Disclosure is not enough to undo the damage of Citizens United – the decision needs to be reversed. I'd be in favor of banning all companies from political donations. Because we cannot conveniently monitor the political donations of companies we invest in, especially indirectly, disclosure and voluntary investment sounds good but is not practical. ~ Ilene
We, the Corporations?
By Luigi Zingales – Project Syndicate
Excerpt:
Not only do companies refuse to disclose to their shareholders how much they spend on political campaigns; they also are lobbying hard to prevent any rule that would require them to do so. The US Chamber of Commerce opposes all such proposed rules as “politically motivated,” because the pressure to require disclosure of election-related corporate spending does not come from institutional investors, but from government pension funds controlled by elected officials.
But conservative groups are shortsighted in their opposition to mandatory disclosure of such information. They believe that it would weaken Republicans and benefit Democrats, and they are right: there is no doubt that the left stands to gain more in the short term from such a requirement. But the biggest winner would be democracy. The current political game in the US is one in which both Republicans and Democrats compete for corporate money, which they then deploy in expensive campaigns to preserve or increase their power.
The winners are not the Republicans or the Democrats, or even the companies that fund them. The winner is a corrupt form of capitalism that is undermining the US economy, making it less productive and undermining people’s sense of fairness.
I doubt that a mandatory disclosure rule alone could fix the problem. But it would be an important step in the right direction. More important, actively blocking that step forces the political system toward a precipice from which democracy cannot return.
Full article: We, the Corporations? by Luigi Zingales – Project Syndicate.
