Advertisement

May 24, 2013

Law Professors Ask SEC to Write New Political Donation Disclosure Rules for Business

The Securities and Exchange Commission should require corporations to be more transparent with their shareholders about campaign contributions, according to a petition by high-profile law professors.

The professors argue that when the Supreme Court issued its Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling in January 2010—creating broad opportunities for corporations and unions to make secret donations— it did so because the court preferred corporate accountability mechanisms like the one the petition proposes.

 “We differ in our views on the extent to which corporate political spending is beneficial for, or detrimental to, shareholder interests. We all share, however, the view that information about corporate spending on politics is important to shareholders—and that the Commission’s rules should require this information to be disclosed,” the professors wrote.

The professors said that independently pulling together all the information about a corporation’s political spending would be “a demanding task,” and unnecessarily so when the company itself knows where and how much it has spent. The petition argues that shareholder interest in this information has increased and that some companies have taken steps toward voluntarily reporting the information.

Harvard Law School professor Lucian Bebchuk and John Coffee Jr. of Columbia Law School are among the 10 co-signers asking the SEC to determine if there are donations small enough to go unreported, how frequently disclosures should be made and what types of political spending should be reported.

 “The Citizens United decision says that the reason that corporations have First Amendment rights is that they represent the shareholders, so let’s make damn sure they do,” says Nell Minow, a board member and former editor at the corporate governance watchdog group GovernanceMetrics International .

Of the petition signers, Minow said, “It’s a hard to get a crowd like that to agree on anything so the number of range of supporters is important.”

The SEC is tremendously busy with new regulatory activities it took over after the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill passed last year and Congressional Republicans are trying to reduce the agency’s budget.

Minow says the petition is “putting more ammunition into pushes for voluntary compliance for the time being.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce called the petition “another in a long line of attempts to use the power of government to stifle the free speech of public companies.” The Chamber filed a brief supporting Citizens United when the case was before the Supreme Court.  

The disclosure camp looks to be in need of some more ammo. This spring, President Obama considered an executive order that would require all companies bidding for federal contracts to disclose their political spending. The House has since passed legislation blocking the order and the Senate is considering similar legislation. Last month, 60 House Democrats sent Obama a letter urging him to sign the order. 

Reprinted by Permission © 2013, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

American University Fellow

Amy Biegelsen won the Virginia Press Association’s 2009 Best in Show Award for a portfolio on health and environmental stories. She is the recipient of the Virginia Trial Lawyers Association’s Excellence in Journalism prize for a story on children’s mental health issues and is a two-time finalist for the Livingston Award for Young Journalists. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Chicago.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.