[Accipitriform]

> But the CEO doesn't own the company, the investors do, so why would the CEO be the one to state the goals leaving investors to "take it or leave it"?

Well, one point of the article is that these days 62% of CEO income is equity, so in most cases the CEO is also an "investor".

It does seem to me that creates a conflict of interest, in that a short-term plan to increase share price may not be in the long-term interests of the company. Yet, the CEO will likely not be around for the long haul and benefits more from short-term thinking.

I'm generally not a fan of Warren, but a good bit of this makes sense to me.

I think the most questionable part is: "At least 75% of directors and shareholders would need to approve before a corporation could make any political expenditures". That is just thrown in there with no explanation, and is likely intended to cripple Republicans by not allowing campaign contributions in almost all cases. That is likely the poison pill that will doom this legislation.