the legal academy so I don't think it's a given that it would be.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by mint2 4y ago

fwlr 4y ago

It’s really hard to tell anything about what’s going on here - the article is too busy telling you to get outraged, and it’s talking about legislation that apparently hasn’t even been proposed yet. It does quote one speaker as saying “if they’re going to mess with money that belongs to Texas retirees and undermine the very Texas economy, we’re gonna teach them some manners” which gives some indication of why Texas might have the right to interfere with the choice of investment and might care to interfere. But even then, once you null out the outrage, there’s so little here to go on.

travisporter 4y ago
Thank you for pointing this out. I had to really wrestle with my initial reaction to my first read of this article.
freejazz 4y ago
The Texas law on ESG is so poorly written, hard to imagine this one would be any different. Any Texan should be outraged that their state is wasting time and money on this sort of nonsense (suing blackrock because blackrock doesn't invest enough in Oil co's, except of course for the fact that it's the #1 investor in Oil co's).

advisedwang 4y ago

Citizens United was that spending money on getting a message out about electoral candidates - "express advocacy" - is protected. That doesn't mean spending money on other topics is protected. Now I can easily see the argument being extended - and it has is some small ways (e.g. FEC vs Cruz) - but Citizens United is pretty controversial even in the legal academy so I don't think it's a given that it would be.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]