Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:06:12 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Approve or Disapprove?
#1
Approve
 
#2
Disapprove
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 18

Author Topic: Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  (Read 1324 times)
Moooooo
nickshepDEM
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,909


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 24, 2005, 03:21:37 PM »

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was created to protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures. The act covers issues such as establishing a public company accounting oversight board, auditor independence, corporate responsibility and enhanced financial disclosure.

Officially titled the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox, it was signed into law on July 30, 2002 by President Bush. It was designed to review the dated legislative audit requirements, and is considered the most significant change to federal securities laws in the United States since the New Deal in the 1930s.

The act came in the wake of a series of corporate financial scandals, including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, and WorldCom (now MCI). The law is named after sponsors Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) and Representative Michael G. Oxley (R-OH). It was approved by the House by a vote of 423-3 and by the Senate 99-0.

An brief outline of the history of the law is as follows:

The House passed Representative Oxley's bill (H.R. 3763) on April 25, 2002, by a vote of 334 to 90. The House then referred the "Corporate and Auditing Accountability, Responsibility, and Transparency Act" or "CAARTA" to the Senate Banking Committee with the support of President Bush and the SEC. At the time, however, the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.), was preparing his own proposal: Senate Bill 2673.

Senator Sarbanes’s bill passed the Senate Banking Committee on June 18, 2002, by a vote of seventeen to four. On June 25, 2002, WorldCom revealed that it had overstated its earnings by more than $3.8 billion during the past five quarters, primarily by improperly accounting for its operating costs. Senator Sarbanes introduced Senate Bill 2673 to the full Senate that very same day and it passed ninety-seven to zero less than three weeks later on July 15, 2002.

The House and the Senate formed a Conference Committee to reconcile the differences between Senator Sarbanes's bill (S. 2673) and Representative Oxley's bill (H.R. 3763). The conference committee relied heavily on Senate Bill 2673 and “most changes made by the conference committee strengthened the prescriptions of S. 2673 or added new prescriptions.” John T. Bostelman, The Sarbanes-Oxley Deskbook § 2-31.

The Committee approved the final conference bill on July 24, 2002 and gave it the name "the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002." The next day, both houses of Congress voted on it without change, producing an overwhelming margin of victory: 423 to 3 in the House and 99 to 0 in the Senate. On July 30, 2002, President George W. Bush signed it into law, stating that that it included "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt." Elisabeth Bumiller, Bush Signs Bill Aimed at Fraud in Corporations, N.Y. Times, July 31, 2002, at A1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes_oxley
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2005, 03:58:19 PM »

I strongly disapprove of the act. Companies have been unfairly forced to incur millions of dollars in compliance costs. Also (and I know that some are tired of me saying this), the law is unconstitutional.
Logged
Giant Saguaro
TheGiantSaguaro
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,903


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: 3.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2005, 04:05:35 PM »
« Edited: September 24, 2005, 04:46:24 PM by Giant Saguaro »

Generally approve. I think a free market works better when people know what they're investing in, basically. And a free market works better yet when there is some level of accountability. Perhaps it goes too far in some instances, I don't know, but basically it's a good idea.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2005, 04:30:50 PM »

I think it goes too far, and it definitely can't be justified under the Commerce Clause.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2005, 04:35:47 PM »

Strongly approve. 
Logged
TeePee4Prez
Flyers2004
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,480


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2005, 05:01:08 PM »

As an Accounting major, STRONGLY approve. 
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2005, 05:03:58 PM »

You might as well say as a serial killer, you strongly approve of abolishing the death penalty.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,388
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 24, 2005, 08:00:16 PM »

I would need to read the bill itself to form a completely informed opinion on the bill in question, but I agree with the philosophy behind it; I personally think that the public deserves to know that it isn't being lied to, whether purposefully or inadvertently.
Logged
Richard
Richius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,369


Political Matrix
E: 8.40, S: 2.80

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2005, 08:16:08 PM »

As an Accounting major, STRONGLY approve. 
You would.  The people that should be punished for their acts in Enron, accountants, can't like this law more than they already do.  Now the government legislated a way for them to get $600 / hour.  If you're an accountant now, it is raining gold for you.

I strongly disapprove of this law.
Logged
The Duke
JohnD.Ford
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,270


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: -1.23

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2005, 02:41:37 AM »

I approved of this law at the time, but I do not approve any more.  It has proven more of an annoyance than a safeguard, and should be repealed.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.