Posted on 05/13/2010 7:13:37 PM PDT by nuconvert
Nearly 300 insurers in California have rejected a state regulator's order to stop making investment in corporations engaged in business ties with Iran.
The insurers, including more than a dozen major firms such as State Farm, Geico and Prudential, are questioning the authority of state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner to impose sanctions on such firms.
On Thursday, Poizner released a list of 296 companies that have rejected his order to stop buying stock in 50 companies that operate in Iran, Los Angeles Times, reported.
Poizner estimates that as of March 31, California insurers held about $6 billion worth of stock in foreign-owned corporations that operate in Iran in the areas of defense and energy.
Companies have been put on notice that those securities would be disqualified from being used as part of an insurer's legally required reserves for paying claims, the Department of Insurance said.
I actually think the guy might have grown a little.
Of course, you won't see this in the Sacramento Bee.
Besides GE who are the 49 other companies.
The article is to be taken with a grain of salt, a jaundiced eye, and a search for confirming sources as this source is Iranian Press TV.
Anyone working against the Iranian goals is a target IMO.
Poizner has NO authority to do this. No state bureaucrat has the authority to tell businesses that they must boycott other businesses engaged in foreign commerce. This is the sole prerogative of Congress and the President.
These insurance companies SHOULD ignore the order. Poizner has not legal authority to issue the order he did. Conservatives follow the law, they don't make it up in their bureaucratic minds and expect everyone else to follow it.
Certainly these insurance companies SHOULD avoid making investments in some of the companies, but Steve Poizner has no authority to force them to do so.
Poizner is just following the example of the EPA and other bureaucrats who think they can enact laws by the stroke of some regulatory pen. He is NOT a conservative. Never has been. He is now and always has been a knee jerk government bureaucrat who is just recently pretending to be a conservative.
Unless there is a Calif law saying what he ordered, and he is merely implementing it, then you are correct. A bureaucrat has no authority to order any behavior from a free person.
My point was that Press TV is Iranian government, and cannot be trusted. It was my concern that were other sources available they should probably have been initially posted for credibility.
Thanks for the links.
Even the California Legislature has no authority to tell an insurance company to boycott businesses that have ties to Iran or any other country. They can limit the types of investments in order to protect the viability of an insurance company, but they can't dictate foreign policy or institute political boycotts of companies doing business in foreign countries. Only the Federal Government has that power.
Likewise these stupid sanctuary cities have no authority to boycott Arizona. By doing so, they are violating the constitution as noted in literally dozens of Supreme Court cases. Poizner's order is unconstitutional on its face. This makes me doubt all of Poizner's "conservative" credentials. Obviously he has as much respect for the Constitution as the Los Angeles City Council, which would be... NONE!
I know what Press TV is. Thanks.
I agree that the cities/governments boycotting another government is contrary to the US Constitution. I guess they’ll next be raising armies to go after Arizona.
In terms of insurance companies doing business with Iran, I have no problem with anyone refusing to do business with Iran. I would agree that foreign policy is generally the domain of the federal government, but I do recall that states will enter into various trade pacts with foreign governments.
They can do as they please with their own money provided it does not violate the INTERSTATE commerce clause by interfering or discriminating against other states in the union. But they cannot dictate that other companies in their state comply with the State's ideas as to what foreign policy should be. IOW, they can't prevent me from investing in companies that they might not wish to invest in merely because they have a political dispute with some other country or state that is not under a general Federal trade embargo.
When I first saw this line, I thought it read, "stop making investment in corporations engaged in business ties with AZ."
It's getting late.
No, you’re dang right! What about AZ?
Nearly 300 insurers in California have rejected a state regulator's order to stop making investment in corporations engaged in business ties with Iran.I'm sure they'll be wholehearted supporters of the Arizona boycott. Thanks nuconvert.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.