March, 30 2015, 12:15pm EDT
As Dark Money Monsters Torment Investors, Shareholders Need SEC Chair to Be Superhero; They Ask: 'Where Is Mary Jo White?'
Investors and Organizations Launch Anti-Dark Money Ad Blitz to Push Agency for a Rule Requiring Corporations to Disclose Political Spending
WASHINGTON
With monsters on the loose slinging blobs of corporate cash, frantic investors ask, "Who can rescue us from this dark money menace?" In the crowd, a woman remembers rumors that the chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has special powers to curb corporate political spending. "Mary Jo White is the superhero we need to end this menace," another onlooker shouts. "Where is Mary Jo White?"
That's the narrative of a month-long ad campaign launched today by investors and public interest organizations. The goal is to persuade the SEC to require publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's overreaching decision in Citizens United, corporations have had greater leeway to spend shareholder money to influence politics, but no new rules or procedures have been established to ensure that shareholders - those who own the corporations - are informed of decisions about spending in politics.
Subway travelers who enter and exit Union Station in Washington, D.C. - a major transit hub near the SEC's headquarters - will see every available ad space taken up with comic strip-style illustrations of frightened investors and voters calling on SEC Chair Mary Jo White to save them from monsters that have taken shareholder democracy hostage. SEC Chair Mary Jo White is depicted as a superhero who can rescue them from dark money threatening their investments, but where is she? The ads will be promoted by a social media campaign centered around #WhereIsMJW and including an animated video.
The ads and video, available at www.WhereIsMJW.com, are part of a push by the Corporate Reform Coalition to ensure that shareholders and voters know how much corporations spend to influence elections, and which races they fund. The ads were paid for by Avaaz, Public Citizen, Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, Greenpeace, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Communications Workers of America.
"From Big Oil to Big Pharma, this undisclosed dark money is rotting our corporate democracy from the inside out, and thousands of citizens are saying no more dirty secrets," said Joseph Huff-Hannon, senior campaigner with Avaaz. "This cheeky ad campaign is calling on SEC Chair Mary Jo White to defend us and our country from these creatures. We know she can. The only question is, will she?"
"Corporate political spending requires particular investor protections because it exposes investors to significant new risks," said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. Public Citizen is a co-founder of the Corporate Reform Coalition. "Corporate political spending choices may diverge from a company's stated values or policies, or may embroil the company in hot-button issues. Investors have a right to know what candidates or issues their investments are going to support or oppose."
The ad campaign comes in advance of the SEC's spring announcement of its rulemaking agenda. Under former Chair Mary Schapiro, the agency had included a political disclosure rule on its 2013 agenda, but Mary Jo White removed the rule last year, sparking outrage among investors and the public and leading many to ask, "Where is Mary Jo White on this important investor priority?"
A petition requesting the rulemaking was filed in 2011 by a bipartisan committee of leading law professors. A record-breaking million-plus comments have been submitted to the SEC from retail and institutional investors in support of a rule. The comments have come from diverse sources such as John C. Bogle, founder and former CEO of Vanguard; more than 70 current and former members of Congress; five state treasurers; the Maryland State Retirement Agency; US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment; and a large group of firms managing more than $690 billion in assets.
As evidence of strong investor concern about political spending, in the past five years, shareholders have filed more than 500 resolutions on corporate political activity. In 2014, resolutions on political activity were the highest scoring proxy proposals, and four proposals received majority support despite opposition from corporate management.
This year, investors have filed more than 110 proposals around corporate political activity - more than a quarter of all shareholder proposals filed. At meetings in April and May, shareholders will go up against some of the largest companies in the world, but most will not achieve the disclosure they deserve. The ad campaign is designed to spotlight the fact that SEC Chair Mary Jo White is the superhero with the power to end the menace of dark money in investments.
Additional quotes:
"Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United in 2010, the political landscape has changed drastically, but the rules of corporate governance have not caught up. The court's opinion was predicated on disclosure and the process of corporate democracy, but the 2014 midterms were flooded with almost $200 million in dark money, and shareholders, the owners of corporate wealth, had no way of knowing where that money was coming from. Investors need SEC Chair Mary Jo White to act and require all publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending."
- Emma Boorboor, democracy advocate, U.S. PIRG
"Disclosure of political spending is required for labor organizations. SEC Chair Mary Jo White should make the same requirement for corporations."
- George Kohl, senior director, Communications Workers of America
"Publicly traded corporations, including many in the fossil fuel industry, are getting away with hiding their political spending from shareholders and the public, polluting not only our climate, but our democracy. The public deserves to know how corporations are spending investor cash to influence elections. More than a million people have asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to take action, so the question is, 'Where is Mary Jo White?' "
- Rachel Rye Butler, democracy campaigner, Greenpeace
"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United to unleash corporate political spending was premised largely on the idea that voters would know which corporations were investing in which candidates and how much they were giving to each. We thought a little humor might draw attention to the issue while still calling on the need for the SEC to force public companies to provide that vital information."
- Karen Hobert Flynn, senior vice president for strategy and programs, Common Cause
"Corporations are secretly spending millions of dollars on political campaigns, and as investors, the Teamsters are concerned that we cannot evaluate potential conflicts or risks."
- Jim Hoffa, general president, Teamsters. The Teamsters invest more than $100 billion in the capital markets through affiliated pension and benefit funds.
"The SEC has the authority to regulate public corporations in the public interest and to protect investors. Five years after Citizens United allowed new corporate spending in elections, Chair Mary Jo White cannot continue to evade her responsibility to update the agency's rules to require disclosure of corporate political spending in the face of growing need and demonstrated demand."
- Liz Kennedy, campaign strategist and counsel, Demos
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
'This Maniac Must Be Stopped': Netanyahu Condemned Over Massive Beirut Bombing
While Hezbollah's leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly survived the attack on the densely populated area of Lebanon's capitol, one observer warned that Israel may still "get the regional war it has sought."
Sep 27, 2024
Israel's dropping of massive bombs in Beirut on Friday sparked a fresh wave of global condemnation against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with critics accusing him of trying to drag the Middle East into an even bloodier conflict that could engulf the entire region.
The Israeli attack supposedly targeted Hassan Nasrallah, head of the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Multiple media outlets reported that the leader survived, though hundreds of others are feared dead in the "complete carnage" from the bombing that leveled several buildings. While the death toll from Friday is not yet clear, over 700 people have been killed in Israel's strikes in Lebanon since Monday.
As The New York Timesreported:
Lebanon's health minister, Firass Abiad, said that there had been a "complete decimation" of four to six residential buildings as a result of the Israeli strikes. He said that the number of casualties in hospitals was low so far because people were still trapped under the rubble. "They are residential buildings. They were filled with people," Mr. Abiad said. "Whoever is in those buildings is now under the rubble."
Social media and news sites quickly filled with photos and videos of massive plumes of smoke and smoldering rubble.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, the United Nations special coordinator for Lebanon, said Friday that she was "deeply alarmed and profoundly worried about the potential civilian impact of tonight's massive strikes on Beirut's densely populated southern suburbs. The city is still shaking with fear and panic widespread. All must urgently cease fire."
However, the bombing is widely expected to worsen this week's escalation, which came after nearly a year of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) trading strikes with Hezbollah over the Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which has killed over 41,000 Palestinians.
"For Israel, it may not matter if Nasrallah was killed. Either way, it believes it'll get the regional war it has sought," Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, said of the Friday attack.
Citing an unnamed Israeli official, NBC Newsreported that "Israel expects Hezbollah will attempt to mount a major retaliatory attack" in response to Friday's bombing of the group's command center.
As Reutersdetailed:
Israel has struck the Hezbollah-controlled southern suburbs of Beirut, known as Dahiyeh, four times over the last week, killing at least three senior Hezbollah military commanders.
But Friday's attack was far more powerful, with multiple blasts shaking windows across the city, recalling Israeli airstrikes during the war it fought with Hezbollah in 2006.
In a video posted on social media, IDF Spokesperson Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari described the Friday attack as "a precise strike" on what "served as the epicenter of Hezbollah's terror," adding that the group's headquarters "was intentionally built under residential buildings."
During Netanyahu's United Nations General Assembly speech on Friday—which was met with a walkout from several diplomats and other officials—the prime minister said that Hezbollah has stored rockets "in schools, in hospitals, in apartment buildings, and in the private homes of the citizens of Lebanon. They endanger their own people. They put a missile in every kitchen, a rocket in every garage."
In response, Middle East expert Assal Rad said, "So he's claiming there's no civilian spaces in Lebanon and Israel has a right to destroy all of it."
Jason Hickel, who has positions at multiple European universities, also sounded the alarm over those lines from the Israeli leader's speech.
Netanyahu is "effectively arguing all homes are a military target," he said. "This is 100% genocidal and this maniac must be stopped."
Hours before the attack in suburban Beirut, the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (DiEM25) strongly condemned "Israel's brutal bombardment of Lebanon, another reckless escalation in the Middle East on behalf of the Benjamin Netanyahu regime that risks further destabilization in an already fragile region."
"The Israeli bombardment of Lebanon is the latest dark chapter in a series of disproportionate displays of force. Its ongoing genocide in Palestine over the last year has proven beyond any doubt that its willingness to commit horrific acts knows no bounds," DiEM25 said. "Rather than seeking a peaceful and just resolution, Israel's government has consistently chosen the path of militarism, often with international support from the European Union and the United States."
"The international community, including the E.U., has a critical role to play in promoting peace rather than enabling violence," the group added. "Peace and security in the Middle East will not come through bombs and military strength. It will come through diplomacy. We remain committed to working towards that aim and stand in solidarity with the Lebanese people, as well as all others suffering from this violent escalation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Political,' Journalist Who Published Vance Dossier Says of Permanent X Ban
"It's not about a violation of X's policies," wrote Ken Klippenstein. "What else would you call this but politically motivated?"
Sep 27, 2024
Independent journalist Ken Klippenstein said Friday that he was privately informed by the Elon Musk-owned social media platform X that his account has been permanently banned, a decision that Klippenstein argued was "politically motivated."
X, formerly Twitter, suspended Klippenstein on Thursday after he posted to the platform a link to his Substack article containing a download link for a 271-page dossier that Republican nominee Donald Trump's campaign prepared to vet Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), who was ultimately chosen as the former president's running mate.
The dossier, Klippenstein noted, "reportedly comes from an alleged Iranian government hack of the Trump campaign," and major news outlets such as Politicodeclined opportunities to publish it. The U.S. Justice Department on Friday charged three men with allegedly carrying out a hack against the Trump campaign.
In a statement issued late Thursday afternoon as it faced backlash, X said that "Ken Klippenstein was temporarily suspended for violating our rules on posting unredacted private personal information, specifically Sen. Vance's physical addresses and the majority of his Social Security number."
On Friday, Klippenstein—who has previously worked for The Intercept and The Nation—shared a private message from X informing him that his account is "permanently in read-only mode, which means you can't post, Repost, or Like content" or "create new accounts."
"The two-step dance X is doing here—avoiding further backlash by pretending like my suspension is just a temporary thing, no big deal, while privately suspending me permanently—only makes sense when you consider the political dimensions," Klippenstein wrote on his Substack. "Elon Musk is an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump and JD Vance's political campaign. The Wall Street Journalreported that he promised $45 million a month for a pro-Trump Super PAC (Musk subsequently disputed this). So X clearly doesn't want to give the appearance that my ban was politically motivated. But a careful look at the pretext X cites for my suspension makes it obvious that this is political."
"The media is going to see the case of the Vance dossier and conclude that reporting on similar documents isn't worth losing their social media accounts over."
Observers have noted the obvious parallels between the social media platform's handling of the Vance dossier and a 2020 New York Post story on the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop. At the time, Twitter—not yet under Musk's ownership—placed restrictions on sharing of the Post story, limits that were reversed months later.
Klippenstein noted Friday that Musk—a self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist"—was "so incensed by Twitter's previous owners' decision to block the story on its platform that he took the extraordinary step of releasing Twitter's internal correspondence to independent journalist Matt Taibbi so he could report on how the decision came about. (I support his transparency, by the way.)"
"Now, anyone posting a link to my article finds their account locked, which is exactly how Twitter handled the Hunter Biden laptop story by the New York Post," Klippenstein wrote.
Journalist Lee Fang pointed out shortly after Klippenstein's ban that "the Hunter Biden laptop—which had newsworthy info that was fair game—also had personal dox info, far more than this Vance doc."
"The Biden laptop had bank/credit cards, personal addresses, nudity, etc," Fang added. "You can still link to those Biden docs on X, but Vance doc link banned?"
Klippenstein argued that "the biggest tell that this is political" is that X did not offer him a chance to restore his account by removing the post that resulted in his ban, as the platform typically does with users accused of violating its policies.
"As an experiment, last night my editor and I decided to redact all 'private' information from the Vance dossier in my story here at Substack," Klippenstein wrote Friday. "Despite filing an appeal in which I mention this, I remain banned. So it's not about a violation of X's policies. What else would you call this but politically motivated?"
"Boo hoo, poor me, I lost my account. That's not the point here," he continued. "If you were frustrated with the media's refusal to publish the Vance dossier, prepare for a future that's worse. The media is going to see the case of the Vance dossier and conclude that reporting on similar documents isn't worth losing their social media accounts over. Why take the risk when you can just blather on about the horse race? As always, it's the public that loses out the most."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems Name and Shame Companies Paying Executives More Than They Pay in Federal Taxes
"In the first five years following the 2017 giveaway, 35 companies raked in $277 billion in domestic profits and paid their executives $9.5 billion."
Sep 27, 2024
A group of congressional Democrats and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday highlighted dozens of profitable U.S. corporations that have paid their executives more than they've paid in federal income taxes in recent years, a problem that the lawmakers attributed in large part to former President Donald Trump's massive tax-cut package that Republicans are working to extend.
"In the first five years following the 2017 giveaway, 35 companies raked in $277 billion in domestic profits and paid their executives $9.5 billion—more than they paid in federal income taxes," the lawmakers noted in letters to each of the companies, pointing to recent research by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness.
"Next year, Congress will decide what to do with these corporate giveaways. Republicans have promised to go even further if elected and cut the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 15%," the lawmakers continued. "This additional tax giveaway would provide Fortune 100 corporations as a whole with another $50 billion each year, more than all current K-12 federal education spending."
"The windfall from TCJA to big businesses, executives, and wealthy shareholders is unmistakable."
Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in the Senate and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) in the House led the letters to the 35 companies, a list that includes high-profile names such as Netflix, Ford, and Tesla, whose CEO is the richest man in the world.
"Tesla is among the most dramatic examples of this phenomenon—big, profitable corporations that have actually been paying their top executives more than they pay the government in federal income taxes," the lawmakers wrote. "According to an analysis by the Institute for Policy Studies and Americans for Tax Fairness, in the period between 2018 and 2022, Tesla raked in $4.4 billion in profits and did not pay a single dollar in federal income tax."
During that same period, Tesla chief executive Elon Musk received "the largest pay package ever recorded for a company's CEO," the lawmakers observed.
The other companies that have paid their top executives more than they've paid in federal taxes in recent years are T-Mobile, AIG, NextEra, Darden, MetLife, Duke Energy, First Energy, DISH, Principal Financial, American Electrical Power, Kinder Morgan, Dominion, Oneok, Williams, Xcel Energy, NRG Energy, Salesforce, DTE Energy, Ameren, Sempra Energy, U.S. Steel, Entergy, AmerisourceBergen, PPL, CMS Energy, Evergy, Voya Financial, Atmos Energy, Alliant Energy, Match Group, UGI, and Agilent Tech.
The lawmakers demanded that the companies' CEOs answer several questions, including how much the corporations would have paid in federal taxes had the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) not been enacted and how much they've spent on lobbying to keep the Republican law intact.
"The windfall from TCJA to big businesses, executives, and wealthy shareholders is unmistakable," the letters read. "A recent analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy found that 342 companies paid an average effective income tax rate of just 14.1% during the five years after TCJA passed, almost a third less than the 21% statutory rate. The gains do not 'trickle down'—90% of workers saw no earnings increase, while executives making $989,000 per year or more got an average raise of $50,000."
The letters were released days after the Economic Policy Institutereleased an analysis showing that CEO pay has soared by 1,085% since 1978 while the pay of typical U.S. workers has grown by just 24%.
The 2017 Trump-GOP tax law led major companies to splurge on stock buybacks, a major gift to corporate executives whose annual compensation packages consist largely of stock.
"President [Joe] Biden and Democrats in Congress are committed to making corporations pay their fair share," the lawmakers wrote in their letters. "In the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, we passed the first corporate tax increase in 30 years with the 15% corporate minimum tax. Though significant, raising $222 billion from billion-dollar corporations, it is not enough on its own to undo the corporate tax giveaways signed into law by President Trump and ensure that corporations pay their fair share."
"Next year," they added, "Congress has an opportunity to take bigger strides in reforming our tax code—to raise the corporate rate, close loopholes, and hold big businesses to the same standards as everyday working Americans who pay their fair share."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular