Proud to be the 2nd backer 😎 on @BackerKit Crowdfunding for Critters: Wandering Monsters, printing fantasy graphic novel! www.backerkit.com/c/projects/m...

Corporate political spending should be a matter of shareholder concern/approval. There was a lot of eyerolling when I presented a paper a nearly a decade ago and explained how this would avoid political extortion: surely the government would never ask public corporations to kiss the ring!?

My allegedly libertarian friends tell me that all we're seeing here is the Silicon Valley Bro "move fast and break things" mentality, and so I shouldn't worry about it. Some of them even concede that maybe that's not a great way to run the infrastructure of the largest economy in the world.

We're watching the classical liberal tropes about the marketplace for ideas implode under their own weight right in front of us. And, ironically, being lectured simultaneously about how all viewpoints, no matter how absurd or extremist, must be engaged with seriously and civilly.

I'm not generally a ConLaw person, but I've been following the Skrmetti case quite closely. In particular, I've seen a variety of commentary on Gorsuch -- his silence during the oral argument, and his opinion in Bostock. I have some thoughts, below, but I welcome more expert commentary!

Corporate law/M&A people -- is there anything left to Siliconix (and the distinction between freeze-out mergers vs. tender offers)?

A bit about me:

I teach corporate law (and M&A, CorpFin, corporate governance, etc...) at FSU.

I write primarily about public markets: everything from the law and economics of the IPO decision, to appraisal arbitrage, to corporate governance in the shadow of the culture wars.

A rather short and somewhat experimental recent piece: www.floridalawreview.com/article/1220...

Comments most welcome!