Should public companies be forced to disclose to their shareholders -- and thus to the world -- their campaign contributions (rather than funnelling them secretively through third parties, such as the Chamber of Commerce)? The SEC is considering a disclosure rule, but the Chamber of Commerce is opposed, as explained in this article by Sue Reisinger. Here are some excerpts:
The fight over whether public companies should be forced to reveal their political contributions made through third parties continues to roil on several fronts, with a coalition of 30 business associations opposing the idea of the Securities and Exchange Commission considering a new disclosure rule. ... Speaking for the [Chamber], attorney Andrew Pincus told CorpCounsel.com, “There is no policy justification for this [proposed rule]. The theory of proponents is that the management and board can’t be trusted to ensure that the company’s political expenditures are consistent with the corporation’s interests. There is absolutely no basis, no evidence, for that theory.” Pincus ...said such disclosure could actually hurt the value of a company because certain shareholders who don’t like the policies being supported could use the disclosure to “beat up on the company,” and thereby “damaging the brand and trying to stop the company from doing things that are in the long-term best interests of the company.” ... [Columbia law professor Robert] Jackson noted that opponents say disclosure is bad while contributions are in the best interests of the corporation. “If that’s true, then why wouldn’t you tell shareholders about [these contributions]?” Jackson asked. “It’s a puzzle.”
The purpose of public companies is just that, for public consumption, and regulations are meant to protect the public, not private interests,. ie..corporations.
Gene
Posted by: Gene | Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 07:55 PM