That's a conflict of interest if ever there was one. Do you know how a publicy traded company works? A CEO doesnt Appoint members of the board, usually it's the other way around. Shareholders hold elections and thier are requirements in the by laws, experience, education are all high bars to reach for a prospective board member, than their are the financial requirements within the first year of being a board member that member has to hold a significant amount of stock in the company, something like 2 million dollars worth, and you have to hold that amount of stock for the duration and some years after being a board member. It's also unenforceable, a board member does work for the company, they create and vote on policy, they serve on committees and are public faces of that company, if that doesn't satisfy just put them on the payroll as a "consultant" boom they a "worker." Fuck your onerous, unnecessary, unenforceable bullshit.Why is requiring at least 40% worker representation on corporate boards a bad idea? Can they do worse than a millionaire crony of the CEO?
Will stopping congressmen from becoming lobbyists destroy democracy as we know it, or save it?
The second proposal is equally as stupid and unenforceable, you can hire a former congressman to a consultant position keep them out of DC, they let them know where the bodies are buried and how the sausage gets made and you have a bunch of young stripper looking girls execute, if that sounds like Pharmacy sales reps that's because it is. All you are doing is making that shit less presitigous and more affordable. You won't save democracy you'll be saving these companies money.
