Annual Fundraising Appeal

The US Geological Survey recorded a minor earthquake this morning with its epicenter near Wasilla, Alaska, the probable result of Sarah Palin opening her mail box to find the latest issue of CounterPunch magazine we sent her. A few moments later she Instagrammed this startling comment…

Ayers

The lunatic Right certainly has plenty of problems. We’ve made it our business to not only expose these absurdities, but to challenge them directly. With another election cycle gaining steam, more rhetoric and vitriol will be directed at progressive issues. More hatred will be spewed at minorities, women, gays and the poor. There will be calls for more fracking and war. We won’t back down like the Democrats. We’ll continue to publish fact-based critiques and investigative reports on the shenanigans and evil of the Radical Right. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.

Day10

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
button-store2_19

or use
pp1

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Self-Dealing Corporate Payouts

Lee Raymond’s Unconscionable Platinum Parachute

by RALPH NADER

Exxon Mobil reports that it is sending retiring chairman Lee Raymond off with one of the most lavish executive compensation and retirement packages in history–an estimated $398 million in total.

This unconscionable windfall cannot be justified by any serious measure of Raymond’s performance, especially since the company’s record-breaking $36 billion annual profits last year had more to do with the Mobil merger, refinery bottlenecks, politically-driven tax breaks and geopolitical events than it did with managerial effectiveness.

The self-dealing that leads to payouts like Raymond’s exposes the failure of corporate boards to protect the interests of shareholders. The conflicts of interest held by compensation consultants and interlocking relationships with other boards of directors make a mockery of any claim to independence. With their rubber-stamp boards, top executives essentially pay themselves, while rendering their shareowners powerless.

The SEC should require that all companies above a certain size put their top executives’ compensation packages up to a proxy vote. If the shareholders believe such pay fails to match performance, they should have a means of signaling the need for restraint.

In fact, this reform has been required of British companies since 2002, one reason British CEOs at similarly-sized companies earn little more than half what their American counterparts do.