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