This is the same SEC that couldn’t missed the subprime scandal and Bernie Madoff. This is nothing more than a political proposal to stop certain corporations/companies from receiving government contracts due to giving contributions to politicians. As we all know, it is the Democrats who are the corporate whores, as liberal OpenSecrets.org has exposed.
A proposal before the Securities and Exchange Commission that would require public companies to disclose political contributions has drawn some favorable comments from investors, but it won’t go a long way in meeting the demands of those advocating for more transparency in political fundraising.
A group of 10 law professors filed a formal petition asking the commission to require corporations to list political contributions in annual proxy statements sent to shareholders. The professors cite a growing interest among shareholders for disclosure of political contributions.
What party receives the most money from Trial Lawyers? Democrats.
“Many shareholders recognize that the interests of executives and directors with respect to political spending might differ from those of shareholders,” said Lucian Bebchuk, a Harvard Law School professor who co-chaired the group of professors seeking the new rule. “Such shareholders are naturally concerned when, as is commonly the case, their company provides them with no information about its political spending.”
Are they concerned with the political contributions from the AFL-CIO, Teacher Unions, SEIU etc? Highly unlikely since they tend to give most of their money to Democrats.
The agency has posted several commentsfrom other outside observers supporting the rule, including the International Corporate Governance Network, which represents institutional investors with a combined $18 trillion in assets.
The issue has come to the fore in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision in early 2010, which legalized independent corporate political spending. In the majority opinion, the justices wrote that shareholders are responsible for controlling the actions of executives in charge of the corporate purse, opening the door for new rules, as long as they don’t violate the First Amendment.
It was a free speech case. Washington Post is parroting President Obama’s lie.
“Prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the decision.