I like the idea of knowing who is Funding those fly-by-night Front Groups. This might be one way to pin an "origination" to all that unfettered Corporate Speech, that the "Citizens United" unleashed, into our national public discourse:
Unveiling secret corporate political money
by Michael Kirkland, UPI.com -- Nov. 13, 2011
[...]
In other words, even if corporate executives now earmarking company money for political candidates and parties would not have to reveal the recipients to the public or the media, they would have to disclose the amounts and recipients to stockholders. The SEC has been considering the rule since it was proposed in August.
[...]
The effect of the January Supreme Court [Citizens United] decision was immediate on the that year's midterm elections in November, the most expensive in U.S. history.
Common Cause said 2010 numbers compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show "$293 million came from groups operating independently of the candidates or political parties. [...]
A little less than half of that independent money, $138 million, came from 501(c) groups -- named for a section of federal law -- that are not required to report donors to the FEC.
The Citizens United ruling led 10 law professors to form the "Committee on Disclosure of Corporate Political Spending." In August, the group submitted a "petition for rulemaking" to the Securities and Exchange Commission:
"We ask that the commission develop rules to require public companies to disclose to shareholders the use of corporate resources for political activities."
In other words, if executives want to participate in politics using corporate funds, they would have to publicly tell stockholders what they're doing. Of course, the odds of stockholders passing that information on to the media are pretty good.
Smart professors. ... a few small problems though ...
The odds of stockholders wanting to know if "their companies" are acting as Political Bulldozers, are pretty good.
The odds of the SEC actually "regulating something" involving Accountability -- not so much.
Probably about as good of odds, as the Supreme Court ruling, to make Corporations Culpable, for the crimes committed by their operatives and employees, in the name of that all-mighty Pursuit of Profits ...
Because as we are all painfully learning ... in yet another lavishly-funded election cycle:
'Corporations are people, my friends' -- by jamess -- Nov 12, 2011
At least in the eyes of Law, they are. Now in the eyes of the Shareholders, I guess those 'unmailed proxy votes' may soon tell ... It's not my 401-k, that is "silently funding" all that Political Bulldozing, is it?
If it is, I want to know about it.
One other small problem, with this SEC-accountability solution though -- What about Private Corporations, that are not publicly traded?
What will make them, claim ownership, post their Logos, on all of that "Free Speech" they pay to promote? ... pay to run on a repeating public-airway loop. (ie. Political Ads.)
Nothing -- unless the Supreme Court, or the FEC decides to act.
Corporate Speech may be "protected" -- but so should be the rights of the audience, to know exactly who is Speaking to them.
Afterall, the Constitution's Founders -- did not shrink from the act of "signing their names" ... did they?
Nor did those, who Declared their Independence:
That is something the Roberts Courts, just might want to consider.