Hysterical, vitriolic editorials appeared in dozens of newspapers. The only news account which came close to being objective and factual was a lengthy treatment on the National Public Radio program All Things Considered. And there the commentator, who was quite knowledgeable on the general subject of shareholder proposals, expressed surprise that the tactic was being used by a group outside the leftist, anti-White camp. It was as if she regarded shareholder activism as their preserve, and the National Alliance was trespassing on territory where it had no business. The fact is that shareholder proposals seldom garner the support of as many as 10 per cent of shareholders the first time they come up for a vote.
Most shareholders play it safe and vote with management against all new and unfamiliar proposals.
Only after a proposal has been on the ballot several times and been subjected to a great deal of public discussion do shareholders develop the courage to vote in accord with their own opinions. Encouraged, the National Alliance resubmitted its proposal in October 1988. In order to get into court, however, the company first had to exhaust its administrative remedies. It told the National Alliance that it would not put the proposal on the ballot for 1989, and it sent a lengthy legal argument to the SEC in support of that position. Instead management decided to print the Alliance's proposal in the proxy materials, but to counter it with a lengthy appeal for the shareholders to vote against it.