Corporate governance

For those concerned about special-interest spending in elections, today's Citizens United ruling was an unmistakable setback. This ruling pours gasoline on an already raging bonfire that will affect all federal and state elections. And it will pose an especially grave threat to the integrity of elected state courts.

But today's Citizens United ruling does have a silver lining: it explicitly says that corporations that pay to play in elections can be forced to disclose their financial sources. Companies running so-called independent campaigns can literally spend infinite amounts. But they do not have a constitutional right to do so anonymously.

The ruling thus gives clear guidance to state and federal lawmakers that they can pass disclosure laws, to provide desperately needed sunlight in a new era of runaway election spending. Moreover, it is a hopeful sign that First Amendment attacks, which have been used as a battering ram against legitimate election laws, may have reached their upper limit with the Citizens United case.

In today's ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court said businesses can spend directly from their treasuries on federal elections-a ruling that could unleash a tsunami of campaign cash. And that's clearly just the beginning. As quickly as they can be cranked out, new lawsuits will demand equal rights for unions-and for spending on state and local elections, not just federal campaigns.

It's easy to imagine where this will lead, especially for those who focus on the specialized area of judicial elections.

Goldman Sachs, the former bailed out investment bank, wastes too much of the corporate wad on lavish compensation arrangements. Notably, for instance, the company recently announced that it was setting aside $16.7 billion for employee compensation. That's around $700,000 per employee. Really.

At a time when the economy is contracting and job losses expanding, such numbers have observers miffed. At least one pension fund, The Security Police and Fire Professionals of American Retirement Fund, which had invested in Goldman, has hired a lawyer and filed suit to try to put a stop the payout.

Fortunately, such suits raise the issues and send a message to leaders of public companies. But, unfortunately, there's little these shareholders or anyone can actually do to stop the Goldman-like bonanzas.

As it turns out, pay for performance at many U.S. firms is frequently anything but. Often executives at companies receive lavish incomes for average production. Worse, some get fortunes, even though their performance has been subpar. And, worse still, sometimes executives receive sheer windfalls, even while their performance has been awful.

In fact, the Goldman payout isn't the first time high executive compensation has raised shareholder ire.