Texas Comptroller Chuck Hegar, running for re-election for a third term, has made quite a name for himself as a Red state financial officer who is leading the boycott of financial services firms deemed to be boycotting fossil fuel companies or companies who are doing business with them. In a press release of August 24, 2022, Mr. Hegar ominously warned that “The environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) movement has produced an opaque and perverse system in which some financial companies no longer make decisions in the best interest of their shareholders or their clients, but instead use their financial clout to push a social and political agenda shrouded in secrecy.” Ryon Harms has pointed out the naked political reasons behind this “Infowars Investing,” as well as the, ironically and sadly, harm this may cause to the citizens of Red states which engage in such actions. Neil Minow has brilliantly weighed in more generally with “Larry Fink: Here’s Your Answer to the Despicable Letter from the GOP Attorneys General.”

This piece is more limited in its scope than Harms’ and Minnow’. In fact, it is prosaic to the point of being dull and arcane. My focus is to give careful consideration to the dubious legislative spawn of this Red state campaign against sensible investing. I will do so through a linguistic analysis of the actual language of the Texas Section 809 Boycott Provision. It is the foundation for the dramatic, newsworthy, and politically effective actions Mr. Hegar is taking and generalized in the letter from the GOP Attorneys General.

Source link for this article