FWIW,
I think the point that Wildcat is making is that the executives in question did not raise their own salaries.
The wording that the Snopes article agrees is true is this:
Hostess approved large pay increases for executives while the company was preparing a bankruptcy filing.
Snopes article:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/hostess.asp
Although, Snopes doesn't specifically say that it was the owners of the company that approved the large pay increases, without any evidence to the contrary there is a strong implication in that statement that it was the owners of the company or the board of directors that had approved the salary changes.
And soon after this, the CEO that had his salary tripled was replaced. Under the new CEO the salaries of four top executives were reduced to $1 and the salaries of four others were returned to their original levels. Snopes doesn't talk about it, but in addition to the agreement of the individuals involved, presumably the board and/or the owners also approved the decision to lower the salaries of these executives.
One issue here though, is what was the ownership stake of the executives who had their salaries raised. I don't know the answer but perhaps an argument could be made that if their ownership stake was large they might have played a significant role in raising their own salaries. Whoever raised the salaries, potential creditors weren't too happy about the raises and sued the company over them.
As to the issue of on topic links: I clicked on a few of them and I couldn't figure out what they had to do with the topic. If people have a point to make, as Wildcat points out, a quote with a single link is a sign that they are putting forth real evidence. And the converse, a bunch of links without a quote, is usually an indication that the person providing the alleged evidence is not actually providing any evidence.
