Comment Submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission Endorsing a New Rule on Transparency of Corporate Political Spending

19 Pages Posted: 8 Nov 2011

Date Written: November 2, 2011

Abstract

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

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

Ciara Torres-Spelliscy (Contact Author)

Stetson University College of Law ( email )

1401 61st Street South
Gulfport, FL 33707
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
73
Abstract Views
1,845
Rank
580,987
PlumX Metrics