Top Paid CEOs (2011)

[AAFitz]

Very cool thread, some pure facts mixed with just a touch of colonoscopy advice...hard to make that work typically but dammed if GDog hasnt pulled it off.

[notyou2]

Good thread, If it gets long enough, I am hoping beckytheblonde can crochet herself a sweater.

[Lootifer]

Consequences dictate...

[thegreekdog]

Very cool thread, some pure facts mixed with just a touch of colonoscopy advice...hard to make that work typically but dammed if GDog hasnt pulled it off.

I can't take credit for the colonoscopy advice - that's one part Neoteny, one part Timminz, three parts James Maynard Keenan.

I'm going to add more (mostly because four of the first five CEOs appear to be in similar industries).

[AAFitz]

Very cool thread, some pure facts mixed with just a touch of colonoscopy advice...hard to make that work typically but dammed if GDog hasnt pulled it off.

I can't take credit for the colonoscopy advice - that's one part Neoteny, one part Timminz, three parts James Maynard Keenan.

I'm going to add more (mostly because four of the first five CEOs appear to be in similar industries).

Excellent word choice.

[Timminz]

My research for the top 5 highest paid CEOs and who they donated to (since 2000). All information is from the Federal Election Commission website (which is public).

(1) David Simon (CEO of Simon Property Group)
- Gave to three general business PACs which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (National Association of REITs, First Health Group, and Real Estate Roundtable).
- Gave to one Democrat-specific PAC (The Fund for a Greater America)
- Gave to nine Democratic candidates (including John Kerry and Chris Dodd)
- Gave to four Republican candidates (including Orrin Hatch)

(2) Leslie Moonves (CEO of CBS)
- Gave to two general business PACs which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (CBS Corporation and Rely on Your Beliefs)
- Gave to one Republican-specific PAC (The Missouri Republican State Committee)
- Gave to one Republican candidate (Roy Blount - a Missouri guy)
- Gave to nine Democratic candidates (including John Kerry, Dick Gephart and Tom Daschle)

(3) David Zaslav (CEO of Discovery Communications)
- Gave to one general business PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (National Cable and Telecommunications)
- Gave to two Democratic candidates (including Hillary Clinton)

(4) Sanjay Jha (CEO of Motorola Mobility)
- Gave to one general business PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (Qualcomm Incorporated)
- Gave to two Democrat-specific PACs (The congressional and senatorial campaign committees)
- Gave to three Democratic candidates (Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Barack Obama)

(5) Philippe Dauman (CEO of Viacom)
- Gave to one general buiness PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (Viacom International)
- Gave to one Republican-specific PAC (Every Republican is Crucial)
- Gave to two Democratic-specific PACs (America Forward Leadership and Green Mountain)
- Gave to twelve Democratic candidates (including Barack Obama, Chuck Shumer, Arlen Specter, Bob Casey, Jim Clyburn and Hillary Clinton)
- Gave to eight Republican candidates (including Orrin Hatch, Rudy Guliani, and Mitch McConell).

Are there dollar amounts available too?

[thegreekdog]

My research for the top 5 highest paid CEOs and who they donated to (since 2000). All information is from the Federal Election Commission website (which is public).

(1) David Simon (CEO of Simon Property Group)
- Gave to three general business PACs which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (National Association of REITs, First Health Group, and Real Estate Roundtable).
- Gave to one Democrat-specific PAC (The Fund for a Greater America)
- Gave to nine Democratic candidates (including John Kerry and Chris Dodd)
- Gave to four Republican candidates (including Orrin Hatch)

(2) Leslie Moonves (CEO of CBS)
- Gave to two general business PACs which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (CBS Corporation and Rely on Your Beliefs)
- Gave to one Republican-specific PAC (The Missouri Republican State Committee)
- Gave to one Republican candidate (Roy Blount - a Missouri guy)
- Gave to nine Democratic candidates (including John Kerry, Dick Gephart and Tom Daschle)

(3) David Zaslav (CEO of Discovery Communications)
- Gave to one general business PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (National Cable and Telecommunications)
- Gave to two Democratic candidates (including Hillary Clinton)

(4) Sanjay Jha (CEO of Motorola Mobility)
- Gave to one general business PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (Qualcomm Incorporated)
- Gave to two Democrat-specific PACs (The congressional and senatorial campaign committees)
- Gave to three Democratic candidates (Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Barack Obama)

(5) Philippe Dauman (CEO of Viacom)
- Gave to one general buiness PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (Viacom International)
- Gave to one Republican-specific PAC (Every Republican is Crucial)
- Gave to two Democratic-specific PACs (America Forward Leadership and Green Mountain)
- Gave to twelve Democratic candidates (including Barack Obama, Chuck Shumer, Arlen Specter, Bob Casey, Jim Clyburn and Hillary Clinton)
- Gave to eight Republican candidates (including Orrin Hatch, Rudy Guliani, and Mitch McConell).

Are there dollar amounts available too?

There are. They are limited though (so no one is giving $2 million to a particular candidate). I believe the most I saw was one of these guys had given $200,000 over a 10 year period to his various political affiliates.

[PLAYER57832]

This is interesting, but without context is of limited value.

Its not just the PACS to which these guys donate, but how the money is used, specifically by those PACs and even the general political tone these people bring to their companies.

In the 1950's, it was pretty common for company executives to dictate pretty personal matters.. not just superficial things like dress, but spouses, organizations, etc. In the 60's and 70's, that type of pressure began to lesson a great deal or be limited to things more specifically to do with business. (though of course there was some overlap... the local country club made some meeetings/contacts easier, for example) Now it seems that people are no longer allowed to even have personal political opinions that differ from leadership.

If a guy is donating money to truly educate and inform, then I have no problem, even if some people consider the forum to be "tilted". I DO have a problem when there is no check on whether information put out is accurate, when opinions are unprovable/unverifiable opinions and statements (aka advertising "it's fantastico!"...... legally meaningless, albiet in this case with a political bent). And when alternative voices are, if not suppressed, simply not accomodated because the folks with them cannot or will not put forward huge sums of money.

Also, what percentage of the total take for these various PACs does the donation represent... and are multiple groups really just funnels for other, more hidden groups.

[PLAYER57832]

There are. They are limited though (so no one is giving $2 million to a particular candidate). I believe the most I saw was one of these guys had given $200,000 over a 10 year period to his various political affiliates.

Talking about candidates is somewhat deceptive in this case, because more often these folks are focused on specific issues. They don't necessarily care much who gets to be president (probably more about the senate and house, but maybe not), they want to ensure that whomever is elected will swing things their way.. and mostly in seemingly small ways.

I am too tired right now to bring up specific examples, but in general, it might be something like not wanting , say the speed limit on a particular stretch of highway reduced because it would slow deliveries. That could be accomplished by someone wanting limits on a different segment (leaving the one in question as a throughway, for example), by simply limiting funding to the agencies in charge of funding any studies on the problem with increased speeds on that section, or by simply pushing for other priorities.. maybe smog limits or even poor road conditions (which would allow for a safer road and thus negate studies showing the speed needed to be reduced, but the company would likely just make this a "we need safer roads" stance... not mention that they really want to make sure that the speed stays high.

In other words, they have an endgame.. electing Obama or Romney is not it. But by focusing on Obama versus Romney, the endgame can be distorted and hidden.

[GabonX]

How many of these people are paid off of commissions? And should companies limit the amount top producers can earn?

[Timminz]

My research for the top 5 highest paid CEOs and who they donated to (since 2000). All information is from the Federal Election Commission website (which is public).

(1) David Simon (CEO of Simon Property Group)
- Gave to three general business PACs which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (National Association of REITs, First Health Group, and Real Estate Roundtable).
- Gave to one Democrat-specific PAC (The Fund for a Greater America)
- Gave to nine Democratic candidates (including John Kerry and Chris Dodd)
- Gave to four Republican candidates (including Orrin Hatch)

(2) Leslie Moonves (CEO of CBS)
- Gave to two general business PACs which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (CBS Corporation and Rely on Your Beliefs)
- Gave to one Republican-specific PAC (The Missouri Republican State Committee)
- Gave to one Republican candidate (Roy Blount - a Missouri guy)
- Gave to nine Democratic candidates (including John Kerry, Dick Gephart and Tom Daschle)

(3) David Zaslav (CEO of Discovery Communications)
- Gave to one general business PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (National Cable and Telecommunications)
- Gave to two Democratic candidates (including Hillary Clinton)

(4) Sanjay Jha (CEO of Motorola Mobility)
- Gave to one general business PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (Qualcomm Incorporated)
- Gave to two Democrat-specific PACs (The congressional and senatorial campaign committees)
- Gave to three Democratic candidates (Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Barack Obama)

(5) Philippe Dauman (CEO of Viacom)
- Gave to one general buiness PAC which gave money to Republicans and Democrats (Viacom International)
- Gave to one Republican-specific PAC (Every Republican is Crucial)
- Gave to two Democratic-specific PACs (America Forward Leadership and Green Mountain)
- Gave to twelve Democratic candidates (including Barack Obama, Chuck Shumer, Arlen Specter, Bob Casey, Jim Clyburn and Hillary Clinton)
- Gave to eight Republican candidates (including Orrin Hatch, Rudy Guliani, and Mitch McConell).

Are there dollar amounts available too?

There are. They are limited though (so no one is giving $2 million to a particular candidate). I believe the most I saw was one of these guys had given $200,000 over a 10 year period to his various political affiliates.

I ask because the number of candidates, and PACs from each party are mentioned, but not amounts. Is it fair to assume they gave approximately the same amount to each candidate, or is it possible (for example) that some are giving ten of thousands to each Democrat, and $100 to each Republican?

[thegreekdog]

This is interesting, but without context is of limited value.

Its not just the PACS to which these guys donate, but how the money is used, specifically by those PACs and even the general political tone these people bring to their companies.

What kind of context are you looking for? With the donations to individual campaigns, the money goes to the campaign itself. With the donations to PACs which donate then to multiple different politically affiliated groups, the money goes to individual campaigns or to party-specific congressional or presidential campaign groups. Finally, with the donations to PACs which donate to one party, the money goes to one party's candidates or congressional or presidential campaign groups.

Also, what percentage of the total take for these various PACs does the donation represent... and are multiple groups really just funnels for other, more hidden groups.

A small percentage of each PAC's total take. They are not hidden groups as far as I can tell. If you look at an individual PACs contributions and donations they generally correspond to political candidates.

I think if you do some of your own research you'll find what you're looking for.

In other words, they have an endgame.. electing Obama or Romney is not it. But by focusing on Obama versus Romney, the endgame can be distorted and hidden.

I don't disagree with this.

I ask because the number of candidates, and PACs from each party are mentioned, but not amounts. Is it fair to assume they gave approximately the same amount to each candidate, or is it possible (for example) that some are giving ten of thousands to each Democrat, and $100 to each Republican?

They are giving the same amount to each candidate. The good news (if it is good news) is that when Bob gives $1000 to Orrin Hatch, he's not also giving $1000 to the guy running against Orrin Hatch. That kind of makes me less angry about the whole thing.

[thegreekdog]

In case you people didn't know, the purpose of me doing this was to show that rich people and businesses don't just give money to Republicans. I hope most of you know that by now, but it doesn't look like the general public knows it yet. I'm surprised this hasn't been done by a major media outlet yet. Oh wait... no... I'm not surprised.

[PLAYER57832]

How many of these people are paid off of commissions? And should companies limit the amount top producers can earn?

CEOs generally are not paid on commission, per se.. though their income is theoretically tied to company gains. (not profits, gains).

The problem is that that for many companies, the actual production and service are almost the secondary market/goal. The product is irrelevant, its about making money off of stock sales or sale of assets, etc. Theoretically that should be tied to actual, traditional profits, but its too often not. This creates a whole range of ethical/paradigm shift type problems. Not caring about the product can mean selling things that are actually harmful... and a focus that plain ignores the harm, to ignoring impacts on workers (I have heard it said more than once that whoever invented the night shift never worked it... just as a mild example of what I mean), to a range of issues. Its the old case of the "absentee owner". An owner who is not literally on the ground, seeing what is happening AND understanding what is being done is far more likely to just "not notice" or truly not see problems. When the focus is money, they tend to hire people who's focus is money... and so forth. So, the CEO, the investors literally may not know that the reason the company is so profitable is that they have hired a bunch of underage workers to sew shirts (to name a rather well-known example). If its child labor, then all it takes is people finding out and then things do tend to change. However, if its something like hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking"), with harm that's just not known (no one is even really studying it, but we are all told basically to just trust the companies with our safety), the issue is much more complex.

The thing is that none of that "just happens". In teh 1900's the robber barons could have been excused because values were very different (it was OK to subject certain people to harsher conditions, etc.) and a lot of understanding about damage just was not there. (and note that they, too took their money to do "good works", a lot of real and true good.

These PACS are now intentionally reversing the education trends, the awareness of "other", of the environment, etc. By donating to the PACs instead of doing more direct work, these people are able to side-step in the same way they often sidestep harm caused by the companies they manage.

[PLAYER57832]

In case you people didn't know, the purpose of me doing this was to show that rich people and businesses don't just give money to Republicans. I hope most of you know that by now, but it doesn't look like the general public knows it yet. I'm surprised this hasn't been done by a major media outlet yet. Oh wait... no... I'm not surprised.

That was my major point.

But, also that looking at that as even important rather ignores political power realities. In the context of these donations, neither Obama nor Romney are putting forward real reform and this is part of why.

However, the context is also how these PACs are manipulating people, how and why. That is something even apart from these individual donors.

I think if I continue at this moment, I will make less and less sense.. so I am going to exit. Not ignoring, may not get back immediately. Thank you for reading my comments.

[thegreekdog]

In case you people didn't know, the purpose of me doing this was to show that rich people and businesses don't just give money to Republicans. I hope most of you know that by now, but it doesn't look like the general public knows it yet. I'm surprised this hasn't been done by a major media outlet yet. Oh wait... no... I'm not surprised.

That was my major point.

But, also that looking at that as even important rather ignores political power realities. In the context of these donations, neither Obama nor Romney are putting forward real reform and this is part of why.

However, the context is also how these PACs are manipulating people, how and why. That is something even apart from these individual donors.

I think if I continue at this moment, I will make less and less sense.. so I am going to exit. Not ignoring, may not get back immediately. Thank you for reading my comments.

I'm not sure that's my point (but maybe). I think we can all agree that the wealthy help politicians make political decisions through money. I'm merely trying to educate people that Democrats are certainly not the party of reform or the party of the worker or the party of small business, etc. Neither are the Republicans (in case anyone was wondering).

In terms of your comment on PACs, does it matter whether they are manipulating people? If both parties (or candidates) have PACs running advertisements and both are misleading the public, does it really matter?

[GabonX]

How many of these people are paid off of commissions? And should companies limit the amount top producers can earn?

CEOs generally are not paid on commission, per se.. though their income is theoretically tied to company gains. (not profits, gains).

The problem is that that for many companies, the actual production and service are almost the secondary market/goal. The product is irrelevant, its about making money off of stock sales or sale of assets, etc. Theoretically that should be tied to actual, traditional profits, but its too often not. This creates a whole range of ethical/paradigm shift type problems. Not caring about the product can mean selling things that are actually harmful... and a focus that plain ignores the harm, to ignoring impacts on workers (I have heard it said more than once that whoever invented the night shift never worked it... just as a mild example of what I mean), to a range of issues. Its the old case of the "absentee owner". An owner who is not literally on the ground, seeing what is happening AND understanding what is being done is far more likely to just "not notice" or truly not see problems. When the focus is money, they tend to hire people who's focus is money... and so forth. So, the CEO, the investors literally may not know that the reason the company is so profitable is that they have hired a bunch of underage workers to sew shirts (to name a rather well-known example). If its child labor, then all it takes is people finding out and then things do tend to change. However, if its something like hydraulic fracturing (aka "fracking"), with harm that's just not known (no one is even really studying it, but we are all told basically to just trust the companies with our safety), the issue is much more complex.

The thing is that none of that "just happens". In teh 1900's the robber barons could have been excused because values were very different (it was OK to subject certain people to harsher conditions, etc.) and a lot of understanding about damage just was not there. (and note that they, too took their money to do "good works", a lot of real and true good.

These PACS are now intentionally reversing the education trends, the awareness of "other", of the environment, etc. By donating to the PACs instead of doing more direct work, these people are able to side-step in the same way they often sidestep harm caused by the companies they manage.

That's a very roundabout way to not answer either question...

Does anyone know? Does anyone have an opinion in regards to the second question?

[thegreekdog]

They are not paid commission (as far as I know).

Companies should limit the amount CEOs earn. Notice I did not type the words "government" or "law" or "regulation."

[GabonX]

They are not paid commission (as far as I know).

Is there an incentive to make greater gains for the company or do they get paid the same now matter what?

If not, the key to better performing CEOs could be to give them a base rate plus bonuses based on performance of the company while in their care.

[GabonX]

It's just that I see comments like this:

All of them are ridiculously overpaid!

And I see that the highest paid CEO is:

1. David Simon, Simon Property Group, $137.2 million, up 458 percent.


I don't know exactly how David Simon of Simon Property group made 137.2 million in 2011, but I think it may be the result of David Simon's efforts and talent. I'm not convinced that Simon Property group would have had a 458 percent increase last year if not for David Simon, and that because of that he may deserve the 137.2 million.

Pork

[GreecePwns]

I've always hoped there'd be a candidate that, throughout their political careers, acted like a generic, pro-business Republican and/or Democrat and did everything they could to rise to the presidency, amassing millions in political donations from the power brokers in all major industries. Then, once they have taken the highest office in the country, they would go "hahaha, f*ck you guys!" and reveal himself to be a communist or libertarian or something else unexpected.

[Lootifer]

My wife works in the remuneration area or HR, and she assures me that almost every CEO (and especially those in the US) will be on a very high proportion of at risk or incentive based pay - similar to what you would see in comission based sales jobs.

Thats how ole Mr Simon topped the charts, obviously SPG had a very good year and his remuneration reflects that.

While I agree with TGD that the law or government shouldnt get involved; CEO pay packages are a good example of market failure.

The natural incentive is to elevate your CEO pay packages such that you attract the highest quality candidate, this results in what is a price war, with the biggest losers not being the competitors in the wars but the lackys lower down the food chain who surrport the CEOs.

Through a combination of elitism, old boys clubs, neopotism and many other wonderful components of high end corporate behaviour this price war has been sustained until such a point that CEOs get staggeringly high salaries. (this is the market failure, not the initial incentive or resulting price war)

[GabonX]

My wife works in the remuneration area or HR, and she assures me that almost every CEO (and especially those in the US) will be on a very high proportion of at risk or incentive based pay - similar to what you would see in comission based sales jobs.

Thats how ole Mr Simon topped the charts, obviously SPG had a very good year and his remuneration reflects that.

While I agree with TGD that the law or government shouldnt get involved; CEO pay packages are a good example of market failure.

The natural incentive is to elevate your CEO pay packages such that you attract the highest quality candidate, this results in what is a price war, with the biggest losers not being the competitors in the wars but the lackys lower down the food chain who surrport the CEOs.

Through a combination of elitism, old boys clubs, neopotism and many other wonderful components of high end corporate behaviour this price war has been sustained until such a point that CEOs get staggeringly high salaries. (this is the market failure, not the initial incentive or resulting price war)

Smart pigs get fat, greedy pigs get slaughtered..

Hazmat

[thegreekdog]

My wife works in the remuneration area or HR, and she assures me that almost every CEO (and especially those in the US) will be on a very high proportion of at risk or incentive based pay - similar to what you would see in comission based sales jobs.

Thats how ole Mr Simon topped the charts, obviously SPG had a very good year and his remuneration reflects that.

While I agree with TGD that the law or government shouldnt get involved; CEO pay packages are a good example of market failure.

The natural incentive is to elevate your CEO pay packages such that you attract the highest quality candidate, this results in what is a price war, with the biggest losers not being the competitors in the wars but the lackys lower down the food chain who surrport the CEOs.

Through a combination of elitism, old boys clubs, neopotism and many other wonderful components of high end corporate behaviour this price war has been sustained until such a point that CEOs get staggeringly high salaries. (this is the market failure, not the initial incentive or resulting price war)

I don't think CEO prices are necessarily market failure. The market and the economy are able to bear these high salaries. Do people complain? Yes. Do they do anything other than complain? No.

[AndyDufresne]

My wife works in the remuneration area or HR, and she assures me that almost every CEO (and especially those in the US) will be on a very high proportion of at risk or incentive based pay - similar to what you would see in comission based sales jobs.

Thats how ole Mr Simon topped the charts, obviously SPG had a very good year and his remuneration reflects that.

While I agree with TGD that the law or government shouldnt get involved; CEO pay packages are a good example of market failure.

The natural incentive is to elevate your CEO pay packages such that you attract the highest quality candidate, this results in what is a price war, with the biggest losers not being the competitors in the wars but the lackys lower down the food chain who surrport the CEOs.

Through a combination of elitism, old boys clubs, neopotism and many other wonderful components of high end corporate behaviour this price war has been sustained until such a point that CEOs get staggeringly high salaries. (this is the market failure, not the initial incentive or resulting price war)

I don't think CEO prices are necessarily market failure. The market and the economy are able to bear these high salaries. Do people complain? Yes. Do they do anything other than complain? No.

Is the fault really on the people though? I am not so sure, it seems like an easy out.


--Andy