19 Pages Posted: 8 Nov 2011
Date Written: November 2, 2011
This Comment will open with an introduction about the ways that publicly-traded corporations can legally mask their role in U.S. elections. Then in Part II, I offer a comparison from the United Kingdom, which is four decades ahead of America in providing transparency for corporate political spending. In Part III, I will explain how a new disclosure rule about political spending is in line with the Commission’s previous anti-pay-to-play rules. In Part IV, I argue that the Commission should act because its sister agencies, the FEC, IRS and FCC, have failed to address this issue. In Part V, I outline the potential scope of a new SEC disclosure rule. In Part VI, I explain why such a disclosure rule would be constitutional. And in Part VII, I conclude with a review of the many business reasons for a Commission rule requiring transparency of corporate political spending.
Keywords: SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Corporate Political Spending, Corporate Political Activity, Blount, pay to play, pay-to-play, disclosure, transparency, rulemaking, Citizens United, shareholder, shareholder rights, agency problem, moral hazard
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Torres-Spelliscy, Ciara, Comment Submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission Endorsing a New Rule on Transparency of Corporate Political Spending (November 2, 2011). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1955950 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1955950