S.E.C. Considering Mandated Disclosure of Political Contributions

[ClydeR]

A loose coalition of Democratic elected officials, shareholder activists and pension funds has flooded the Securities and Exchange Commission with calls to require publicly traded corporations to disclose to shareholders all of their political donations, a move that could transform the growing world of secret campaign spending.

S.E.C. officials have indicated that they could propose a new disclosure rule by the end of April, setting up a major battle with business groups that oppose the proposal and are preparing for a fierce counterattack if the agency’s staff moves ahead. Two S.E.C. commissioners have taken the unusual step of weighing in already, with Daniel Gallagher, a Republican, saying in a speech that the commission had been “led astray” by “politically charged issues.”

A petition to the S.E.C. asking it to issue the rule has already garnered close to half a million comments, far more than any petition or rule in the agency’s history, with the vast majority in favor of it. While relatively few petitions result in action by the S.E.C., the commission staff filed a notice late last year indicating that it was considering recommending a rule.

In response to the growing pressure, House Republicans introduced legislation last Thursday that would make it illegal for the commission to issue any political disclosure regulations applying to companies under its jurisdiction.

More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/us/politics/sec-is-asked-to-make-companies-disclose-donations.html)



S.E.C. Petition (http://www.sec.gov/rules/petitions/2011/petn4-637.pdf)

Comments (http://www.sec.gov/comments/4-637/4-637.shtml)

How to comment (http://www.sec.gov/rules/submitcomments.htm)


This is just more Obama socialism. The money is owned by corporations. Why should they have to report on it to shareholders?



Any rule issued by the S.E.C. would not touch on political contributions by individuals or from privately held companies, which are the chief sources of contributions to “super PACs,” registered political committees that can accept and spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns. But few public corporations contribute to super PACs, in part because political action committees are regulated by the Federal Election Commission and subject to stringent disclosure rules.

Virtually no public corporations have spent their own money directly in political campaigns, a practice now permitted under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. And corporations remain banned from giving money directly to federal candidates.

Instead, some large companies donate money to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, founded by Karl Rove, which in turn mount huge advertising campaigns on businesses’ behalf. Because those groups assert their spending to be educational in nature, they are exempt from most of the donor disclosure requirements that apply to super PACs, political parties and candidates.

[kutter]

That would be fine with me if they also were forced to disclose donations from Unions and private donations, like the tens of millions Obama received from overseas. What is good for the goose and all that, after all, his is the most transparent administration in history right?

[Aluvius]

"This is just more Obama socialism. The money is owned by corporations. Why should they have to report on it to shareholders?"


I ... I guess I'll bite. This is only for publicly traded companies, so the shareholders are the owners of the corporation. Right now management is disguising the use of the corporation's money (the shareholder's money) for political purposes as "educational" spending by tradegroups. Cash spent on those political campaigns is cash not being reinvested in the company or given out as dividends.

Why would anyone be against this for publicly traded companies?

Also, how is this socialism when it seems to only enhance the rights of shareholders to exercise due diligence in regards to their investments? That's like a textbook definition of capitalism.

"That would be fine with me if they also were forced to disclose donations from Unions and private donations, like the tens of millions Obama received from overseas."

Well, first of all direct political contributions over $200 are required to be reported by campaigns from Unions, corporations, private donors, etc. Its illegal for federal campaigns to receive political contributions from foreign nationals. It is not illegal for federal campaigns to receive donations from American expatriates living overseas. Both the Romney and Obama campaigns received money from these expatriates.

If you have a source for the 10's of millions of dollars in foreign contributions please provide it. I'm sure the FEC and oh maybe the RNC might be interested.

I hate to step into the swamp of political speech here on the PC since literally nothing I said will make a difference to anyone. However there are some times when I just can't resist the allure of providing reasonable counterpoints to unreasonable political opinion. There are reasons to oppose Obama, particularly from the left, but in my mind his opponents only seem interested in the most bewildering of criticism. Its often made up out of thin air that the most cursory google search will debunk.

As I get older I get less angry and more sad at the state of our political discourse.

[EasternBrand]

That would be fine with me if they also were forced to disclose donations from Unions and private donations, like the tens of millions Obama received from overseas. What is good for the goose and all that, after all, his is the most transparent administration in history right?

A significant hurdle considering the SEC has no jurisdiction over unions or private entities.

[kutter]

If you have a source for the 10's of millions of dollars in foreign contributions please provide it. I'm sure the FEC and oh maybe the RNC might be interested.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bam_blind_eye_to_illegal_donors_8SWotytr1RvbhyDCRy yrEL

A 2 second Bing search revealed this, if the subject of the article admits to doing it, how many others did? The NY Post is hardly a bastion of conservative viewpoints. Note also, Romney's campaign prevented it while Obama's did not. In September of that year the Obama campaign took in over 2 million dollars of donations from questionable sources. That is only one month of the campaign.

[Latrinsorm]

That information comes from the FEC. Unless you think the FEC is looking the other way, there's no tangible wrongdoing.

It's also not clear how "2 million from possibly foreign sources" is equal to or evidence of "tens of millions definitely from foreign sources".

[kutter]

Well, let us think about this for a minute, the FEC is an agency within the Federal government, run by bureaucrats that have a vested interest in keeping their jobs. While it certainly is not an easy proposition to get rid of a federal employee, it is not impossible. Boat rockers find themselves quickly diminished in capability with no future career options. Before you ask how I know, I am one, so I have the info first hand.

It is clear to me that anyone that is an Obama supporter cannot open their eyes to the possibility that he is not the second coming and his administration is just as if not more flawed as any other.

If you read the article you would see that 2 million is for ONE month, do a little math, it does not take long to get into numbers that I spoke of.

[Latrinsorm]

Well, let us think about this for a minute, the FEC is an agency within the Federal government, run by bureaucrats that have a vested interest in keeping their jobs. While it certainly is not an easy proposition to get rid of a federal employee, it is not impossible. Boat rockers find themselves quickly diminished in capability with no future career options. Before you ask how I know, I am one, so I have the info first hand.So the FEC wouldn't blow the whistle and prosecute out of (a very justified) fear of losing their jobs, but they would give it a little puff and disseminate the information to the entire world? You mention your experience as a boat rocker, why didn't you opt for this path that apparently prevents all negative consequences?
It is clear to me that anyone that is an Obama supporter cannot open their eyes to the possibility that he is not the second coming and his administration is just as if not more flawed as any other.It is clear to me that you made an assertion with no basis in fact and could not find justification for it afterwards.
If you read the article you would see that 2 million is for ONE month, do a little math, it does not take long to get into numbers that I spoke of.I like math, let's do some math. It was for ONE month that happened to be TWO months away from the election. In total, the President raised $716m (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/). In September, he raised $181m (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/17/us-usa-campaign-money-idUSBRE89G05Z20121017), or 25.3%. Extrapolating that $2m we get $7.9m that might be from foreign sources, or people who typoed their zip code, or the Illuminati, or space men from Mars (notorious for their arrogant disrespect of Terran postal regulations). Even if we said 100% of that $7.9m was from foreign sources, we haven't even reached ten million, let alone tens of millions.

Tell me again how I'm the one who's irrationally blinding myself?

[kutter]

I did not opt for that path because I am retired from the military, for all practical purposes, I am untouchable, short of me getting caught having sex with a dead girl or a live boy, but even that probably would not get it done anymore.

Latrinsom, you are correct, I cannot give you hard numbers, because if I could then Obama would be in jail, isn't that very convenient for your argument.

I thought it was supposed to be you libs that were distrustful of the government and their actions, oh wait, that is only if a conservative is in office, that's right, now that it is your guy everything is hunky dory. Well guess what, after 25 years of working for Uncle Sam in varying capacities I can tell you definitively, it is an entity that protects itself no matter who happens to be in control. It does not allow the release of information that it would deem damaging to the perception of it. But wait, are you now going to tell me that you believe that there were WMD's in Iraq because the government says so?

[Latrinsorm]

I did not opt for that path because I am retired from the military, for all practical purposes, I am untouchable, short of me getting caught having sex with a dead girl or a live boy, but even that probably would not get it done anymore.

Latrinsom, you are correct, I cannot give you hard numbers, because if I could then Obama would be in jail, isn't that very convenient for your argument.

I thought it was supposed to be you libs that were distrustful of the government and their actions, oh wait, that is only if a conservative is in office, that's right, now that it is your guy everything is hunky dory. Well guess what, after 25 years of working for Uncle Sam in varying capacities I can tell you definitively, it is an entity that protects itself no matter who happens to be in control. It does not allow the release of information that it would deem damaging to the perception of it. But wait, are you now going to tell me that you believe that there were WMD's in Iraq because the government says so?It may interest you to learn that I supported President Bush and voted for him 100% of the times I was eligible to.

I don't understand how you insist that the government won't release that information when the very source you cited as damaging information takes said information from the government. Let alone the tens of millions (;)) of cases of the federal government actively investigating and bringing charges against itself.

[Aluvius]

... But wait, are you now going to tell me that you believe that there were WMD's in Iraq because the government says so?

I was going to post a reply about how you were basing your "10's of millions in foreign contributions" on a single NY Post story (Christ, the NY Post) about a totally legit seeming British citizen that says he was able to donate $10 to Obama's campaign by providing false information and that oddly the RNC never followed up on ... but daaaaamn. WMD's in Iraq, eh? Okay, saving myself a few precious minutes of life I'll never get back. /out

[ClydeR]

The NY Post is hardly a bastion of conservative viewpoints.

You know it's not conservative because it's from New York.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgrGyR6EYbY

[kutter]

You know what I find most remarkable about all of you, is that not one person, besides me it seems, says, wow, I wonder if there is any truth to this. Have all of you sheeple decided to drink the government kool-aid?

You want to quote numbers, you are afraid to question authority without hard facts for fear you might be wrong, God forbid, you were wrong, but how do you know you were unless you demand answers. THEY WORK FOR US, not the other way around, a government should live in fear of the people, people should never live in fear of the government.

Benjamin Franklin summed it best, 'Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.' And I say that knowing biggest problem with the current media is that both sides have such clear agendas, there is no more unbiased reporting. I take EVERYTHING all news sources say with a HUGE grain of salt but I still want them to dig into the stories.

Frankly until April 15th I did not really care who was in the White House since it did not really have an impact on my life, but all of the sudden, my true tax rate went from about 7% to 17%, with no appreciable change over the previous year, so now I care, a lot. The guy in there said my taxes would not go up, so he lied. Like all the others have. So tell me, if all of the others have done shady things to get elected, the two that come to mind are Kennedy in 1960 with the activities in Texas and Illinois, and the Watergate scandal in 1972, then why would you think so vehemently that he did not?

[EasternBrand]

Latrinsom, you are correct, I cannot give you hard numbers, because if I could then Obama would be in jail, isn't that very convenient for your argument.

"I cannot back up my assertion with evidence, because there is no evidence, isn't that very convenient for your argument."

[Warriorbird]

The NY Post is hardly a bastion of conservative viewpoints.

The New York Post is an American daily newspaper, primarily distributed in New York City and its surrounding area. It is the 13th-oldest and seventh-most-widely circulated newspaper in the United States. Since 1993, it has been owned by News Corporation, which had owned it previously from 1976 to 1988. Its editorial offices are located at 1211 Avenue of the Americas, in New York City, New York. The Post is known for its sensationalist headlines and yellow journalism.

I only came here to laugh at this.

[kutter]

I truly pity all of you that one day, you or your children are going to wake up and it will be 1984. And it makes me glad that I do not have children to see the systematic destruction piece by piece of the great experiment that so many have payed for with blood.

[Bobmuhthol]

You're moderately insane.

[Warriorbird]

You're moderately insane.

http://www.thefoxisblack.com/blogimages/network-mad-as-hell.jpg

[kutter]

You're moderately insane.

I would submit that anyone that trust the government line without question is clinically insane. But hey, I have decided that you should be careful what you wish for, so keep on living with your heads in the sand.

I hope and pray that something happens to wake this country up, but I do not think it will happen. All of this means one of two things, the ones that implicitly trust the government are right and I am insane, or I am right and you are all puppets. You had better hope that not asking a question now and again does not mean what I think it means, wouldn't that be hysterical.

[Latrinsorm]

You know what I find most remarkable about all of you, is that not one person, besides me it seems, says, wow, I wonder if there is any truth to this. Have all of you sheeple decided to drink the government kool-aid?

You want to quote numbers, you are afraid to question authority without hard facts for fear you might be wrong, God forbid, you were wrong, but how do you know you were unless you demand answers. THEY WORK FOR US, not the other way around, a government should live in fear of the people, people should never live in fear of the government.You have mentioned how the experience of being a whistle-blower was one that impacted you negatively. I think you are letting that personal emotional experience cloud your assessment of people who had nothing to do with it. Note how you stress fear, when I am experiencing nothing of the sort. I am merely counseling prudence. I can't cite any long dead men, but the principal pillar of science is that the conclusion comes after the experiment, not the other way around.
Frankly until April 15th I did not really care who was in the White House since it did not really have an impact on my life, but all of the sudden, my true tax rate went from about 7% to 17%, with no appreciable change over the previous year, so now I care, a lot. The guy in there said my taxes would not go up, so he lied. Like all the others have. So tell me, if all of the others have done shady things to get elected, the two that come to mind are Kennedy in 1960 with the activities in Texas and Illinois, and the Watergate scandal in 1972, then why would you think so vehemently that he did not?If all of the others had, that would be suggestive (if circumstantial) evidence, though your inability to give any direct evidence about this one would also be suggestive. With all that said, you have cited only two, and 2 out of 43 is not suggestive for the 44th.

I would also like to point out that you are proposing (and vigorously embracing) a false dichotomy: everyone who disagrees with you does not automatically believe the opposite. There are in truth three positions: the evidence says he did it, the evidence says he did not do it, and the evidence does not suggest anything either way (or there is no evidence).

You say you want people to question the government, but it appears that you are satisfied only if people agree with your answers.