Skip to main content

View Diary: Is ALEC about to get its food bowl taken away? (51 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Don't get your hopes up (9+ / 0-)

    The political contributions rule proposal is a petition from the public, not part of the SEC rulemaking process.  The SEC has plenty of leftover Dodd-Frank rules to work on (pay equity rules, for example, comparing average worker pay to CEOs), and from the JOBS Act.

    I doubt the SEC will move a controversial political rule responding to a public petition up in the queue ahead of rules it is already late in preparing under existing legislation.

    •  . (22+ / 0-)
      The SEC received a record 469,000 comments on the proposal. Only five of those comments were negative. Typically, the SEC gets fewer than 100 comments on its proposed rules.

      "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 06:06:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Horace Boothroyd III

        <Dick Cheney>

        Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

        by Simplify on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:26:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Here's the actual petition, from a bunch of legal (12+ / 0-)


        The SEC is apparently still adding comments to its docket on this petition:

        Anyone wanting to add their two cents' worth can send a note too, maybe something like :


        RE: Petition for Rulemaking, File 6-437

        I am writing in support of the Petition for Rulemaking recently filed, under Rule 192(a) of the Commission, to require public companies to disclose to shareholders the use of corporate resources for political activities (File No. 4-637). This petition is to request rulemaking under the provisions of The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

        According to recent research by the Sustainable Investments Institute and the IRRC Institute, voluntary corporate disclosure of political spending remains limited, with only 20 percent of S&P 500 companies reporting on how they spent shareowners' money. In addition, only 38 companies out of the entire S&P 500 mention independent expenditures, such as Super PAC contributions, as part of their policies on corporate political spending. We cannot and should not be left in the dark about the use of corporate treasury dollars in our elections.

        Now is the time to act. Two years ago, the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission opened the floodgates on political spending in this country. With more than $4 billion in total spending, the 2010 election was the most expensive midterm election in U.S. history. This year's Presidential election has broken records on election spending once again - with millions of dollars in undisclosed spending being channeled through anonymous contributions to trade associations, 501c4 organizations and eventually Super PACs. The same is true of Congressional, state and local elections.

        I ask that the Securities and Exchange Commission act quickly to consider and adopt the proposed rule on disclosure of corporate political spending. Transparency in corporate political spending is in the best interests of investors, companies and the general public, and I strongly believe that the Securities and Exchange Commission is the most appropriate agency to require such disclosure.

        Sincerely yours,

        [name and address]


        This can be snailmailed to

        U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
        Office of Investor Education and Advocacy
        100 F Street, N.E.
        Washington, DC  20549-0213

        Or Fax:  (703)813-6965  

        Over 465,000 comments have been filed, individually and by groups. As the Diarist's links note, only 5 (five) contrary comments have been made, but of course those are from the ugliest, most "interested" parties.

        Maybe somebody can figure out where these can be delivered via email  to the SEC  I sure could not.

        And for the real wonks, here's HR 1473, "Dodd-Frank" itself:

        "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

        by jm214 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 10:29:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the link. Maybe it could be added to (5+ / 0-)

          the diary? (If HB's keyboard is up to it)

          Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
          ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

          by FarWestGirl on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 12:06:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry, But I don't see where to add (4+ / 0-)

          a comment at that link. Sure would like to!

          "Only a Vulcan mind meld will help with this congress." Leonard Nimoy, 3/1/13

          by nzanne on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 01:59:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The SEC is old-fashioned. That's why the Financial (3+ / 0-)

            Industry (sic) is getting away with murder, figuratively and literally. They maintain themselves about a respectful 10 paces behind the "Industry Leaders," and so many of them have as a career goal a nice comfy spot as a partner in a big law or lobbying (much the same) firm, exercising their accumulated procedural and substantive learning for a much larger annual paycheck.

            So if you want to add your name to the petition, you will have to "file" it by actually printing out your contribution and mailing it, with a stamp and all, to the SEC at the address given. Or go later-20th-century and fax it to the number given. Amazing, isn't it that some 465,000 of our fellow citizens went to that much trouble to

            Of course, the lobbyists and lawyers who "appear before" the SEC to help the Very Few escape liability for the very few remaining financial crimes, and who flood the dockets of rulemakings that might constrain the Vampire Squid in any way, and file their own "get mah boy outa jail free" rulemaking petitions, have their offices just down the block from 100 "F" Street.

            Sorry for the inconvenience. I didn't vote for it...

            "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

            by jm214 on Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 03:50:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  The other thing is, this only applies to public (4+ / 0-)

      corporations.  Privately held ones, (like the Kochs IIRC) would still not have to reveal anything.  The Kochs and Adelsons of the world would still be able to donate hundreds of millions to SuperPACs without revealing squat, so long as they're doing it from private companies and their own coffers.

      Anything that can be regulated will have ways quickly found to skirt the rules.  Just ask Steven Colbert's lobbyist.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site