Litigation

Corporations Seen ?Fudging? on Indirect Spending Plans

By Peter Hardin

Are some publicly traded companies fudging about their plans to fund indirect political expenditures following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling? A  non-profit group that pushes for greater corporate transparency thinks so.

In its September newsletter, the Washington-based Center for Political Accountability said it sent a letter to all S&P 500 companies, asking about company policies and plans for engaging in spending that targets political candidates.

More than 55 companies responded by the newsletter’s deadline, and 31 of them said they did not intend to spend corporate cash on independent expenditures. The newsletter added, “Yet 23 of these companies stated they were reluctant to monitor or impose conditions on their payments to trade associations, or they did not address the issue at all.”

The headline for the article declared, “CPA Finds Companies Fudge on Indirect Political Spending Plans.”

Remarked Bruce Freed, the Center’s president, “[W]e are concerned that companies may be funneling millions of potentially hidden corporate dollars into political elections.” He added, “Why are they dodging a commitment to transparency and accountability? When trade associations and c4 groups become the vehicle for company political spending, investors are left in the dark — and they are at risk.”

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling cleared the way for unlimited political spending by corporations and unions. To learn more about Citizens United, read the Justice at Stake amicus brief in the case or the JAS news release commenting on the high court?s decision. You can also read in Gavel Grab a series of posts about developments tied to Citizens United.

Full post as published by The Gavel on September 24, 2010 (boomark / email).