Archive for the ‘Social Justice’ Category

May17

New U.S. Chamber attacks on corporate political spending disclosure are a good sign

By: Jake Parent

How can you tell that momentum is building for change?

Well, one good sign is that the opposition starts getting nervous about your progress.

That’s why we took it as a positive sign that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently stepped up attacks on shareholders who attempt to make companies disclose political spending.

Earlier this month, I attended an almost comical presentation at the U.S. Chamber headquarters where speakers spent most of a four hour event attacking political spending disclosure resolutions as being bad for business.

I say ‘almost’ comical because, while much of the information is laughably wrong, the subject matter is far too important to joke about.

There are a number of things wrong with what I heard at this event, but I’d like to focus on two disturbing claims in particular.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance, Consumer Protection, Regulation, Social Justice0 comments

May16

Justice Stevens: A rock star at Public Citizen gala

By: Angela Bradbery

 

Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, and former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, at Public Citizen’s 2013 Gala honoring the lifetime achievements of Stevens. Photo by Brendan Hoffman.

“What can you say in three minutes about someone who has dispensed justice for 35 years on the Supreme Court?”

So asked Alan Morrison, founder of the Public Citizen Litigation Group, as he introduced retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens tonight at Public Citizen’s annual gala in downtown Washington, D.C. Stevens was there to receive a Lifetime Achievement Award in recognition of his “gentleness, decency, searing intellect and passion for what is right” – from which all Americans have benefited, in the words of Public Citizen President Robert Weissman, who presented the award to Stevens.

While on the bench, Stevens, the third longest-serving justice in American history, displayed a deep concern with ensuring the fair treatment of all. He wrote a blistering dissent to the now infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which gave corporations the green light to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.

Tonight, Stevens sat on the stage with Linda Greenhouse, former Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, for a chat before a crowd of just under 400 Public Citizen supporters. The former justice received a standing ovation before he even began speaking.

“Obviously, Justice Stevens is a rock star in this crowd,” Greenhouse remarked.

Their conversation touched on everything from sovereign immunity and Stevens’ confirmation hearing to the Bush v. Gore decision (Stevens said he often reflects about how treating hanging chads differently from dimpled chads was hard to accept). Stevens answered questions with alacrity and humor.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Campaign Finance, Litigation, Social Justice1 comments

April26

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is fighting for the right of oil, gas and mining corporations to keep payments to foreign governments secret

By: Jake Parent

A photograph of Jake Parent, coordinator of Public Citizen's U.S. Chamber WatchA federal court is considering an industry challenge to a rule recently adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that would require certain oil, gas and mining companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments.

Congress directed the SEC to adopt the rule at the behest of human rights groups and investors concerned that the lack of transparency hinders citizens’ ability to hold their governments accountable for the management of revenues from oil, natural gas and minerals.

The Chamber’s reasoning for opposing the measure?

It says that complying with the rule would cost companies too much money and make it difficult for American businesses to compete with firms from countries without disclosure requirements.

Oxfam America, which filed a brief in the case to support the rule, said separately that a similar rule recently adopted by the European Union shows that such complaints are groundless.

In statement after statement, the Chamber has consistently reaffirmed its belief that its corporate members should not have to share information about whom they make payments to.

But the SEC doesn’t agree, and neither does Public Citizen. We think the court should uphold the rule, which aims to diminish the “resource curse” – the phenomenon by which the people in countries with lots of mineral resources find themselves worse off as a result of mining and drilling activities.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Energy, Litigation, Social Justice6 comments

April24

Charles Schwab Corporation responds to Public Citizen petition

By: Rick Claypool

Nobody should have to sacrifice their rights in order to save for retirement.

On Tuesday, Public Citizen launched its “Stand Up to Chuck” campaign calling on Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., a well-known investment advisor holding more than $2 trillion in assets for millions of investors, to drop the class-action ban and forced arbitration clause from its terms.

On Twitter, Schwab responded:

Charles Schwab twitter response to Public Citizen petition

The link that @CharlesSchwab shared was to a boilerplate statement on how it’s legal for the corporation to ban class actions because of the Supreme Court’s horrendous ruling (almost exactly two years ago) in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

The statement also references Schwab’s dispute with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA). FINRA, a banking industry self-regulatory body, has rules to prevent brokerage firms like Schwab from banning class actions. By inserting a class-action ban into its terms, Schwab violated those rules.

Continue Reading

Posted in: Activism, Congress Watch Column, Social Justice10 comments

April22

SEC commissioner, others call for SEC to protect investors from forced arbitration

By: Guest blogger

the logo for the Securities and Exchange Commissionby Jon Croteau

Last Tuesday, Luis Aguilar, a commissioner for the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), showed that he was serious about investor protection. At an annual conference for securities regulators, Aguilar expressed his personal support for an SEC rule that would permit investors to decide how to resolve disputes with broker-dealers and investment advisors. If Aguilar’s fellow commissioners agree and the SEC adopts such a policy, investors will have the option of pursuing their legal claims in court.

Aguilar said, “[i]nvestors … should have the unencumbered right to seek redress in all available forums.” He explained,

Arbitration may be a viable option after a dispute arises and both parties knowingly agree to go into arbitration. However, my main concern with pre-dispute mandatory arbitration is the denial of investor choice; investors should not have their option of choosing between arbitration and the traditional judicial process taken away from them at the very beginning of their relationship with their brokers and advisers.

Currently, the overwhelming majority of broker-dealers and investment advisors include language in their contracts that force investors to resolve disputes against them in private arbitration. Brokerage firm Charles Schwab has raised the stakes by not only forcing individual customers to resolve disputes in arbitration, but by recently adding a provision in its investor contracts that deny customers the ability to band together in class actions against it.

The ban on class actions will harm small investors the most because many lack the resources to pursue valid claims on their own in costly arbitration. They will be unable to recover for losses resulting from all-too-frequent violations, such as misrepresentations about the nature or value of investments.

Since last Monday, Commissioner Aguilar’s statement endorsing investors’ right to seek redress in court has been making headlines in the investment community. The Investment News also agreed with Aguilar that investors should be able to choose a forum to resolve their disputes with broker-dealers and investment advisors. While Aguilar’s statement is a positive development, our work is far from complete.

In 2010, Congress expressly authorized the SEC to restrict forced arbitration between investors and broker-dealers and investment advisors as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. To protect investors, the SEC must adopt a rule to eliminate forced arbitration from these contracts.

Jon Croteau is an intern with Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division

Sign up to receive a weekly email highlighting the best from Public Citizen’s blogs.

Posted in: Consumer Protection, Financial Reform, Social Justice0 comments

© Copyright . All Rights Reserved.