The Christian Science Monitor takes a broad look at the executive compensation issue:

How much?

Some 77 percent of Americans polled last year felt that corporate executives "earn too much." Most corporate boards apparently disagree. Last year, although the nation's economy was already in trouble, they gave the chief executive officers of the Standard & Poor's 500 largest companies on average a 2.6 percent pay hike to $10,544,470.

Why no action?

On the presidential campaign trail, both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain attack the high levels of pay for corporate bosses, but are mostly fuzzy on remedies. Several bills before Congress would attempt to tame runaway executive pay. But none have passed both houses.

Politicians are "looking out" to protect the campaign contributions they receive from corporate executives, says Ms. Anderson. And it's an election year.

Are they worth the money?

A new study by economists Ulrike Malmendier at the University of California, Berkeley, and Geoffrey Tate at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, Los Angeles, cast some doubt for some "CEO superstars." After gaining fame and prestigious awards from business magazines and others for their corporate performance, they are rewarded with even more pay. But in the next three years their firms underperform by 15 to 20 percent compared with firms of non-prize-winning executives.

Ms. Malmendier suspects the CEOs are too busy writing books, sitting on other company boards, taking prestigious public service jobs, and improving their golf handicaps.

From the Associated Press:

Oracle Corp. (NASDAQ: ORCL) founder Larry Ellison, a longtime fixture on the list of the world's richest people, is now ensconced atop The Associated Press' rankings of the top-paid chief executives in the United States.

Never shy about flaunting his estimated $25 billion fortune, Ellison established himself as the best-paid CEO among major U.S. companies by persuading Oracle to award him a fiscal 2008 pay package valued at $84.6 million under the AP's calculations.

Though buyouts can be good for shareholders, the International Herald Tribune shows that the real benefits often go to executives:

August Busch IV, chief executive of Anheuser-Busch Cos. Inc. will be paid nearly $10.4 million after the brewer is sold to InBev SA and $120,000 a month to consult for the new company through the end of 2013.

Terms of the consulting deal are currently being negotiated, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission made Friday.

Busch, a member of the St. Louis-based brewer's founding family, will also be eligible for an additional payment of $13.3 million on various change in control payments and benefits, the filing said.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) became one of the most prominent players in an options backdating scandal where award dates were altered  to make them more profitable for executives.

In December, former UnitedHealth CEO William McGuire agreed to give-up a staggering $420 million in addition to $200 million he had already returned.

Now, according to the WSJ:

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Thursday said a federal judge has little leeway to review or reject a stock-options backdating settlement between UnitedHealth and former Chief Executive William McGuire, increasing the likelihood that the deal will be approved.

In a rare major media story, the Associated Press does a straight CEO pay piece rather than a general look at the climate of executive compensation:

Stephen Sanger got a nearly 14 percent raise in his final year as the chairman and chief executive of General Mills Inc. (NYSE: GIS), according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sanger, who retired as head of the company that makes Wheaties and Cheerios cereals at the end of its fiscal 2008 year in May, earned $13.8 million, the filing said. That compared to earnings of $12.1 million in the previous year.

Sanger's base salary was nearly $1.3 million, and he also was given $3.5 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation for meeting financial targets, the regulatory filing said.

In addition, Sanger was given miscellaneous compensation of $470,701. This included company contributions to savings plans as well as perks valued at $192,184; those included $50,567 for personal air travel, $16,806 for use of the executive car and $40,200 in discounts when he bought the car. He was also given $15,054 for financial planning, $32,772 for insurance and $17,298 for unused vacation days.

The bulk of his compensation for the fiscal year was in stock and option awards valued at more than $8.5 million when they were granted in June 2007.

On August 18th The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy will release their annual report on CEO pay - this year highlighting how the tax and accounting systems favor high paying positions through:

• Preferential capital gains treatment of carried interest
• Unlimited deferred pay
• Offshore deferred compensation
• Unlimited deductibility of executive compensation
• Stock option accounting double standard

Expect in-depth coverage here when the report is released.

From The Motley Fool's always attentive writers:

Starbucks (NDAQ: SBUX) provided the latest example of how walking out the door can actually be very lucrative for corporations' top brass.

It's no news that Starbucks is cutting costs. Its plans include layoffs and some store closures. Somehow, I doubt that baristas will receive the kind of sweet deal former Starbucks Coffee International President James Alling is getting as part of his "separation agreement." Alling will receive a lump-sum payment equal to an entire year's salary; last year, his base salary was $600,000.

Alling will also take home the equivalent of the cost of health-care coverage for one year.

The Chicago Tribune has an interesting, even if unconvincing, piece that suggests stock based compensation resulting from shareholder pressure led to GM's unstable financial condition:

First, a bit of history. Wall Street and institutional investors' pension funds, mutual funds and trusts began insisting in the 1990s that companies return more cash to shareholders. They claimed that managers were squandering resources on lavish perks and misguided acquisitions.

In the early years of the revolution, managers of U.S. corporations occasionally said no to investor demands. A couple of things got rid of that behavior. First, CEOs who bucked shareholders sometimes found themselves out of a job. Second, executive share ownership and stock options became the coin of the realm. Eventually they comprised the bulk of CEO pay. And now, CEOs wanted the same thing as owners: high returns to owning stock.

And now back to GM (NYSE: GM). Because of its size, the company was ground central for a shareholder revolution. Robert Stempel, chief executive officer, lost his job in 1992 due to pressure from institutional investors. Subsequently, the company raised the percentage of executive compensation based on stock ownership and stock options.

What happened to payout ratios? From 1996 to 2000, GM delivered more than $20 billion to shareholders: $13 billion in multiple repurchases and an additional $7 billion in dividends.

It's impossible to say where GM would be today had it spent some of that $20 billion on research and development and a rainy-day pension fund. But surely it would be a far better place than here.