Archive for the ‘Open Government’ Category

January10

Chamber plays Chicken Little (again)

By: Robert Weissman

Note: Public Citizen runs U.S. Chamberwatch, a project designed to shed light on the funding and practices of the largest private interest lobbyist in America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce."Robert Weissman" "Public Citizen president"

U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Tom Donohue today delivered his annual State of American Business address. As he paints a fantastical picture of the unfair burdens imposed on Big Business, Donohue neglects to mention a few things, most importantly, that corporate profits are at record highs.

Of course, there’s nothing surprising here, since he gives pretty much the same speech every year. Still, a few comments are in order.

First, isn’t it a bit much for the rich and powerful to endlessly call for cutbacks in the nation’s leading anti-poverty programs, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? If Tom Donohue is concerned about the government’s fiscal situation, perhaps he should acknowledge the unreasonably low effective tax rate on corporations. Or declare that it’s outrageous for two dozen profitable Fortune 500 companies to pay zero in federal income tax in the past four years.

Second, he whines about a “coming flood of new regulations,” even as we still suffer from the Great Recession, a direct outgrowth of too little regulation and enforcement. This complaint comes despite no evidence that regulation meaningfully impedes job growth and despite lots of evidence that regulation protects and creates new jobs (not to mention making jobs safer, better paid and equitability available).

Third, he urges more NAFTA-style trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a NAFTA-on-steroids that would encumber every country on the Pacific Rim. This call will come despite an abundance of evidence that this trade model has cost jobs, lowered living standards and undermined our sovereign ability to set our own safety and health protections.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Climate Change, Consumer Protection, Environment, Ethics, Litigation, Open Government, Regulation, Social Justice, Trade, Uncategorized0 comments

November20

Shareholder resolutions for political disclosure enjoy significant support

By: Kelly Ngo

a photo of money

Flickr photo by 401(K)

Americans are still reeling from the cacophony of secret money and negative ads that was the 2012 election. Much of the money spent on the congressional and presidential campaigns came from undisclosed sources, underscoring the continued need to fight for reforms to promote transparency in elections.

To that end, Public Citizen and other members of the Corporate Reform Coalition have been pushing the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to create a rule that would require publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending to their shareholders.

However, this rule has faced opposition from some groups which claim that shareholders neither want nor need this type of information on a company’s spending practices. That narrative is patently false, and many of these groups, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (PDF), have a political and financial stake in keeping shareholders in the dark. To the contrary, the results of this year’s shareholder season point to increasing levels of support for measures to bring accountability to corporate political spending.

The first indicator that shareholders are ready to see numbers on political spending is the sheer number of resolutions that have been filed.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Campaign Finance, Open Government, Regulation0 comments

October29

Finally, a poll to add some clarity to the election!

By: Kelly Ngo

There is only one thing abundantly clear in the polls right now: There is way too much money in politics. A new poll commissioned by the Corporate"Corporate Reform Coalition" poll "money and politics" Reform Coalition found that nine out of 10 Americans agree there is too much corporate money in elections, and 51 percent strongly agree with that statement. For all you poll junkies out there, you’ll be relieved to know nine out of ten is way outside the margin of error.

The poll found strong evidence that not only do Americans think there’s too much money in politics, they believe this money has a damaging effect on our democracy. A whopping 81 percent believe the secret flow of money in politics is bad for our democracy. And 84 percent believe that corporate political spending drowns out the voices of average Americans. The same percentage believes corporate political spending makes Congress more corrupt. The results clearly show that Americans are ready for a dramatic revamping of the campaign finance system.

On that front, Americans broadly support commonsense reforms that have been stonewalled by this Congress. When it comes to the issue of disclosure, 85 percent of Americans believe prompt disclosure of political spending would help voters, customers and shareholders hold companies accountable for their political spending. Congress had the opportunity to provide that accountability earlier this year by passing the DISCLOSE Act, but the bill met a Republican led-filibuster in the Senate. Congress also has yet to move on the Shareholder Protection Act despite the fact that 73 percent of Republicans and Democrats support requiring corporations to get approval from their shareholders before spending in elections. Shedding light on corporate political spending enjoys the bipartisan support our presidential candidates could only dream of.

 

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance, Congress, Open Government, Uncategorized0 comments

September17

The 99 Percent Solution

By: Bartlett Naylor

"Bart Naylor" "Financial policy reform"Four years ago this month, the world’s financial sector exploded, shooting shrapnel through the economy. Wounds fester to this day.

Last year this month, public outrage at Wall Street and general corporate corruption exploded in the form of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Benefits abound.

Defying easy definition, with no leadership structure, no official spokesperson, no office, not even a proverbial mission statement, “Occupations” rapidly proliferated through the United States and overseas. And the accomplishments of this otherwise amorphous energy have been concrete and sweeping. Here are a just a few:

  • OWS unburied from overlooked economics studies and made common knowledge the harsh reality of income inequality. “We are the 99 percent,” declared this movement. Among the alarming statistics: The wealthiest 400 Americans have more savings that half the entire national population.
  • Sniffed at by some for unformed/nebulous views, the OccupyTheSEC group penned an authoritative 300-page analysis of the complex Wall Street Reform Act Volcker Rule. While Wall Street’s high paid lawyers publicly complained about the rule’s difficulty, this Occupy group, composed of former derivative traders surgically dissected each detail of the federal proposal, identifying strength and weaknesses. Since then, senior staff at Washington regulatory agencies have consulted these Occupy experts.
  • Oppressed American workers, including those in beleaguered unions, drew energy from Occupy help. In New York City, for example, Occupy protestors joined in a symbolic 99 picket lines at work sites and banks. Occupy’s support for Con-Edison workers in New York locked out of their resulted in reciprocal support for specific OWS actions.
  • OWS increased attention to the corruption of corporate money in politics. Occupy proved important in approval of the STOCK Act, making members of Congress subject to the same anti-insider trading laws as average Americans. Occupy drew attention to the Supreme Court’s decision in “Citizens United” that reduced restrictions on corporate spending. That resulted in further support for the DISCLOSE Act as well as a constitutional amendment to reverse the court’s decision.

Movement or moment? Traditional conflict has supplanted OWS in the media, namely political elections. But self-identified Occupy members remain vigilant. The OccupyTheSEC gang, as noted, has continued its expert efforts on a widening front. But just as communication revolutionizes yearly (email, social networking, Twitter, livestreaming), it may be impossible to track the trajectory of Occupy. Rather, Occupy may be shattering such distinctions as movement and moment. This non-organization organization Occupy, may, in fact, be a verb.

Bartlett Naylor is Public Citizen’s financial policy advocate. Check out his piece, “Wall Street and the Cost of Forgetting” and follow him on Twitter @BartNaylor.

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance, Financial Reform, Open Government, Regulation, Social Justice, Uncategorized0 comments

August28

Undue Influence-Peddling to Look for at the Party Conventions

By: Rick Claypool

Red white and blue elephant and donkey representing the Republican and Democratic parties.Corporate lobbyists and other political creatures intent upon distorting our democracy are descending on the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention.

Their objective is simple: To schmooze with and buy the gratitude of lawmakers who might be in power after the elections.

Most of what happens will be the (disturbingly) run-of-the-mill, “corporate corruption as usual” that happens every day in Washington, D.C. During the conventions, what so many cynically call “how Washington works” becomes “how Tampa works” and “how Charlotte works.

But some of what happens at the conventions may cross the line from everyday political corruption (outrageous as it may be) into violations of Congressional ethics rules and even outright illegal activity.

With help from citizens and journalists (and citizen journalists) attending the conventions, we’re working to hold lawmakers and special interests accountable when they cross the line. But we need your help.

Attending one of the conventions? Here’s what you need to know to keep an eye out for undue influence peddling:

1. During the conventions, all members of Congress are banned from participating in any event held in her or his honor if that event is hosted by a lobbyist (or a corporation or special interest group that employs registered lobbyists). [Paraphrased from House Rule XXV(8); Senate Rule XXXV(5)]

This rule expressly prohibits members of Congress from attending any convention party thrown by a lobbyist or lobbying organization where a specific member or members are identified by name and title as the honoree (including as a “special guest”), as well as events honoring a group composed solely of members, such as a congressional committee or congressional caucus (though the House ethics committee so far refuses to apply the rule to parties that honor groups of members).

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance, Ethics, Open Government4 comments

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.