A New Tactic in the Fight Against Corporate Money in Politics

A New Tactic in the Fight Against Corporate Money in Politics

A New Tactic in the Fight Against Corporate Money in Politics

On behalf of the state retirement fund, the New York comptroller is suing a tech company to provide info about its political donations, setting an important precedent in the Citizens United era.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

(Reuters/Rick Wilking.)

In the Citizens United era, with billionaires and big business out to buy our elections wholesale, defending our democracy will take every weapon in our arsenal. Fortunately, a local elected official has just come up with a new one.

Last week, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli brought suit in Delaware’s Chancery Court to force the tech company Qualcomm to provide information about its political donations. Qualcomm, like about half of all US corporations, is based (on paper) in Delaware. DiNapoli is the sole trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund, a public employee pension fund holding $378 million in Qualcomm stock. So he’s been seeking information from the companies the fund invests in about their political spending. Over the past two years, the fund has pushed twenty-seven pro-disclosure shareholder resolutions, leading to settlements with ten companies. Qualcomm proved more stubborn.

“In the case of Qualcomm,” says DiNapoli, “we had a company that was particularly resistant to our entreaties for disclosure as a shareholder. They don’t score well relative to other companies with regard to this issue. So we thought about trying a new tactic, and that is using the privileges we have under Delaware law” to trigger “a mechanism that shareholders can use if they have concerns about how a company is spending their money.” He adds that while his lawsuit “may be a novel strategy, in the aftermath of Citizens United, there’s heightened concern about where this money is going.”

What DiNapoli is seeking is eminently reasonable for any shareholder to expect—especially one charged with safeguarding the retirement of over a million workers and retirees. “When you can’t get access to this information voluntarily,” says DiNapoli, “it certainly seems to me to be a logical extension of what is provided for under a ‘books and records action’ ” within Delaware law. Others agree: Former SEC Chair Harvey Pitt, who served under President George W. Bush, told The New York Times, “I don’t want to predict where the Delaware court will come out, but where you have a very large shareholder and something directly related to corporate governance, it seems to me a pretty compelling circumstance…”

The lawsuit against Qualcomm is also supported by the logic of the Citizens United decision itself. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in that case, which opened the dark money floodgates, expressed confidence that corporations would disclose much of that spending. But as DiNapoli notes, “we’ve not seen that to be the case with many corporations.”

Any publicly traded company making political contributions, says DiNapoli, should be able to answer shareholders asking, “How is that enhancing the value of the money that we have invested with you?” But, “many corporations really aren’t prepared to adequately answer that question.” DiNapoli points out that recent research suggests that political spending is negatively correlated with business success, and cites the consumer and media backlash that Target faced after news broke that it had contributed to a PAC backing an anti-gay gubernatorial candidate. “A company that’s not willing to engage in disclosure,” says DiNapoli, “does raise a lot of flags in my mind.”

While progressive shareholder activism has been on the rise for years, DiNapoli says this shareholder lawsuit appears to be the first of its kind. If successful, it could inspire others to follow suit. Delaware (as Jonathan Chait noted in his classic indictment of the state) is no paragon of progressive corporate regulation. But its law offered it an opening, and DiNapoli has wisely taken it. I hope many others will, as well.

For America’s pro-democracy movement, the comptroller’s move comes at a moment of urgency and opportunity. Big money failed to decide the presidential election, but played a key role in maintaining the obstructionist GOP House Majority. Over 350 towns and cities have passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Free Speech for People and Avaaz have launched a petition on the White House website calling for President Obama to “use the State of the Union to call for a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics.” On January 19—pegged to Martin Luther King Day, Citizens United’s third birthday, and President Obama’s second inauguration—activists in sixty cities will hold a Money-Out/Voters-In Day, demanding a pro-democracy amendment, public funding for public elections, and expanded voter rights.

Disclosure alone won’t solve the problem. We need robust public financing of our elections. But disclosure campaigns help to mitigate the damage, and to fuel momentum for the broader reform we so desperately need.

What can Democrats do to fight climate change now rather than later? Katrina vanden Heuvel calls on Barack Obama to seize the moment after Superstorm Sandy.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x