Fascism: California lawmakers set to mandate a woman on every corporate board

On Wednesday, lawmakers in the Marxist sanctuary state of California passed a measure mandating at least one woman be placed on the board of every publicly-traded company in the state by the end of next year.  Failure to comply with the edict will be punished with a hefty fine — $100,000 for the first offense and $300,000 for subsequent offenses.

The measure, which can be seen here, reads, in part:

301.3. (a) No later than the close of the 2019 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall have a minimum of one female director on its board. A corporation may increase the number of directors on its board to comply with this section.
(b) No later than the close of the 2021 calendar year, a publicly held domestic or foreign corporation whose principal executive offices, according to the corporation’s SEC 10-K form, are located in California shall comply with the following:
(1) If its number of directors is six or more, the corporation shall have a minimum of three female directors.
(2) If its number of directors is five, the corporation shall have a minimum of two female directors.
(3) If its number of directors is four or fewer, the corporation shall have a minimum of one female director.

take our poll - story continues below

Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • Should Brett Kavanaugh withdraw over sexual misconduct allegations?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Conservative Firing Line updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Want to make federal employees easier to fire? Here’s one solution

It further states:

(e) (1) The Secretary of State may adopt regulations to implement this section. The Secretary of State may impose fines for violations of this section as follows:
(A) For failure to timely file board member information with the Secretary of State pursuant to a regulation adopted pursuant to this paragraph, the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(B) For a first violation, the amount of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).
(C) For a second or subsequent violation, the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000).
(2) For the purposes of this subdivision, each director seat required by this section to be held by a female, which is not held by a female during at least a portion of a calendar year, shall count as a violation.
(3) For purposes of this subdivision, a female director having held a seat for at least a portion of the year shall not be a violation.

According to CNN Money:

Research shows that female representation on boards is key for women’s advancement in corporate America. Women on boards are more likely to consider female leaders for the C-suite and choose more diverse candidates for the board itself.

If the bill is signed into law by California governor Jerry Brown, it would be the first state to take such a step. Unlike some European countries, the United States doesn’t mandate female representation on company boards. A majority of companies in the S&P 500 have at least one woman on their boards, but only 25% have more than two, according to a study from PwC.

But setting quotas for representation can be controversial, says Vicki W. Kramer, lead author of the landmark 2006 study, “Critical Mass on Corporate Boards.” Opponents argue that pressure from quotas will lead to unqualified female members and potential discrimination against male candidates.

There’s also another very disturbing aspect of this — Will states now dictate who companies can hire based solely on race or gender?

Naturally, this didn’t well with many, based on the responses posted by Twitchy:

Then there’s this take, which is quite appropriate under the circumstances:

The bill doesn’t stop there.  It actually goes so far as to define “female” as “an individual who self-identifies her gender as a woman, without regard to the individual’s designated sex at birth.”

How much farther will this go?  Who knows…

But we can’t help but wonder:  What’s wrong with hiring someone based on their qualifications and merit?  Shouldn’t those be the primary concerns?

Related:

If you haven’t checked out and liked our Facebook page, please go here and do so.  You can also follow us on Twitter at @co_firing_line and be sure to check out our MeWe page here and our new PatrioticSpace group here.

If you appreciate independent conservative reports like this, please go here and support us on Patreon.

And while you’re at it, be sure to check out our friends at Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative front-page founded by ex-military!

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.