ATTORNEY: H. ADAM PRUSSIN
Pomerantz Monitor, May/June 2013
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, a gusher of so-called “independent” spending by private groups and organizations flooded into the last election cycle, with much of it coming from corporations.
In its decision, the Court assumed that any adverse effects of corporate or union cash entering politics could be ameliorated by public disclosure of where the money came from; and in August of 2011, a petition signed by two law professors was submitted to the SEC, asking it to adopt a rule requiring such disclosures.
The petition has been publicly supported by the AFL-CIO; Public Citizens; the Corporate Reform Coalition, and some Democratic members of Congress. It has generated over half a million comments, the most the SEC has ever received on any proposed rule, and most of them reportedly want the SEC to act.
But opponents are pushing back. Republicans have lined up against it, to the point of submitting a House bill seeking to prevent the SEC from adopting any disclosure rule.
So far, the two SEC commissioners appointed by Democrats have come out publicly in support of such a rule, and the two appointed by Republicans have come out against. Mary Joe White, recently confirmed as the new SEC Chairman, has not yet taken a public position. Although the issue was on the Commission’s April agenda, no decision had been made as of Monitor press time.
The business community, by and large, wants no part of such a rule, fearing that disclosure might provoke a backlash from interest groups, customers, shareholders, or even from the politicians they are targeting. Another possible motivation is the desire to disguise the underlying agendas of those advancing particular political positions. Voters are likely to react differently to an ad that ostensibly comes from an independent group they never heard of, rather than from a group that they know is heavily financed by corporate interests with a particular axe to grind.
It might be in a company’s interest for its involvement in political activities to remain hidden, but the public at large may have an even greater interest in knowing who is really responsible for the political speech to which they are being subjected. Perhaps the Federal Election Commission would, in theory, be the more logical place to hash this out. But that agency is moribund, permanently paralyzed by partisan gridlock.
Currently, companies don’t have to disclose their political expenditures unless the amounts involved are “material.” But in this context, “materiality” is in the eye of the beholder. Even if the amount contributed is not that significant compared to a corporation’s overall expenditures, it could be considered important by many investors depending on what candidate, or what issue, is being targeted. Moreover, amounts that are immaterial to a giant company like Apple or Exxon might have a huge impact in a political campaign. As huge as political expenditures have become by historical standards, they are still dwarfed by the amounts spent by businesses for other things.
Typically, corporations make political expenditures by contributing to advocacy groups. The petitioners to the SEC estimate that about $1.5 billion in corporate cash has been funneled through such groups over the last five years. Some groups, such as political action committees, are required to disclose their contributors; but others, such as so-called 501(c)(4) groups, don’t. Increasingly, that is where the corporate cash is going: these groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the last election cycle, without disclosing where any of it came from.
If the SEC staff proposes a rule, yet another political donnybrook is certain to follow, after which will be the inevitable court case. The Court of Appeals for D.C., which reviews challenges to agency rules, has become increasingly aggressive in blocking agency rules it doesn’t like, often demanding “cost benefit” analyses.
We should hear something any day now.
Reportedly, most of the candidates and issues promoted by the heaviest “independent” expenditures did not do well last time around. But there is no guaranty that secret money won’t swing elections sooner or later.