What if Shareholders Knew About Their Company's Political Spending?

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/what-if-shareholders-knew-about-their-companys-political-spending



If you own a share of a company, how much information about the company are you entitled to? That is the question embedded in the debate over a proposed Securities and Exchange Commission rule that would force publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending to their shareholders.

As of this month, a 2011 petition to the SEC proposing the rule has received more than 1 million comments -- most of them in favor of the mandate. Supporters of the rule, some of whom demonstrated outside the SEC last week, say that's the highest number of public comments ever submitted in response to a petition for a SEC rule. That level of public engagement, the proponents say, means the agency must stop delaying and implement the proposal. They also say that as hundreds of millions of dollars flood into politics through anonymous "dark money" sources, the rule is more needed than ever.

If adopted, the proposal, written by law professors, would codify and standardize disclosures shareholders have long been requesting from various companies. Those requests have been among the most common proposals at annual shareholder meetings. At the same time, major institutional investors such as the New York state and city pension funds have used their shares to press companies to disclose their political expenditures.

Thanks to that pressure, the Center for Political Accountability reports "almost 70 percent of companies in the top echelons of the S&P 500 are now disclosing political spending made directly to candidates, parties and committees," and "almost one out of every two companies in the top echelons of the S&P 500 has opened up about payments made to trade associations." The center calls that a dramatic increase from a decade ago when "few, if any, companies disclosed their political spending."

[merrily]

1. Or their company's employment policies?

This is the whole premise of socially responsible investing, which has gone on for a while. Before you invest, know what your company is doing and then stay informed.

It was also the premise of the boycott of companies that directly or indirectly supported South African apartheid.

Seems like we always have to re-learn the same lessons. It's like we have no history books.

[yeoman6987]

2. This is a mess

Of course it would be great to know what party gets the donations as shareholders. But most major companies give to both parties so individual stocks are probably a wash. The mutual funds are made up of numerous stocks of both variety. So I have Janus Fund and I see 1 company out of 20 gives to Tea Party or Republican Party. Do I sell all my shares of Janus? Where do I go as I am very sure every mutual fund has at least one stock this would be Unacceptable. Do we just keep or money in the bank getting practically zero interest but happy with my principles? Very difficult decisions ahead for people investing. We are all just pegs in a large wheel. Frustrating!

[merrily]

3. I never said anything about donations to political parties! (The OP does, but I did not.)

[yeoman6987]

4. I was speaking to all not specifically you

I guess I might have hit on your reply though. Don't remember. Have a great Saturday!!!!

[BKH70041]

5. Are they conducting themselves within the law and does my research say they'll likely make money?

Beyond that, meh.