Curbing corruption through legislation is just more liberal job killing regulation.
1
If corporations were to be banned from making political contributions, why would not the same ban apply also to union political contributions?
No double standards, please.
No double standards, please.
3
Michael Kinsey writes in Vanity Fair that Citizens United was rightly decided, on the notion that we wouldn't limit spending by a newspaper seeking the truth.
There are two problems with that analogy: first is the holy privilege we give the press in the first amendment to inform (and not merely entertain) the people.
Second, the consumption of politics by influence pedaling pols on a permanent campaign for re-election occupies much too much time, such that Congress takes nine months off every other year.
Public campaign finance will require that elected leaders owe their office to the public. That departure alone would eliminate most of the charlatans and do-nothings.
There are two problems with that analogy: first is the holy privilege we give the press in the first amendment to inform (and not merely entertain) the people.
Second, the consumption of politics by influence pedaling pols on a permanent campaign for re-election occupies much too much time, such that Congress takes nine months off every other year.
Public campaign finance will require that elected leaders owe their office to the public. That departure alone would eliminate most of the charlatans and do-nothings.
6
Just the two words alone, 'Dark Money', sounds negative and nefarious.
Can't possibly be good for Democracy or We, the People.
Can't possibly be good for Democracy or We, the People.
1
As a shareholder I object to company executives using my corporate assets to promote their personal political pecadillos.
2
The evil that men do lives after them and continues in the dark shadows of laws that obscure responsibility. In our renewed AGE OF AQUARIUS we should "let the sun shine in" to promote "harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding, no more falsehoods or derisions...and the mind's true liberations." We should be a transparent society that negotiates equitably with one another without the undue influence of 'dark money' that disadvantages the many in favor of the few.
3
The purpose of a corporations is to shield the shareholders from the actions of the corporation. If I am a stockholder of a company that releases poison gas and kills 500.000 people, I can lose my investment in that corporation, but the rest of my wealth is shielded. There is a legal fiction that a corporation is another legal entity, and I am not responsible for his actions. Therefore that corporate entity pays tax and when he pays me I pay tax.
On the other hand, if I am a partner in a law firm and one of my partners steals $100 million from our clients, I can lose everything I own.
As Ambrose Bierce put it:
"A corporation is an ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."
On the other hand, if I am a partner in a law firm and one of my partners steals $100 million from our clients, I can lose everything I own.
As Ambrose Bierce put it:
"A corporation is an ingenious device for obtaining profit without individual responsibility."
8
There is a reason why corporations wish to keep their political contributions secret: Because corporate CEO's want to be able to use their company as their own personal piggy bank to finance their aspirations for political influence. Disclosure would mean that corporations would have to justify where the donations are going and for what corporate purpose. For now, CEO's can direct corporate contributions wherever they like, regardless of whether it benefits the company. So much for corporations being able to exercise their right to free speech.
There's another reason: Disclosure would expose rampant political corruption and politician-for-sale politics. It wouldn't be possible to pretend we have a free democracy any longer. We could see clearly who is bought and paid for in Washington DC.
There's another reason: Disclosure would expose rampant political corruption and politician-for-sale politics. It wouldn't be possible to pretend we have a free democracy any longer. We could see clearly who is bought and paid for in Washington DC.
9
Unions can use their member's funds to support candidates, often public service unions, regardless of member preferences. Religious organizations seem to offer up their share of support (and non disclosure) without intense scrutiny. Big research universities do their bit to snatch preference for their grant flow referenced. I resent the hording of cash offshore by these corporations, investing in fact in foreign governments, far more than their political contributions. At least they are hiring MADMEN from the US. Shareholders be damned, in any case, gorge the CEO and his minions, the political stuff is a trifle.
This article only highlights public companies and not private ones since the SEC overseas public companies. Some of the Dark Money comes from private company owners who create Foundations to funnel their money into their political projects. I googled for the latest big private companies for 2015 and make no comments about them in terms of private donations, except for one obvious company many will recognize on this list. #2
1. Cargill
2. Koch Industries
3. Dell
4. Albertsons
5. Bechtel
6. PricewaterhouseCoopers
7. Mars
8. Pilot-Flying-J
9. Publix Super Markets
10. C & S Wholesale Grocers
11. Ernest & Young
12. Reyes Holding
13. US Foods
14. Love's Travel Stop & Country Stores
15. HE Butt Grocery Co
16. Enterprise Holdings
17. Cox Enterprises
18. Cumberland Gulf Group
19. Meijer
20. Fidelity Investments
1. Cargill
2. Koch Industries
3. Dell
4. Albertsons
5. Bechtel
6. PricewaterhouseCoopers
7. Mars
8. Pilot-Flying-J
9. Publix Super Markets
10. C & S Wholesale Grocers
11. Ernest & Young
12. Reyes Holding
13. US Foods
14. Love's Travel Stop & Country Stores
15. HE Butt Grocery Co
16. Enterprise Holdings
17. Cox Enterprises
18. Cumberland Gulf Group
19. Meijer
20. Fidelity Investments
8
I see no reason why a corporation should be allowed to make political contributions. Its shareholders undoubtedly hold many views some at odds with each other. So who is entitled to speak for a legal entity composed of many conflicting views on politics. As a share holder, I object to a corporation spending my money on the political views of the CEO.
38
Let's keep the facts straight. (A) In 2010, Target disclosed its contribution to a a pro-jobs, pro business candidate. That's why there was backlash--people knew about it. That contribution was never dark money. (B) Target is a leader in implementing company policies that support all of their employees and their customers (see story on their bathroom policies) and was one of the first public companies to offer domestic partner benefits while marriage for same sex couples was still illegal.
2
For me this election is about two things: changing the way campaigns are funded and preventing another disasterous political dynasty.
2
I thought corporations were supposed to pay their shareholders, not use shareholder money to promote the politics of the company executives.
There can be real conflicts of interest among shareholders (owners) and executives and also the workers. Why should the wealthy folks running the corporation for the moment get, as one of their perks, the right to use the rest of our money to push their own political beliefs?
There can be real conflicts of interest among shareholders (owners) and executives and also the workers. Why should the wealthy folks running the corporation for the moment get, as one of their perks, the right to use the rest of our money to push their own political beliefs?
9
"Defenders of the status quo argue the companies are simply exercising their right to free speech; critics contend that such speech, when anonymous, does immense harm to the democratic process."
maybe like anonymous comments on the internet? it is not what is said, done or given; but who says it, does it or gives. there is never a clear demarcation between the public sphere and the private sphere. the contraceptive laws quoted in the article are another example of this.
maybe like anonymous comments on the internet? it is not what is said, done or given; but who says it, does it or gives. there is never a clear demarcation between the public sphere and the private sphere. the contraceptive laws quoted in the article are another example of this.
Irrespective of the mistakes they may make, publicly held corporations' political spending is undemocratic. "Dark money" merely adds to the more fundamental problem. Those with the most money invested in the corporation have control over the political speech decisions of the corporation. This gives a more powerful voice to those with the most money. In the Supreme Court's crooked thinking on this issue, a corporate voice is a citizen's voice, but we see that to the minority shareholders, it may be a voice providing coercive, rather than "free" speech. Citizenship should be identifiable only in the person, not in the person's wealth.
10
I'm glad the SEC is pushing this. In fact, disclosure is the essence of what the SEC is about... you can sell whatever junk you want, but you have to be honest and clear about it, so that investors can make an informed decision.
That said, most of the dark money likely isn't coming from public companies, which is why other agencies need to mandate disclosure as well.
That said, most of the dark money likely isn't coming from public companies, which is why other agencies need to mandate disclosure as well.
12
LOL. Hasn't the irony sunk in that a lot of ANONYMOUS commentators here have almost unanimously denounced anonymous political contributions? Doesn't one disclosure deserve another?
One of the authorities opponents of the proposed SEC rule will doubtless cite is the case of Margaret McIntyre, an Ohio resident, who was charged with violating state law by distributing, at a public forum in Westerville, Ohio, unsigned leaflets she had written in opposition to raising school taxes.
In its 1995 decision for McIntyre, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for a 7-2 majority: “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Fast forward to 2014 when Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla because he (a Catholic) had personally given $1000 in 2008 to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California. Activists had called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox. Notice that Mozilla had very gay-friendly policies which Eich had made to attempt to change. The bullies boycotted the company just to punish Eich.
Maybe our democracy needs to shine a little more darkness into overexposed places.
One of the authorities opponents of the proposed SEC rule will doubtless cite is the case of Margaret McIntyre, an Ohio resident, who was charged with violating state law by distributing, at a public forum in Westerville, Ohio, unsigned leaflets she had written in opposition to raising school taxes.
In its 1995 decision for McIntyre, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for a 7-2 majority: “Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation — and their ideas from suppression — at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Fast forward to 2014 when Brendan Eich was forced to step down as CEO of Mozilla because he (a Catholic) had personally given $1000 in 2008 to oppose the legalization of gay marriage in California. Activists had called for a boycott of Mozilla Firefox. Notice that Mozilla had very gay-friendly policies which Eich had made to attempt to change. The bullies boycotted the company just to punish Eich.
Maybe our democracy needs to shine a little more darkness into overexposed places.
5
Rights to Free Speech entail transparency. Our Democracy is about full disclosure. Lack of legislators to defend the Citizens (not the donors) is where this River of Dark Pools is drowning We The People.
11
Small surprise that politicians do what they like with money once received. Politicians maximize their electability, which can easily be at cross-purposes with corporate goals.
So, why aren't companies lined up with the SEC? Wouldn't these companies be even more embarrassed if the SEC requires transparency? The logic of this article is fairly poor.
So, why aren't companies lined up with the SEC? Wouldn't these companies be even more embarrassed if the SEC requires transparency? The logic of this article is fairly poor.
It is not only giant corporations that fund our national campaigns in secret, it is also foreign countries. The heads of the campaigns of both leading candidates are run by lobbyists. That fact alone speaks volumes. The lobbying firm of one of our leading candidates also is the lobbyist for Saudi Arabia! We need to get all money out of politics. We should look to our neighbors up north as a good example of how to pick a leader. Certainly ALL funds donated to political campaigns should be disclosed but it would be far better if we had 100% publicly funded campaigns..the money wasted could be put to better use.
5
Think you live in a Democracy where your vote is equal to the next person's, oh sorry- Corporation's? Read Jane Mayer's "Dark Money and think again.
3
I support dark money contributions for myself and others with my problem.
I am a conservative and support conservative causes.
I do not want my support becoming public because my boss is a very liberal person to whom my views, insofar as she knows them, are anathema.
She has made no secret of her distaste for my views and how she would like to get rid of me for having them.
(She can't right now because I have a work contract and have STEM skills which are in short supply.)
I am a conservative and support conservative causes.
I do not want my support becoming public because my boss is a very liberal person to whom my views, insofar as she knows them, are anathema.
She has made no secret of her distaste for my views and how she would like to get rid of me for having them.
(She can't right now because I have a work contract and have STEM skills which are in short supply.)
1
Instead of creating some new very costly government bureaucratic apparatus, why not just have public financing of campaigns with a limit on spending for each election and candidate? That would certainly level the playing field, ensure our tax dollars are being spent on the critical public services that our nation needs, and spare us the bombardment of all the horrible campaign advertisements and events that waste our time, space, and attention for months on end.
The amount spent on campaigns is obscene, and the pressure put on companies and employees to contribute to them is worse. We could replace the entire water system and pipe drinkable water to every home in Flint Michigan for much less than the Presidential primaries have cost this year. Would we taxpayers not rather have a contingency fund for cities facing similar public health crises, instead of a bureaucracy devoted to bird dogging "dark" money?
What the heck is wrong with us? And NYT, when will you recalibrate?
The amount spent on campaigns is obscene, and the pressure put on companies and employees to contribute to them is worse. We could replace the entire water system and pipe drinkable water to every home in Flint Michigan for much less than the Presidential primaries have cost this year. Would we taxpayers not rather have a contingency fund for cities facing similar public health crises, instead of a bureaucracy devoted to bird dogging "dark" money?
What the heck is wrong with us? And NYT, when will you recalibrate?
7
This is naive. The way the political right works is to play up social issues to win elections. Then the pay off is Targeted or Mercky legislation to give their donors special tax credits and competitive advantages, including outsourcing and hiding funds overseas. They know that the methods used to win elections are underhanded and anti-social. They also know that other donors they are joining have racist and discriminatory agendas and support the mayhem resulting from gun violence or the disastrous consequences of not confronting global warming/climate change. This only an embarrassment when they're caught. Don't expect any changes here until we have a government that bans these bribes and phony contributions under the guise of a pretended social benefit altogether.
3
Agreed, Dark Money is a threat to Democracy, so why is it that a canidate who is obviously backed and handsomely paid by Wall Street interests run by people who in a true democracy would have long ago been imprisoned for crimes so enormous in scope that ten years later the world is still struggling to save itself. A canidate that is the darling of the quintessential example of dark money A.I.P.A.C. Koch Industries are mentioned several times by commenters, but as insidious as they may be with their libertarian views of small government and advancing any and all agendas to further optimize their oil profits these people are chump change compared to both the influence and nightmare caused by A.I.P.A.C. A.I.P.A.C.s agenda is clear and that is increasing the power and influence of the Right Wing (Bibis) Likud Party. They have created an unholy alliance with neocons in both the oil and defense industries. Their desire for continual war in the Middle East to advance Israels interests cannot be questioned, and that we would consider a canidate who aligned herself with a group who would have us at war with Iran or possibly Russia over The Ukraine (and the financial interests of a few Jewish oligarchs to whom we are now giving billions) is beyond comprehension, but does illustrate the very worst of the influence Dark Money has not only on foreign policy but on the young lives sacrificed in the Middle East to further the causes of these special interest groups. Anybody but Hillary.
1
I never believed that a corporation should be treated as a person per Citizens United. But corporations are people. Those people include not only shareholders but employees. Why should it be okay for corporate heads to donate money to politics or any cause without consulting its "body" made up of all its stakeholders?
5
Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. Corporations are legal constructs that allow people to pool their resources and enjoy limited liability...not the corporations but the shareholders. SCOTUS has never actually litigated the corporations are PEOPLE issue. It accepted a scrivener's note relating to the issue.
2
Kudos to Donald Trump for destroying the Koch Brothers dark money scam. Since Donald claims to be independently wealthy, he does't need dark money. Hillary is all about dark money, dark secrets and dark speeches. Bernie has my support; I've made ten small contributions via the internet to him and Cortez-Matos (for US Senate in Nevada).
1
But according to SCOTUS corporations are people and money is speech. And a corporation only owes a fiduciary duty to maximize the profit, value and return of it's shareholder investors. America is not a business. Politics is not government.
What is the relevance of finance and avarice to politics and sacrifice?
What is the relevance of finance and avarice to politics and sacrifice?
3
That whole "only fiduciary duty to maximize profits" is a crock! Corporations have duties to the common good or at least they did and people started accepting the "maximize profits" bunk! That is why they were chartered by the states! I'm sick of corporations enjoying the benefits that accrue to them because of their charters and not having to shoulder any of the obligations.
3
Panama Papers? We need a "Washington Papers" to 'out' the politibusiness corruption!!! It would make the 11.5 million leaked documents from Panama look like chump change.
It is all a part of the same global mess and no Democratic system seems able to vote itself out of it.
It is all a part of the same global mess and no Democratic system seems able to vote itself out of it.
Wonderful in theory but impractical in the world as it exists today. Corporations are boycotted and CEO's homes are picketed for positions that offend certain groups. Unions are rarely, if ever, subjected to the same treatment. Stockholders can sell their stock if they do not agree with the corporation's political views if made known; union members cannot withhold dues if they disagree with their union's political positions.
The false equivalency between unions and multimillion multinational
S is ridiculous.
S is ridiculous.
2
Irrefutable logic. Hard to argue with that. Oh wait, don't a number of unions have multimillion dollar net worths and big office buildings in DC like SEIU, the better to lobby with, my dear?
Sounds like just another way to give activists a stick with which to beat companies they don't like. It wouldn't work: all that would happen would be that intermediate action groups would arise to funnel the company money to the actual action committees. The examples given are obviously carefully chosen to maximize embarrassment and do not necessarily represent the typical donation. "Caveat Emptor" should be allowed to rule, not the SEC.
This is a gross simplification. The majority of dark money is not confined to election cycles, and it isn't confined to publicly traded companies. It's part of a continuous process intended to influence public opinion through lobbying, think tanks, issue ads that can escape the "political" label, and "philanthropic" giving to endow professorships at even public universities, that sometimes are conditional on the philanthropist approving faculty appointments. That's how otherwise discredited ideas on government and economics survive beyond their sell-by date. Jane Mayer's "Dark Money is worth a read.
8
These unidentived sources of campaign funds is a blight on our elections.. Voters should know who is paying for campaign of those they vote. We have two financial problms. Campaigns are too expensive and we do not know who is contributing.
24
There is also another rather significant disturbing element in the whole campaign fund fiasco in that in a recent interview with a Republican Congressman, David Jolly, he discussed the circumstance where each party has set up in their headquarters in D.C. office space set aside, much like boiler room telemarketing operations, where the legislator must spend a certain number of hours per day on the phone soliciting campaign funds from donors, past and present. In his case, he was told he must collect at least 18,000 dolls./day, otherwise, access to party perks would be denied. Much like a sales office in a company where results can be seen by everyone, a board is set up for showing what each legislator has raised that day. He was also told, raising this money is his TOP priority, even over his constituents which by the reduced hours taken away from actual legislative duties pretty much confirmed that idea anyway.
This is what it has come to folks, dark money and lack of transparency are just parts of the giant scam of actually governing in America. Money supercedes EVERYTHING.
,
This is what it has come to folks, dark money and lack of transparency are just parts of the giant scam of actually governing in America. Money supercedes EVERYTHING.
,
5
"Campaign Financing" is one of the most important issues in today's *world* (maybe THE most important) -- and only 31 comments here (at this posting time, anyway).
Says a lot.
Says a lot.
9
The example cited of Target and MN Forward is more an argument for secrecy than for disclosure. If the primary goal of MN Forward is to advocate pro-business policies, and the ad is for a pro-business candidate, then that candidate's stand on same-sex marriage is an "unforeseen" consequence that should not redound against Target. In reality it was just another issue for liberals to whip up angst against a corporation (and sure not the only one to have donated to the same group).
3
Shareholders (and, for that matter, customers) should have the right to know to whom (or what) a corporation is directing its political spending. A refusal to disclose is just conservatives' way of trying to shield corporations from any consequences arising from their political spending. As in, "we want to spend money supporting anti-gay causes" but we don't want our customers to know because they might not like it!
3
I suspect that the Target contribution was an attempt by the Target CEO to use corporate funds to support his personal convictions.
1
Dark money: no more checks and balances, just checks.
35
Dark Money is fundamentally undemocratic and plutocratic, and that is why its proponents choose it. Everything else they say about it is a lie. Sunlight is still the best disinfectant.
9
Transparent means seeing through completely with no dark spots.
2
Isn't this a bucketful of crocodile tears? The proposed SEC rule has nothing to do with accountability to investors. If the rule were sincerely intended to protect the rights of investors, it would not mandate disclosure. It would let shareholders choose whether or not to require disclosure. (Come to think of it, no one forces investors to invest in companies that refuse to disclose their donations).
Investors are not dummies. The rule has nothing to do with "helping" companies avoid a political backlash for their political donations. It is intended to CREATE backlashes against companies by giving activists ammunition with which they can harass companies.
Knowing that, investors might reasonably judge that they don't want to know the details of a company's political donations.
If you believe Donovan-Maher and Groopman's professed solicitude about investor rights, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
Investors are not dummies. The rule has nothing to do with "helping" companies avoid a political backlash for their political donations. It is intended to CREATE backlashes against companies by giving activists ammunition with which they can harass companies.
Knowing that, investors might reasonably judge that they don't want to know the details of a company's political donations.
If you believe Donovan-Maher and Groopman's professed solicitude about investor rights, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
2
"... critics contend that such speech, when anonymous, does immense harm to the democratic process."
No. Critics do not concede the point that money = speech. Money facilitates some speech and drowns out other speech -- giving overmuch influence to them that's got it. And money in our current uncontrolled and unaccountable system amounts to nothing better than legalized bribery.
No. Critics do not concede the point that money = speech. Money facilitates some speech and drowns out other speech -- giving overmuch influence to them that's got it. And money in our current uncontrolled and unaccountable system amounts to nothing better than legalized bribery.
10
Corporate person-hood is a strained construct that exists only to satisfy those who wish to elevate business interests to that of a Golden Calf they may worship.
Corporations exist to facilitate transactions between those who need or want something for which they are willing to offer compensation, and those who supply the desired item. This applies to corporate officers as well as hot dog pushcart vendors.
A corporation cannot be incarcerated, cannot vote, cannot return home from war in a flag-draped coffin, and cannot be spoken to even though it supposedly has free speech.
It is time to stop pretending that corporations are anything other than glorified horse traders. Unfortunately, a conservative SCOTUS is enraptured by the Golden Calf beyond any sane definition of what a corporation is. Hence we have corporate "persons" that lack the normal measures of accountability that real "persons" carry.
If I as a person join the KKK or pollute my neighbors property, rest assured my friends, family and others would shun me. They would not willingly grant me anonymity for actions they abhor. They would no longer "invest" in my acquaintance. That is the world real "persons" live in.
Corporations want to be "persons" without all that being a real person entails. Any debate on Dark or Light political spending is based on a false premise to begin with. That fact that it is being debated illustrates how far down the rabbit hole we have have fallen.
Corporations exist to facilitate transactions between those who need or want something for which they are willing to offer compensation, and those who supply the desired item. This applies to corporate officers as well as hot dog pushcart vendors.
A corporation cannot be incarcerated, cannot vote, cannot return home from war in a flag-draped coffin, and cannot be spoken to even though it supposedly has free speech.
It is time to stop pretending that corporations are anything other than glorified horse traders. Unfortunately, a conservative SCOTUS is enraptured by the Golden Calf beyond any sane definition of what a corporation is. Hence we have corporate "persons" that lack the normal measures of accountability that real "persons" carry.
If I as a person join the KKK or pollute my neighbors property, rest assured my friends, family and others would shun me. They would not willingly grant me anonymity for actions they abhor. They would no longer "invest" in my acquaintance. That is the world real "persons" live in.
Corporations want to be "persons" without all that being a real person entails. Any debate on Dark or Light political spending is based on a false premise to begin with. That fact that it is being debated illustrates how far down the rabbit hole we have have fallen.
15
Ok -- but replace the word "corporation" with "union" in your comment and see if the analysis is any different.
@Moderation - No difference between unions and corporations, except that there is no union that ever claimed to be a person. The unions also are limited to what they gather can in donations from their members, whereas corporations have a much larger source of funds.
Union political donations should be just as limited as those by corporations. But that is only from the union as an entity. If the union members care to donate, there lies the political power. Those members also have the right to vote whether or not they donate monetarily.
Union political donations should be just as limited as those by corporations. But that is only from the union as an entity. If the union members care to donate, there lies the political power. Those members also have the right to vote whether or not they donate monetarily.
Unions have elections with one man, one vote. Those opposed to their union's political spending, do not have to pay the portion of their dues that goes for such spending. US history has shown that most advances in working conditions have come because of unions and in spite of corporations.
And so on.
And so on.
3
IRC 501(c)(3):
"Corporations . . . organized and operated EXCLUSIVELY for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), AND WHICH DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN, OR INTERVENE IN (including the publishing or distributing of statements), ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ON BEHALF OF (OR IN OPPOSITION TO) ANY CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE." (emphasis added).
What is wrong with our media and our government that they can't read the law and enforce the law. "Does Not Participate In" means exactly that!!
"Corporations . . . organized and operated EXCLUSIVELY for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), AND WHICH DOES NOT PARTICIPATE IN, OR INTERVENE IN (including the publishing or distributing of statements), ANY POLITICAL CAMPAIGN ON BEHALF OF (OR IN OPPOSITION TO) ANY CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE." (emphasis added).
What is wrong with our media and our government that they can't read the law and enforce the law. "Does Not Participate In" means exactly that!!
9
How ironic a positive ID is needed to cast a vote, yet anonymity - no photo ID required - to provide unlimited amounts of cash that actually controls the political process.
101
Here's a better idea: Let's prevent politicians from deciding how much money they can take from Americans as taxes and how much they can spend on their preferred causes. This would wipe out the lobbying industry overnight. With no cash sluicing thru pols' leprous fingers, lobbyists and businesses would have no reason to fund campaigns. No more "dark money". Pols would have to convince voters and donors without any promise of money coming their way.
Unfortunately, the authors love the idea of politicians taking money from one group and giving it to the authors' preferred causes. This is why they don't recommend this idea.
Unfortunately, the authors love the idea of politicians taking money from one group and giving it to the authors' preferred causes. This is why they don't recommend this idea.
1
"Preferred causes" like roads, clean water, the military (one that I'm not crazy about over-spending on), bridges and other infrastructure? Do you use any of these? If you do, maybe you should sit down and be quiet.
1
Corporations and businesses are not people. They are a construct of law that give tax and other advantages to the investors in that company. Each of those individual investors - if a human being - has the right of free speech. But the construct itself has no "speech" - it only is able to reflect the views of the people controlling it, thus giving them more "speech" than other people. That is wrong.
This is one of the points of the Sanders campaign, and the reason why I support him. Until we take the underhanded greed out of the political system, we are doomed. There is another article today about how hedge fund managers receive compensation in excess of $1 billion a year. That, my friends, is obscene. No individual is worth that amount, and the multi-million dollar campaign contributions only serve to give them more influence. Pay too play is immoral no matter who receives the contribution. Those that participate have no place in our government. Why can't we impose the same rules on our politicians that other civil servants live by?
This is one of the points of the Sanders campaign, and the reason why I support him. Until we take the underhanded greed out of the political system, we are doomed. There is another article today about how hedge fund managers receive compensation in excess of $1 billion a year. That, my friends, is obscene. No individual is worth that amount, and the multi-million dollar campaign contributions only serve to give them more influence. Pay too play is immoral no matter who receives the contribution. Those that participate have no place in our government. Why can't we impose the same rules on our politicians that other civil servants live by?
4
"a human being - has the right of free speech. But the construct itself has no "speech" "....What about the Sierra club lobbying for environmental values or Planned Parenthood? Should they be prohibited from lobbying Congress or paying for positional advertisements? It is easy to agree on who we like and who we don't like, but the law has to be even handed for both.
This will hurt shareholders, and everybody knows it, including the SEC. These are tiny amounts of money to a large corporation, completely immaterial, the disclosure of which will lead to PR headaches and customer boycotts. Thus, companies will be unable to donate to enhance shareholder value, their only concern. This is pure ideology run amok and totally inappropriate for the SEC.
2
Maybe "enhancing shareholder value" shouldn't be their only concern? Used to be that a corporation owed duties to its shareholders, its employees, and to its customers and the community at large. Someone who only thinks about "enhancing shareholder value" is not that different from the Mafia.
3
"disclosure of which will lead to PR headaches and customer boycotts."....I think that is the point. If you are doing something you don't want the public to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.
Operating in this brave new world where corporations speak with money requires genuine campaign reform. The SEC rule would improve our current system dramatically. However, the country is in a sorry place when once again we need to act through agency regulation where congress failed to provide legislation. The Disclose Act died in filibuster by one vote.
I applaud the authors for making the business case for the proposal but we need more to fix our system. We need to overturn Citizens United and level the playing field between corporations and unions; businesses and labor. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate both or confine them to individual contribution limits. Either way, we're not getting far without congressional action.
Why do we pay legislators again? I didn't think it was to fund raise.
I applaud the authors for making the business case for the proposal but we need more to fix our system. We need to overturn Citizens United and level the playing field between corporations and unions; businesses and labor. Personally, I'd prefer to eliminate both or confine them to individual contribution limits. Either way, we're not getting far without congressional action.
Why do we pay legislators again? I didn't think it was to fund raise.
3
For her own sake, and that of the Democratic Party, not to mention the country, I think that Hillary Clinton should come clean about all the money she has solicited and has received from corporations, special interest, foreign countries, banks, Wall Street, and individuals who may or may not be seeking political appointments.
This is NOT an accusation or an innuendo. This is public record. Hillary Clinton needs to address this issue and explain how she, and she alone, is immune from this corrupt practice that taints every other candidate in history. This is an issue that is hurting her, and she refuses to "get it."
This is NOT an accusation or an innuendo. This is public record. Hillary Clinton needs to address this issue and explain how she, and she alone, is immune from this corrupt practice that taints every other candidate in history. This is an issue that is hurting her, and she refuses to "get it."
2
If the people who run, but don't own the company are allowed to spend as they see fit for politicians, that's a problem. It isn't free speech, it's abuse of their duty to the owners. All this hiding of donations to politicians and other political spending is wrong. Call it free speech, but it doesn't mean you get to hide what you are doing.
6
Dark Money is bad for business and terrible for good government. The right wing billionaires who fund front organizations (think tanks), politicians, and ex-politicians (lobbyists) as well as corporate executives who secretly donate other peoples' money (shareholders, pension funds) to advance their personal interests expect something, often a lot, in return.
When physicians or scientists present lectures or the results of their research, they must disclose whether they have any conflicts of interest to the audience.
It would be a great help to every citizen to know if a political candidate's point of view and proposals were influenced by their funding.
Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, should be required to publicly disclose any gifts, contributions, and possible conflicts of interest as they arise (before elections and before presiding over legal proceedings).
News organizations, such as the NY Times and WSJ, should publish the funding sources of their contributors.
"Paid for" speech is not "free" speech. "Paid for" politicians are not paid to serve the public interest.
When physicians or scientists present lectures or the results of their research, they must disclose whether they have any conflicts of interest to the audience.
It would be a great help to every citizen to know if a political candidate's point of view and proposals were influenced by their funding.
Judges, including Supreme Court Justices, should be required to publicly disclose any gifts, contributions, and possible conflicts of interest as they arise (before elections and before presiding over legal proceedings).
News organizations, such as the NY Times and WSJ, should publish the funding sources of their contributors.
"Paid for" speech is not "free" speech. "Paid for" politicians are not paid to serve the public interest.
6
Political spending by a publically owned company should receive permission for the contribution through a vote of investors and shareholders. After all, in the end, it is the voice of the investors and shareholders that is making the contribution. They should know what they are contributing to. I would hate to think some of my investments might be supporting candidates, war, anti-gay legislation, gun rights, etc... which they may very well be. I have no idea.
4
S.E.C.'s 'hour of truth' is closing in: is it for a plutocracy, corpocracy, even kleptocracy of the few, to put a nail on the coffin, or will it have the courage to lean towards true democracy? Time is ticking!
1
Corporations are not people and money is not speech. No corporation should be allowed to try to influence any election or legislation. Let's elect legislators and executives who enact laws because it's the right thing to do--not because they were legally bribed to do so.
6
Workers represented by unions (however few may remain) are allowed to opt out of paying for that portion of their dues that would otherwise go to political activity. I have long felt, as a small-fry shareholder of several publicly held corporations, that I and other shareholders should have a similar right. I'm fairly certain that if offered a choice, many shareholders would choose to receive that money in the form of an increased dividend rather than donate it to politicians or political groups, including many that we abhor.
9
My guess is that many of the ill informed Trump supporters would be opposed to "dark money" but they will continue to elect politicians who make this practice possible.
3
There are people who have no business or right to influence American elections. The very existence of dark money would allow Russian oligarches to finance the election of Donald Trump or ISIS doing the same, believing that a Trump presidency would do more damage to America that a thousand terrorist car bombs and blowing up Hoover Dam.
If you cannot do something in broad daylight and need the cover of darkness and want to do it anyway, you are a sneak and a coward and we need to turn the lights on so we can see your faces and publish your names. If you are a politician and approve of dark money and would not change the law, you need to explain why you need to hide your donors. Who is whispering in your ear.
If you cannot do something in broad daylight and need the cover of darkness and want to do it anyway, you are a sneak and a coward and we need to turn the lights on so we can see your faces and publish your names. If you are a politician and approve of dark money and would not change the law, you need to explain why you need to hide your donors. Who is whispering in your ear.
9
Don't kid yourself -- or believe the thesis of this op-ed. The proposed SEC rule has nothing to do with investor interest. The amounts involved are tiny and the vast majority of investment money comes from institutions that care about share price, not holding anyone accountable for "beliefs" or inconsequential political risk/reward choices.
The proposed rule is about activists on the left who want to push corporate money out of the political system while ensuring that the institutional political players they prefer (unions and plaintiff's lawyers) can stay in. You can debate the merits of that, but it has nothing to do with the SEC and its mission to protect shareholders from fraud and abuse. Misusing SEC power for political ends just makes its core mission harder.
The proposed rule is about activists on the left who want to push corporate money out of the political system while ensuring that the institutional political players they prefer (unions and plaintiff's lawyers) can stay in. You can debate the merits of that, but it has nothing to do with the SEC and its mission to protect shareholders from fraud and abuse. Misusing SEC power for political ends just makes its core mission harder.
2
how much money are chinese billionaires and arab oil sheiks spending to influence this election ?
well, thx to pacs and citizens united, youll never know, will you
thats some democracy you got there
well, thx to pacs and citizens united, youll never know, will you
thats some democracy you got there
8
Disclosure of the donor identity along with the amount of money spent as political contribution if combined with an independent audit of the party funds and expenses could go a long way to bring transparency to the political system and accountability in the corporate governance.
3
Whether disclosed or not, contributions from companies allowed since the Citizens United decision are patently unconstitutional, regardless of what the current SCOTUS has decided. If a company makes considerably money overseas or an individual does, for that matter, funneling that money into PACs or SuperPACs for the obvious purpose of influencing American elections violates the very sovereignty of the United States. Regarding multi-national companies, this is clear as day. The current campaign finance system in the USA is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional. A SCOTUS who actually understood the Constitution and fulfilled their duties to protect it could/would never rule that these absurd contributions meet constitutional muster. So, you're missing the elephant in the room.
39
Corporations should not be allowed to spend money to influence politics in America. If they insist on doing so then there should be one vote allowed for for the corporation and every person who is part of that corporation loses their vote. For instance, GE would get one vote to represent ALL employees. They might have the money but WE THE PEOPLE have the votes. It is time to overturn the hostile corporate takeover of America.
4
Corporations are a free association of people. If corporations are not allowed to lobby and donate money are you also against the same for Sierra Club or Planned Parenthood? Shall they not be allowed to advertise to the public or lobby for a special interest? Because you can't legally do one without the other.
Yes, W.A., I'd be perfectly happy to have it be illegal for any corporation and/or organization - for-profit or non-profit - to give political contributions. They can still influence their members.
3
@spritzer - corporations are NOT a "free association of people". Corporations are a construct allowed by law for tax and other benefits not available to individuals. They do not have the right to vote, and should not have "rights" granted to citizens. The owners/controllers of the corporation should have no more rights than any other citizen to influence government.
Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to make political donations; their individual members can. But even those entities that exist for a singular purpose should have the ability to expound and advertise as pertains to their cause.
Lobbying by anyone that is not eligible to vote on the issue at hand should be illegal and made a capital offense.
Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood should not be allowed to make political donations; their individual members can. But even those entities that exist for a singular purpose should have the ability to expound and advertise as pertains to their cause.
Lobbying by anyone that is not eligible to vote on the issue at hand should be illegal and made a capital offense.
3
The Citizens United decision was bad for elections and Americans. It made the dark money donations possible. If corporations feel it's necessary to hide their donations from the public perhaps those are donations they should not be making in the first place. It's true that we don't have much discretion in buying our prescriptions from a company if they are the only ones manufacturing the medication. However, we can refuse to buy certain products if we know that the company making them supports things we disagree with and we may, in some cases do that. Companies don't like being pressured to clean up their acts. They don't want the consumers whom they claim to value knowing what causes they support or that the tax cuts they want drive up the cost of living for consumers.
A lot more sunlight on where companies direct their donations is needed. I, for one, am tired of supporting companies that deliberately underpay their employees and tell them how to apply for government assistance while they overpay their CEOs and support cutting social safety net programs. I'm tired of hearing companies complain or beg about taxes and then once they get relief, complaining about the education systems or the infrastructure. If companies want a functioning country they have to pay for it just like the rest of us. If they want to lobby or pay money to eliminate their obligations we should know about it.
A lot more sunlight on where companies direct their donations is needed. I, for one, am tired of supporting companies that deliberately underpay their employees and tell them how to apply for government assistance while they overpay their CEOs and support cutting social safety net programs. I'm tired of hearing companies complain or beg about taxes and then once they get relief, complaining about the education systems or the infrastructure. If companies want a functioning country they have to pay for it just like the rest of us. If they want to lobby or pay money to eliminate their obligations we should know about it.
10
I agree with full disclosure. I think the article fails to mention one of the major defects of corporate participation though. The ownership of corporations is diffuse, including many foreign citizens and interests. Regardless of the limited influence due to the former, the latter is a potentially disqualifying element for American politics. The core idea that American citizens govern themselves is bedrock.
32
And like most other bedrock, it's buried under layers of shale and mud, ready for slinging and as rich as Croesus.
Yesterday, a columnist cited a Gallup Report, that American voter discontent goes beyond government disfunction and incompetency to a belief that government as run by politicians of both parties is corrupt.
Today, it is reported that Mr. Trump is turning to Wall Street and other benefactors to finance his 1.5 Billion Dollar estimated cost for his presidential election. At an earlier point the cost for the entire election season was thought to come in around 3 Billion Dollars.
Election costs continue to escalate, and it is a safe assumption that Dark Money will foot its share of the bill for both parties.
As sinister as the term Dark Money sounds for those who believe in the corruption of government, and hence for those who work and benefit from it, the thinking is that the cost is morally wrong in its disregard for human welfare; unjust that the billions are not spent on resolving the social and economic travails of say West Virginia; and disparate because the outcome of money flows in the direction of the already wealthy such as hedge fund managers and politicians seeking to add to their wealth and aggrandizement. These believers in corruption read about how much it costs for two weeks in the Hamptions or how much dinner at a top line restaurant in Manhattan runs.
They seem resigned that this current election will produce more of the same corruption at a far greater cost to them than the dollars it will cost to get elected. A vacation is not in their plans.
Today, it is reported that Mr. Trump is turning to Wall Street and other benefactors to finance his 1.5 Billion Dollar estimated cost for his presidential election. At an earlier point the cost for the entire election season was thought to come in around 3 Billion Dollars.
Election costs continue to escalate, and it is a safe assumption that Dark Money will foot its share of the bill for both parties.
As sinister as the term Dark Money sounds for those who believe in the corruption of government, and hence for those who work and benefit from it, the thinking is that the cost is morally wrong in its disregard for human welfare; unjust that the billions are not spent on resolving the social and economic travails of say West Virginia; and disparate because the outcome of money flows in the direction of the already wealthy such as hedge fund managers and politicians seeking to add to their wealth and aggrandizement. These believers in corruption read about how much it costs for two weeks in the Hamptions or how much dinner at a top line restaurant in Manhattan runs.
They seem resigned that this current election will produce more of the same corruption at a far greater cost to them than the dollars it will cost to get elected. A vacation is not in their plans.
4
Yes Joseph - but not if Democrats nominate Bernie Sanders! Polling between Trump and Clinton is close..Bernie has better odds of beating Trump..because of his NOT taking any corporate money. People are figuring this out and independents would vote for him. The Democrats appear on the verge of selecting the candidate least likely to beat Trump.
1
Perfect markets are supposed to have perfect information (everyone knows everything). Democracy is supposed to be transparent. (The motives of politicians should be based on the policy wants of voters and voters should know who they are talking to.)
It is a nice argument that the authors are making. But there are many corporations, some of them anonymous shell corporations (like Steven Cobert's Anonymous Shell Corporation) that can donate dark money without anyone knowing where the real cash is coming from. It could be coming from Chinese corporations. That is technically illegal but who would know?
The real point is that the American People have a right to know who is paying for our elections. Secret money creates secret deals. Then when someone commits what seems like a serious fraud, like the series of frauds that brought down the economy, we find out that it is no longer illegal and no one goes to jail.
Perfect markets don't make profits, because if you raise your price, you can't sell. They distribute resources efficiently. These days many corporations are all about manipulating and breaking markets to squeeze obscene profits out of them. It is much easier when you can use dark money to influence regulations. Global banks have admitted and paid slap-on-the-wrist fines for manipulating commodities, currencies, interest rates, security ratings, etc... but no one went to jail, because mysteriously none of it is actually illegal.
The People must fix this.
It is a nice argument that the authors are making. But there are many corporations, some of them anonymous shell corporations (like Steven Cobert's Anonymous Shell Corporation) that can donate dark money without anyone knowing where the real cash is coming from. It could be coming from Chinese corporations. That is technically illegal but who would know?
The real point is that the American People have a right to know who is paying for our elections. Secret money creates secret deals. Then when someone commits what seems like a serious fraud, like the series of frauds that brought down the economy, we find out that it is no longer illegal and no one goes to jail.
Perfect markets don't make profits, because if you raise your price, you can't sell. They distribute resources efficiently. These days many corporations are all about manipulating and breaking markets to squeeze obscene profits out of them. It is much easier when you can use dark money to influence regulations. Global banks have admitted and paid slap-on-the-wrist fines for manipulating commodities, currencies, interest rates, security ratings, etc... but no one went to jail, because mysteriously none of it is actually illegal.
The People must fix this.
13
Not enough, but this could be one tool used or fighting against corporate direction of elections. But we will either push elected officials to secure reforms to limit spending and recharacterize companies as non-human entities, or our government "of the people" will disappear.
I heard yesterday - radio - that a simple reform bill proposed in the NYS legislature has been successfully put in limbo for the year- - a testament to the sloth, and determination to snag their own share dark money, of most legislators, and their assumption that there will be no news about their lack of action.
And it's worse at the Federal level.
I heard yesterday - radio - that a simple reform bill proposed in the NYS legislature has been successfully put in limbo for the year- - a testament to the sloth, and determination to snag their own share dark money, of most legislators, and their assumption that there will be no news about their lack of action.
And it's worse at the Federal level.
11
Rules should be made to restore shareholder control over their companies. Non-operational matters, like charitable contribution, executive compensation and political spending need to be put to shareholder votes.
11
I like this result. I don't accept the reasoning.
From the point of view of investors, these are tiny amounts of money. It would not come to a penny profit per share.
Also from the point of view of investors, their company gains advantage from secrecy.Lobbying is more effective behind closed doors. We know that because, given the choice, they all choose to do it that way. If it were more effective done in the open, at least some would do that for the advantage.
We can't look to investor self interest to self regulate this. It is not in their self interest. They won't self regulate. That is as much fantasy as Wall Street self regulation.
No, to get this result, we'll need rules, and enforcement. It won't suddenly appear as voluntary disclosure.
From the point of view of investors, these are tiny amounts of money. It would not come to a penny profit per share.
Also from the point of view of investors, their company gains advantage from secrecy.Lobbying is more effective behind closed doors. We know that because, given the choice, they all choose to do it that way. If it were more effective done in the open, at least some would do that for the advantage.
We can't look to investor self interest to self regulate this. It is not in their self interest. They won't self regulate. That is as much fantasy as Wall Street self regulation.
No, to get this result, we'll need rules, and enforcement. It won't suddenly appear as voluntary disclosure.
59
"From the point of view of investors, these are tiny amounts of money.".....If the amounts and recipients of political donations are unreported how do you know they are tiny amounts? Further as an investor, a part owner of the corporation, I have a right to know how they spend my money. The amount is irrelevant. I have a right to know how my money is being used.
13
While I agree heartedly with the Op-Ed., It flies in the face or our current election. She, who must not be criticized if one is to be published, is either an outlier or makes the whole ideal false. Only she can take bribes, contributions, donations and not be bought and sold. Only she is above impropriety.
So, which is it? Dark money leads to corruption? Or it just looks like it and really it is just paranoia. Our favorited candidate is above reproach or we are looking the other way so we can win. Just this time I'm sure! Can't be helped. Everyone cheats. Oh, its not cheating. Its the way the system works. If one wishes to compete, they too must push the envelope.
Spin Dems spin!!!
What?
Someone is competing without playing dirty? Someone is participating without being tainted? A lack of impropriety? Must be a fraud. How is that possible. How can they be trusted if they aren't like us! Lets smear and belittle and tear down. Hurry before our smarmy excuses and lack of scruples become campaign fodder.
Ha! What are we worried about. American't is as corrupt as they come.
Business as usual.
Thanks for the smile Kathleen and Steven. Nice pipe dreams. But sorry. Not possible in the land of pragmatic incremental status quo corruption. Maybe you should try pedaling this in some other Land of The Free.
Get! Out! and Vote!
#NotMeUs
So, which is it? Dark money leads to corruption? Or it just looks like it and really it is just paranoia. Our favorited candidate is above reproach or we are looking the other way so we can win. Just this time I'm sure! Can't be helped. Everyone cheats. Oh, its not cheating. Its the way the system works. If one wishes to compete, they too must push the envelope.
Spin Dems spin!!!
What?
Someone is competing without playing dirty? Someone is participating without being tainted? A lack of impropriety? Must be a fraud. How is that possible. How can they be trusted if they aren't like us! Lets smear and belittle and tear down. Hurry before our smarmy excuses and lack of scruples become campaign fodder.
Ha! What are we worried about. American't is as corrupt as they come.
Business as usual.
Thanks for the smile Kathleen and Steven. Nice pipe dreams. But sorry. Not possible in the land of pragmatic incremental status quo corruption. Maybe you should try pedaling this in some other Land of The Free.
Get! Out! and Vote!
#NotMeUs
57
I totally agree that corporations should be required to fully disclose their political contributions. But when I see words being used - bribes, bought and sold, cheating - I recognize the ugly language of socialism. Lets have class warfare, lets divide the country. There is us good people who are being cheated, and those bad people who are bought and sold. I am poor because you are rich. The only way I can improve my status in life is to make sure you fail.
I am all for addressing and solving our problems, but I will not be seduced by the dark side. I will not arbitrarily lump people into groups of good and evil without facts and evidence. You need to listen to the words you are using and take care.
I am all for addressing and solving our problems, but I will not be seduced by the dark side. I will not arbitrarily lump people into groups of good and evil without facts and evidence. You need to listen to the words you are using and take care.
6
This is like being in China, where young people use code words to criticize the likes of "She who must not be criticized," to avoid angering the people in power and their state media. Shall we use the word "jasmine?" Or violet, the state flower of Illinois?
4
@Spitzer - So now if we call a bribe a bribe or a cheat a cheat, we are "ugly" socialists? Perhaps that is the attitude of those who are able to participate in such shenanigans, but the actual people of this country by and large do not have that ability. Are we thus second-rate citizens and socialist rabble-rousers?
The division between the haves and have-nots in this country has already been made, and it is clear which side you profess to be.
The division between the haves and have-nots in this country has already been made, and it is clear which side you profess to be.
9
"companies are often not as informed as one might think"
ONE - meaning one Real Person - might think. Corporations - deemed "legal persons" - do not and cannot think.
This a basic problem with the idea of corporations "speaking" with their money.
I certainly don't need "investments" to do my thinking. For me. Especially when, in effect, they charge me for that!
Raise your dividends. And let me think for myself!
ONE - meaning one Real Person - might think. Corporations - deemed "legal persons" - do not and cannot think.
This a basic problem with the idea of corporations "speaking" with their money.
I certainly don't need "investments" to do my thinking. For me. Especially when, in effect, they charge me for that!
Raise your dividends. And let me think for myself!
32
Why should anyone care how much money a corporation contributes to a PAC? Haven't you heard, money does not influence politicians. Ask Hillary and her supporters. She can rake in hundreds of millions in speaking fees, campaign contributions and foundation donations, yet not a single policy or decision she makes is influenced by that money. Seriously, that is what her supporters say.
They don't even care what she told those special interest groups in exchange for $250,000 a speech. And they are sick and tired of people continuing to demand she release her transcripts. Secrecy is fine because everyone does it. Well maybe not in the amount she has managed to rake in, but look at Guliani, W and the rest.
The parties are controlled by Big Money and their only interest is figuring out how to get more of it. Arguing that money influences politicians is quaint and nostalgic. The message to the average voter--vote and shut up.
Next time you hear a mainstream Democrat argue that Citizens United needs to be overturned, ask her if she believes money is a corrupting influence in politics. If they say yes, then ask how come it does not corrupt Hillary. Brace yourself for the answer--"You support Trump!!!!!"
Money in politics has bipartisan support, further eroding our democracy.
They don't even care what she told those special interest groups in exchange for $250,000 a speech. And they are sick and tired of people continuing to demand she release her transcripts. Secrecy is fine because everyone does it. Well maybe not in the amount she has managed to rake in, but look at Guliani, W and the rest.
The parties are controlled by Big Money and their only interest is figuring out how to get more of it. Arguing that money influences politicians is quaint and nostalgic. The message to the average voter--vote and shut up.
Next time you hear a mainstream Democrat argue that Citizens United needs to be overturned, ask her if she believes money is a corrupting influence in politics. If they say yes, then ask how come it does not corrupt Hillary. Brace yourself for the answer--"You support Trump!!!!!"
Money in politics has bipartisan support, further eroding our democracy.
55
Money isn't the only thing that corrupts, so does power. Have you ever stood before a large audience to speak and felt the wave of power sweep through your body? Heady stuff, and no one is immune, not even the sainted one.
2
Yet another reason to feel the Bern.
TRANSPARENCY Is requisite in most matters, except, perhaps in areas of national security where the disclosure of all the facts could give some advantage to those would destroy us. On the other hand, the banksters and economic terrorists who used dark money on Wall Street, contributed greatly to the Great Recession. Public corporations who trade on the stock exchange require stock ownership as a basis for being able to vote on corporate policies and decisions. But their investments are a matter of public record. So if consumers wish to transition rapidly to sustainable energy and communities, they may opt not to purchase stocks of corporations that support fossil fuels. That's a tough call to make, because I doubt that many stock companies specifically avoid doing business with the producers of fossil fuels. Also, dark money in politics has the potential of having secret foreign contributors who wish to influence the outcome of US elections. For that reason, anonymous contributors may use shell corporations to hide their identities. Such secrets, in my opinion are anathema to democracy and enemies of a free society. The proposition on which Citizens United is based, that corporations are "persons," and should have the all the rights of citizens is preposterous. The majority of the Supreme Court in Citizens United engaged in highly defective, destructive interpretations of the facts. So where are the birth certificates of the corporations born as humans? NOWHERE!
24
Dark money is bad, but so are the Koch brothers. Since both are considered people in the eyes of the law, then if asking the Koch brothers to reveal how they spend their contributions is a violation of free speech, then so it is for corporations. If you want corporations to reveal how they spend their contributions, stop treating them like people.
8
The Business Judgment Rule protects these corporate decisions;
and re SEC, all government pronouncements are corrupt, as Mr Obama has weaponized the agencies,. think IRS and the conservative 501-c-3 persecution and exclusion
and re SEC, all government pronouncements are corrupt, as Mr Obama has weaponized the agencies,. think IRS and the conservative 501-c-3 persecution and exclusion
4
I know you really do not believe the trope about the IRS and Obama conspiracy. You just say it to make a point. It is so far-fetched it is laughable.
2
As an investor, I should have the right to ask that none of my money be used for political donations of any kind. Put it in the business, not the politics.
63
And what if a law is about to be passed. A good law but it contains portions that inadvertently through an absence of knowledge would serious damage a business even though without intent. Is it not legitimately a part of that business to lobby and inform legislators of the potential problem?
2
Exactly. These sorts of 'investments' are no good in the long run - either for society or for the shareholders.
1
Nice dodge!
We wouldn't need any dark money, or very much light money if we had term limits.
The money is just a symptom of the problem of reelection cycles, and the incumbents always get the most donations.
The money is just a symptom of the problem of reelection cycles, and the incumbents always get the most donations.
7
Term limits do nothing. It's gerrymandering that messes everything up. As long as voting districts are in the hands of a single party, the party can just keep switching candidates. One serves his term limit, then the party replaces him with another person of the same ilk. Faces change; policies remain in place.
4
Full disclosure. Corporate lobbying and targeted contributions have tremendous return on investment. Purchasing a specific vote, administrative rule, contract, or simply ensuring an elected official knows how to cast their vote, and does it, are good for investors because they're efficient uses of money with a high return.
Giving to dark money groups has a lot of associated risk, and it's very hard to demand accountability. It's very easy for corporations to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. We donated X for Y action. Do it. Period. Not so easily accomplished with dark money.
Investors should know exactly where their company is spending money and have every right to demand political contributions maximize return on investment. There's no excuse to ever lose a vote you've paid for, and there's no reason to pay for a vote that doesn't make the company money.
Giving to dark money groups has a lot of associated risk, and it's very hard to demand accountability. It's very easy for corporations to hold elected officials accountable for their actions. We donated X for Y action. Do it. Period. Not so easily accomplished with dark money.
Investors should know exactly where their company is spending money and have every right to demand political contributions maximize return on investment. There's no excuse to ever lose a vote you've paid for, and there's no reason to pay for a vote that doesn't make the company money.
9
More important than corporate governance, it's crucial to corporate citizenship.
Democracy is only so strong as the behavior of it's voters. Dark money, especially with the push given by Citizens United has encouraged both poor governance AND poor citizenship by corporations. The impact on governance is barely scratched upon here. Business has managed to lobby for and get legislation that in the long run will cost profits, in favor of short run profits. One need look no further than the Great Recession and New Normal recovery where only some, business and individuals, alike, have recovered and are thriving to see a strong evidence that this is the case. The impact of the heating of the environment has not been considered, the impact of when profits are more exclusively held by the .01% than today on global economy, eg. when the race to the bottom is lost or won depending on whether or not you are the .01% or not when globally no one can afford to live on their full-time pay has not been contemplated, only anticipated by endless hunger for "economies".
These same failures that are poor corporate governance result in poor citizenship by corporations claiming speech but have no citizenship except to dodge it for tax purposes.
Speech is free, one can say whatever one wants, but culpable for the consequences whether a person or a corporation. Perhaps individuals need to be awarded special mention like other minorities if the measure is in dollars, not people.
Democracy is only so strong as the behavior of it's voters. Dark money, especially with the push given by Citizens United has encouraged both poor governance AND poor citizenship by corporations. The impact on governance is barely scratched upon here. Business has managed to lobby for and get legislation that in the long run will cost profits, in favor of short run profits. One need look no further than the Great Recession and New Normal recovery where only some, business and individuals, alike, have recovered and are thriving to see a strong evidence that this is the case. The impact of the heating of the environment has not been considered, the impact of when profits are more exclusively held by the .01% than today on global economy, eg. when the race to the bottom is lost or won depending on whether or not you are the .01% or not when globally no one can afford to live on their full-time pay has not been contemplated, only anticipated by endless hunger for "economies".
These same failures that are poor corporate governance result in poor citizenship by corporations claiming speech but have no citizenship except to dodge it for tax purposes.
Speech is free, one can say whatever one wants, but culpable for the consequences whether a person or a corporation. Perhaps individuals need to be awarded special mention like other minorities if the measure is in dollars, not people.
7
The rule is a good start, but only a start. The biggest dark money donors are private companies like Koch Industries. Jane Mayer's book Dark Money lays it all out.
32
Purchasing influence is a tangled web, because the purchase is dark, and the influence tries to remain dark too. ALEC and Americans for Prosperity are not advertising there full slate of agenda items. And, as the authors point out, no corporation has only one interest, not does any political organization have only one goal.
My argument for the ruling is just a little more simple. The corporation has spent my money - if I am an owner - and has the responsibility to me to demonstrate that it has spent my money wisely. They have a fiduciary responsibility to assure that they are not being defrauded or committing fraud. How can they do that when they siphoning hundreds of thousands down a big black hole?
My argument for the ruling is just a little more simple. The corporation has spent my money - if I am an owner - and has the responsibility to me to demonstrate that it has spent my money wisely. They have a fiduciary responsibility to assure that they are not being defrauded or committing fraud. How can they do that when they siphoning hundreds of thousands down a big black hole?
20
This is perhaps the most misleading and self-serving thing I have ever read.
First, the authors fancifully label themselves specialists in investor rights. That is code for bottom-feeders who invent shareholder grievance suits that more often than not hurt shareholder value while benefiting the lawyers who file them. These lawyers only exist because of their close relationship with Democrats who legalize this extortionate form of legal hustle.
Second, the purpose of the proposed SEC rule is purely political. Corporate political advocacy seeks to advance the interests of the business. Those who wish to eliminate corporate advocacy actually oppose corporate interests and wish to silence the corporate political voice. Mandatory disclosure will simply make it easy for lefty wackos to attack political spending they oppose.
Third, we don't need or want to have the SEC to micro-manage corporate governance in this way. Indeed, corporate governance is supposed to be a matter of state law, and this is an area of dangerous federal over-reach by progressives who wish to run the world through federal regulation. Any corporation that wished to have this type of disclosure could simply enact it as a matter of self-governance. The SEC wants to make it universal and mandatory only because no group of real shareholders would be so stupid as to hamstring their business in this way.
First, the authors fancifully label themselves specialists in investor rights. That is code for bottom-feeders who invent shareholder grievance suits that more often than not hurt shareholder value while benefiting the lawyers who file them. These lawyers only exist because of their close relationship with Democrats who legalize this extortionate form of legal hustle.
Second, the purpose of the proposed SEC rule is purely political. Corporate political advocacy seeks to advance the interests of the business. Those who wish to eliminate corporate advocacy actually oppose corporate interests and wish to silence the corporate political voice. Mandatory disclosure will simply make it easy for lefty wackos to attack political spending they oppose.
Third, we don't need or want to have the SEC to micro-manage corporate governance in this way. Indeed, corporate governance is supposed to be a matter of state law, and this is an area of dangerous federal over-reach by progressives who wish to run the world through federal regulation. Any corporation that wished to have this type of disclosure could simply enact it as a matter of self-governance. The SEC wants to make it universal and mandatory only because no group of real shareholders would be so stupid as to hamstring their business in this way.
2
You might not want regulation, but a large portion of the country wants to see government reign in you guys. You can't self-regulate, because your only bottom line is profit. People -- consumers, clients -- are of no interest to corporations, and if you can't learn to behave lime good citizens and work in the interests if the common good, then you should be put out of business, to make room for people who belueve in good corporate governance and compliance with laws set in place to protect our democracy.
4
Individuals donations are capped and are subject to scrutiny to make sure I do not exceed my personal cap.
If corporations are "persons" why do they not have to play by the same rules as we real talking, breathing "persons"?
If corporations are "persons" why do they not have to play by the same rules as we real talking, breathing "persons"?
129
Corporations can't donate directly to candidates. They can, however, form a PAC and donate to candidates, but that also has a limit just like personal donations.
A Super PAC, which is on paper operates independently of any candidate, can receive unlimited donations, from either you or a corporation.
So they do play by the same rules. The issue is more that it's a lot easier for a corporation to make a very large donation to a super pac than it is for an individual.
A Super PAC, which is on paper operates independently of any candidate, can receive unlimited donations, from either you or a corporation.
So they do play by the same rules. The issue is more that it's a lot easier for a corporation to make a very large donation to a super pac than it is for an individual.
2
Good point. Put a cap on contributions from each "individual" that does not exceed one percent of the annual median income of an American citizen. Thus if the average annual income is $40k per year, the contribution cap for each individual (and corporation) could not exceed $400 per cycle per candidate. The same cap would apply to the rich and uber rich.
Just think how quickly those obscenely expensive Hollywood fundraising dinners would become become happy lawn picnics at George Clooney's house.
Just think how quickly those obscenely expensive Hollywood fundraising dinners would become become happy lawn picnics at George Clooney's house.
And individuals are capped at what!!!??? Is it over $300,000?
Are you willing to make a promise not to exceed your limit? I certainly am.
Land of the free. What a joke.
Are you willing to make a promise not to exceed your limit? I certainly am.
Land of the free. What a joke.
It's a simple concept - free speech does not have to mean anonymous speech. So if political contributions are speech, the identity of the "speaker" should be disclosed.
97
The real issue should be the obscene costs of running for high political office. Elsewhere in today's NYT is a comment that the cost of a Trump run for the presidency might approach, or even exceed, $1.5 billion, and the concern is that this might not be enough because the Democrats may spend more. If these cost predictions are true, it should be seen as an outrage. Knowing where the money is coming from might help a little, but it will not likely help much to address the excessive cost of political contests. This gets us into a different discussion, but one that we need to have before long, because these costs put democracy in peril when only the wealthiest people or major political parties can participate effectively, and, as we are seeing, even wealthy people, such as Trump or Bloomberg, could not easily self fund a presidential campaign.
19
A disclosure rule on corporate dark political money is an excellent idea and should be policy. Not only are corporations not functioning in the stockholders interests, the CEO who would normally use complex analysis by skilled employees before the do anything corporate are having their very rudimentary political opinions played by others. They are misinformed and jockeyed by their base emotions. They are clueless about what effect and damage their money does but boy do they feel good socking it to some democrat such as Bernie, Obama or Hillary. The effective pea size of many of their corporate political brains can be seen by some of the paid for wackiest comments made in the republican debates. Yes, Trump's brain really is defective and broken but most of the other republican candidates are much saner than their dark money forced talk appeared. Do you think Jeb Bush "anchor baby" talk was not pre-approved by his billionaire backers? The clueless criminal ultra-rich worry about things like anchor babies infesting there should be elegant lives.
5
I agree and the problem is most of the Congress has been purchased by corporate entities with money for their campaign war chests and then the candidate is owned..so who will vote for this needed reform?
1
Nice thoughts, but disclosure is not the answer. Banning political contributions from any entity that cannot vote is the answer, as is a Constitutional amendment stating that only actual human beings are eligible to vote and corporations are not people, my friend. And even the political contributions of humans should be restricted to contributions to candidates they could actually vote for. As much as I hate Scott Walker for example, I should not be able to contribute to his opponent as I cannot vote in Wisconsin.
The owners of a corporation already have the right to contribute to political campaigns as individuals. To say that restricting political contributions by corporations is a violation of "free speech" is not only a lie, it's paving the way for more and more corruption. In truth, we need to get money, no matter where it comes from, completely out of politics if our democracy is to survive.
The owners of a corporation already have the right to contribute to political campaigns as individuals. To say that restricting political contributions by corporations is a violation of "free speech" is not only a lie, it's paving the way for more and more corruption. In truth, we need to get money, no matter where it comes from, completely out of politics if our democracy is to survive.
88
Yes overturning Citizen's United is not enough. This is a hundred years plus trend. We need an amendment to the constitution:
Corporations are not People and Money is Not Speech.
Corporations are not People and Money is Not Speech.
8
The problem is, in being able to buy legislation which allows the merging of corporations in to fewer and fewer giant conglomerates, it then becomes almost insurmountable to have the politicians, whom are now owned lock stock and barrel by these entities, to still do the right thing.
If these primary elections have proved once and for all, the oligarchy of America want politicians they can control. As we have seen in the establishment media, in particular, they will do everything in their power to make sure candidates like Sanders or Trump do not upset their cushy apple cart.
If these primary elections have proved once and for all, the oligarchy of America want politicians they can control. As we have seen in the establishment media, in particular, they will do everything in their power to make sure candidates like Sanders or Trump do not upset their cushy apple cart.
5
Investors' rights? Buyers' rights, owners' rights? Whose rights, once senior execs use the investors' money to fund candidates. Gets complicated, doesn't it … almost who's on first, what's on second, and whose game is it anyway? The comical aspects of such a ménage can be seen here … http://tinyurl.com/go2op2w
2
I think giving money is different thing from Freedom of Speech.
In fact whoever got around this 'donating' should be speaking Trump speech and calling it bribes.
Call it Dark Money or whatever if Republicans are hitting Hillary because she got paid for speeches then it is simply a message that whatever the purpose money does speak.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
10 May, 2016.
In fact whoever got around this 'donating' should be speaking Trump speech and calling it bribes.
Call it Dark Money or whatever if Republicans are hitting Hillary because she got paid for speeches then it is simply a message that whatever the purpose money does speak.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
10 May, 2016.
3
I find it rather interesting that back, some time ago, Hillary Clinton stated once all the other candidates divulged their speech transcripts, she would divulge hers. Well, there are now only THREE candidates still running in the primaries, TWO of whom never made or received received speaking fees, thus no transcripts and then there is Hillary.
Well, the time has come, where are the Goldman Sachs transcripts Hillary?
Well, the time has come, where are the Goldman Sachs transcripts Hillary?
Cannot there be a system where it is mandatory to take shareholders' consent before the company donates to a non-profit organisation,supposedly for a cause? Passing a resolution at the general body meeting or special general body meeting of shareholders? Why give blanket powers to board of directors? Does Freedom of Information Act cover non-profit organisations? NGOs are also another lobby groups,and they need not disclose information about donors and the recipients. We talk of Panama papers . Scrutiny of NGOs funds is welcome idea.
4
"Oh what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive."
Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)
The whole point of disclosure is to make risks visible to investors. The risk of a massive boycott by consumers of a company that engages in subversion of the public interest through anonymous political spending is very real.
Without disclosure, we may have a "Panama Papers" moment in dark money spending. Just ask the former prime minister of Iceland how that works out.
When first we practice to deceive."
Sir Walter Scott (Marmion, 1808)
The whole point of disclosure is to make risks visible to investors. The risk of a massive boycott by consumers of a company that engages in subversion of the public interest through anonymous political spending is very real.
Without disclosure, we may have a "Panama Papers" moment in dark money spending. Just ask the former prime minister of Iceland how that works out.
87
Not only should corporate political spending be transparent, it should be timely, taking advantage of today's capabilities to publish such spending on the interwebs :)
79
Well-argued piece; but it misses the primary justification for the argument that dark money is bad.
If full transparency in political contributions were required, it would vastly facilitate the ability of the left to demonize corporations that supported causes they oppose, with destructive efforts to boycott the products and services of those corporations. Taken to extremes that kind of transparency would allow ideological interests to foreclose the ability of corporations to participate meaningfully in our governance or even for their stakeholders to express themselves politically, leaving the field free for proselytizing by the left.
Of course, it can go both ways and may. Corporations as well as influential individuals who support causes opposed by the right can be demonized, as well, destroyed even in the case of corporations by the same tactics used by the left, if their OWN dark money is shown the light of day.
Arms race, anyone?
If full transparency in political contributions were required, it would vastly facilitate the ability of the left to demonize corporations that supported causes they oppose, with destructive efforts to boycott the products and services of those corporations. Taken to extremes that kind of transparency would allow ideological interests to foreclose the ability of corporations to participate meaningfully in our governance or even for their stakeholders to express themselves politically, leaving the field free for proselytizing by the left.
Of course, it can go both ways and may. Corporations as well as influential individuals who support causes opposed by the right can be demonized, as well, destroyed even in the case of corporations by the same tactics used by the left, if their OWN dark money is shown the light of day.
Arms race, anyone?
5
So, transparency is bad because people may react negatively/ideologically and therefore cause harm to business interests? Might they also react positively, and transfer their spending TO that business as a result of positive feelings toward the ideological stance of that business?
As you point out, "it can go both ways and may." That concession pretty much invalidates the initial objection, does it not?
The point of your comment appears to be that the primary danger of transparency is harm to well-meaning businesses at the hands of ideological zealots from the left. Seems a bit ironic, given many recent revelations about corporate behavior in the US.
As you point out, "it can go both ways and may." That concession pretty much invalidates the initial objection, does it not?
The point of your comment appears to be that the primary danger of transparency is harm to well-meaning businesses at the hands of ideological zealots from the left. Seems a bit ironic, given many recent revelations about corporate behavior in the US.
43
No, TM, transparency is bad because it's anything but truly transparent: it was devised as a means to support the left's ideological aims, it's manifestly what it is, and I don't expect anybody to be seriously taken in by it.
Your response seems to be based on a premise that any corporate stakeholder has no right to express himself politically or participate in any way in the political process BECAUSE he's part of a corporation. So ... let's just enact some stealth legislation that would have the effect of making him and his livelihood vulnerable to people who already have sought numerous times to severely damage corporations because they happen to disagree with the stakeholders.
Your response seems to be based on a premise that any corporate stakeholder has no right to express himself politically or participate in any way in the political process BECAUSE he's part of a corporation. So ... let's just enact some stealth legislation that would have the effect of making him and his livelihood vulnerable to people who already have sought numerous times to severely damage corporations because they happen to disagree with the stakeholders.
Richard Luettgen, the nub of your position is that "We the People," as opposed to corporate "persons," might use knowledge about corporate political giving in a way contrary to your political interests: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," Where is Toto when we need him?
7
I am all for transparency but perhaps the authors should look into the mirror. A lot of legal professionals are wasting investors' money in the name of investors' right - since the investors are really company owners - with frivolous lawsuits. So to company executives, both political contributions and getting sued by lawyers are cost of doing business.
4