During the 2012 elections—and ever since—coverage of campaign finance has focused heavily on the role of “dark money”: the unlimited donations directed to nonprofit groups and trade associations that are not required to disclose their donors.
Countless reports by journalists and transparency advocates have sought to trace the origins of dark money donations. Almost as frequent are the efforts to convince, cajole, or shame government entities—from Congress to the Federal Elections Commission to the Internal Revenue Service—to adopt new rules requiring that these donations be disclosed in the future.
But so far, a creative new method that dark money opponents have seized on to drag secret donations—at least, the ones that come from public companies—into the open has attracted relatively little attention. As Nicholas Confessore reported last week in The New York Times, these advocates are arguing that the cause of disclosure should be taken up by an agency that has traditionally stayed away from regulating political contributions: the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). And, according to the Times report, they have a real chance of success.
The SEC is now weighing whether to propose a rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose their political donations to their shareholders. The move would effectively end the secrecy that surrounds such contributions when they are made to dark money organizations.
The campaign for SEC action is at a crossroads: the SEC indicated that it would decide whether to propose such a rule in April, a deadline it has just missed. On Tuesday, a coalition of leading good government groups sent a scathing letter to President Obama, blasting him for “the absence of your leadership on campaign finance issues” and urging support for the SEC rule as one way to redeem himself.
As the SEC considers whether to act, journalists—especially state and local political reporters who rarely delve into dark money and don’t get to cover money-in-politics full-time—face an important challenge. Such a rule could upend the campaign finance system not only at the national but also at the state and local levels, and the details and context are important. The Q & A explainer below provides background to help reporters get coverage of the SEC proposal right.
Hold on. The Securities and Exchange Commission is thinking of doing what?
The SEC got a petition in 2011 from 10 noted law professors who urged the commission to “require public companies to disclose to shareholders the use of corporate resources for political activities.” The rule would require reports to shareholders at regular intervals detailing any spending on politics.
In recent months, a group of Democratic officials, shareholder activists, and pension funds have mounted a forceful campaign support of the petition, helping to generate nearly half a million comments. In January, the SEC indicated it would decide whether to propose such a rule by April.
Can they do that? Does the Security and Exchange Commission have the authority to regulate political spending?
The SEC’s mandate is to protect investors and maintain fair and orderly markets. According to the law professors’ petition, corporate political spending is not only of interest to investors but “necessary for corporate accountability and oversight mechanisms to work.” The petitioners note that the quantity and significance of this spending has increased substantially since the Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited contributions to political groups.
Opponents of the petition argue that the proposal falls outside the SEC’s purview. Blair Holmes, a spokeswoman for the Chamber of Commerce, told The New York Times that “the funds expended by publicly traded companies for political and trade association engagement are immaterial to the company’s bottom line.” Opponents say the proposal’s real objective is to chill political spending by corporations by exposing them to public intimidation—an outcome that could decrease their value to shareholders.
It seems like this debate could be avoided if the issue were addressed by a government agency that were a more natural fit, like the Federal Election Commission or Internal Revenue Service. Why isn’t this being handled by anyone else?
Does this mean that The New York Times corporation should have to disclose and itemize the resources it spends on political advocacy, just like any other corporation? This is such a phony issue, pushed by selfish media interests and left-leaning ideologues (I know there's a lot of overlap) who don't want 'outside groups' ( that common, unintentionally revealing term) harming in on their racket of telling the (presumptively stupid) public what it should be thinking about politics.
In the interest of full disclosure to that consumer, the political histories of journalists employed by 'corporations', including those employed by CJR, should be declared in every issue, like the labeling of products on the store shelf. That's if you accept the logic of the above article. However, in
my experience, journalists don't like it when the rules they urge for others are turned on them
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 3 May 2013 at 09:32 AM
It does raise some interesting conflicts for those who wish to maintain positive investor relations while bankrolling personal political causes.
For instance:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/billionaire-dan-loeb-turtles-flees-investor-conference-after-political-affiliations-exposed-20130422
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/dan-loeb-simultaneously-solicits-betrays-pension-funds-20130411
"On April 18, Loeb will speak before the Council of Institutional Investors, a nonprofit association of pension funds, endowments, employee benefit funds, and foundations with collective assets of over $3 trillion. The CII is an umbrella group that represents the institutions who manage the retirement and benefit funds of public and corporate employees all over America – from bricklayers to Teamsters to teachers to employees of Colgate, the Gap and Johnson and Johnson...
But here's the catch. Dan Loeb, who isn't known as the biggest hedge-fund asshole still working on Wall Street (only because Stevie Cohen hasn't been arrested yet), is on the board and co-founder of a group called Students First New York. And the national Students First organization has been one of the leading advocates pushing for states to abandon defined benefit plans – packages which guarantee certain retirement benefits for public workers like teachers – in favor of defined contribution plans, where the benefits are not guaranteed.
In other words, Loeb has been soliciting the retirement money of public workers, then turning right around and lobbying for those same workers to lose their benefits. He's essentially asking workers to pay for their own disenfranchisement (with Loeb getting his two-and-twenty cut, or whatever obscene percentage of their retirement monies he will charge as a fee)."
Sunlight has a sterilizing effect - even on Wallstreet. (Which is why THEY HATE simple, transparent accounting on that street.. Investors shouldn't need to know.)
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 5 May 2013 at 02:27 PM