[EL] “Petition for Disclosure on Political Spending Gains Support”

[Craig Holman]

Through deregulation andlack of enforcement, very little is left of what by all rights should be a veryrobust transparency law established by BCRA. 


The law itself is quiteclear that the sources of funds behind campaign ads are subject to disclosure.Section 201 of BCRA, for example, lays out the disclosure requirements forgroups funding electioneering communications. BCRA clearly states that allmajor donors to the person making the electioneering communication must bedisclosed, not just those who contributed for a campaign ad. The provisionreads in part: “Every person who makes a disbursement for the direct costs ofproducing and airing electioneering communications in an aggregate amount inexcess of $10,000 during any calendar year shall, within 24 hours of eachdisclosure date, file with the Commission a statement containing . . . thenames and addresses of all contributors who contributed an aggregate amount of$1,000 or more to the person making the disbursement during the periodbeginning on the first day of the preceding calendar year and ending on thedisclosure date.


The FEC altered itsdisclosure regulation interpreting the law at the end of 2007 requiring an entity that makes electioneering communications to disclose “the name andaddress of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to thecorporation or labor organization, aggregating since the first day of thepreceding calendar year, which was made forthe purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” BCRA makes no such exception.
 
As a result, this language has recently beeninterpreted by a growing number of outside groups to mean that only thosedonors who specifically “earmark” funds for a campaign ad need be disclosed -- which has meant a dramatic fall in donor disclosure from nearly 100% donor disclosure in 2004 and 2006 to about half that today. This requirement that only donors who earmark their funds for campaign ads has been extended by the FEC to independent expenditures as well as electioneering communications. The public (and shareholders, unless a corporation has its own internal voluntary disclosure rules) is now left in the dark as to who is funding the groups that sponsor electioneering communications and independent expenditures.


It is largely suspected -- though it cannot be documented because of the lack of disclosure -- that most of this "dark money" comes from corporate treasury accounts. 


The petition before the SEC requests rulemaking to establish transparency for shareholders as to how a corporation's CEO is spending their money on electioneering communications and independent expenditures funneled through outside groups as well as contributions to lobbying campaigns.





Craig Holman, Ph.D.
Government Affairs Lobbyist
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
T-(202) 454-5182
C-(202) 905-7413
F-(202) 547-7392
Holman at aol.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Joe La Rue <joseph.e.larue at gmail.com>
To: law-election <law-election at uci.edu>; Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Wed, Nov 13, 2013 7:06 am
Subject: [EL] “Petition for Disclosure on Political Spending Gains Support”



Regarding this:
 

“Petition for              Disclosure on Political Spending Gains Support”

 Posted on November                12, 2013 8:34 pm  by  Rick                  Hasen 

WSJ            reports.

 
I'm confused.  Don't corporations already have to disclose their independent expenditures, the same as everyone else?  I'm not sure that it's always "voluntarily," as the author says.  But it is done, isn't it?  And, if so, what's the point of this proposal, other than more regulation and more hoops for those who want to engage in political speech to jump through?  Am I missing something?  

 
Joe
___________________
Joseph E. La Rue

cell: 480.272.2715 
email: joseph.e.larue at gmail.com


CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information or otherwise be protected by law. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the message. 
 
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION/ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT.

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Any tax advice contained in this communication was not written and is not intended to be used for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties imposed by the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any transaction or matter addressed herein.









_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20131113/180f690f/attachment.html>