Saturday, December 16, 2017
Opinion

Stockholders should have a say in PAC spending

Political action committees have become pervasive in funding the American electoral process. They date back to early in the 20th century and were regulated with their spending controlled. Two recent decisions by U.S. courts changed all that.

In Citizens United vs. FEC, the Supreme Court overturned key parts of the McCain-Feingold law by ruling that corporations (and labor unions) have a free-speech right to participate in the political debate through direct contributions to independent PACs, or super PACs. In SpeechNow.org vs. FEC, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that contributions to independent PACs cannot be limited. The result has been an infusion of many millions for political campaigns.

But if the courts have allowed unlimited spending, the shareholders of publicly held companies don't have to. In fact, they may have good reason to restrict super PAC spending by the companies they invest in.

First, the decision to contribute to a PAC is usually made by management. It is well known that the interests of management are not always aligned with those of the shareholders, who are the real owners of the corporation. When that alignment is poor, it stands to reason managers might well make decisions to spend shareholder money supporting causes of little interest or benefit to investors.

Even when management is acting to further the interests of the firm, there exists the potential for corruption. Donations to political campaigns, whether from individuals or corporations, are made to support candidates who have beliefs similar to those of the donor; but, on closer inspection, there are some big differences. Most individual contributions are small relative to the total money raised, so the candidate is less likely to feel indebted to the donor. A corporation, on the other hand, has the financial wherewithal to make much larger contributions, increasing the likelihood that a candidate will feel and act in deference to the donor's agenda.

When individuals make political contributions, they are likely seeking support for actions (tax reform, health care, etc.) that will affect a large group of voters and not simply one individual. By contrast, a firm may be seeking very specific legislation that will benefit it alone. This is where the potential for corruption arises — a donation can look like a bribe, whether real or merely in appearance. Sen. John McCain is quoted as saying: "On both sides, we have these incredible amounts of money, and I guarantee you there will be a scandal."

Any scandal related to a specific corporate PAC donation is bad for the donor firm's stock price. Thus, shareholders have every incentive to exert some control over these contributions. There is no question about the right to free speech — the Supreme Court has settled that issue; the question is about who will exercise it within the corporation. That group should be the residual owners, the shareholders.

Shareholder activists have begun offering resolutions to control certain aspects of corporate participation in super PACS. These range from requests for transparency to limits on the allowable amount to be spent and issues supported.

For example, donations to PACs supporting social issues might be proscribed because there is no direct benefit to the business. The strongest resolutions would ban corporate contributions to super PACs altogether. These resolutions have come under attack by those who see any such restrictions as a violation of corporate free speech; however, a corporation is mute unless given a voice by its management, board of directors, or stockholders. It is the stockholders, as owners of the firm, who should raise that voice — or quiet it.

Richard Meyer is professor emeritus in the College of Business at the University of South Florida.

Comments

Editorial: Warren’s smart approach on guns, domestic violence

Hillsborough State Attorney Andrew Warren would make it safer for victims and police alike with his plan to remove firearms from defendants charged with domestic violence. These cases are toxic enough, and having guns at the ready only adds to a dang...
Published: 12/15/17
Editorial: St. Petersburg council right to reject Bayfront deal

Editorial: St. Petersburg council right to reject Bayfront deal

The St. Petersburg City Council made the difficult but correct decision this week to reject the proposed sale of a local nonprofit’s minority stake in Bayfront hospital. Despite months of negotiations, there were too many questions, a few suspicions ...
Published: 12/15/17
Editorial: Congress should fix flood insurance, children’s health insurance before Christmas

Editorial: Congress should fix flood insurance, children’s health insurance before Christmas

Here’s a snapshot of misplaced priorities in Washington. Last week, the Federal Communications Commission foolishly rushed to scrap net neutrality rules and allow internet service providers to treat different content differently despite overwhelming ...
Published: 12/14/17
Updated: 12/15/17
Editorial: Scott’s smart changes to sexual harassment policy

Editorial: Scott’s smart changes to sexual harassment policy

With misconduct allegations rippling through all levels of government, Gov. Rick Scott has taken the prudent step of ordering uniform sexual harassment policies throughout state agencies. The executive order strengthens protections for victims, which...
Published: 12/14/17
Updated: 12/15/17
Editorial: MOSI faces a clean slate and should give everyone a piece of chalk

Editorial: MOSI faces a clean slate and should give everyone a piece of chalk

For three years, the only news about finances at Tampa’s Museum of Science and Industry was bad news: "Struggling MOSI asks Hillsborough County for $400,000 loan," one headline read, "Audit sees MOSI finances slipping," read another, and "MOSI donor ...
Published: 12/14/17
Updated: 12/15/17
Editorial: Rubio should make good his threat to oppose tax cuts without changes

Editorial: Rubio should make good his threat to oppose tax cuts without changes

For once, it would be nice to see Sen. Marco Rubio stand up as the independent leader he aspires to become. For once, the Florida Republican should hold his position rather than bow to pragmatic politics. Rubio can stick with his threat Thursday to v...
Published: 12/14/17

Another voice: A shameful anniversary

Josephine "Joey" Gay should have celebrated her 12th birthday this week. She should have been surrounded by friends and family in a place festooned with purple, her favorite color.Chase Kowalski should have been working toward a Boy Scout merit badge...
Published: 12/13/17
Updated: 12/14/17
Editorial: Congress should block efforts to expand offshore drilling

Editorial: Congress should block efforts to expand offshore drilling

Timing is everything, and Sen. Bill Nelson seized the right moment this week to call on his colleagues to pass legislation he filed earlier this year that would block the Trump administration from opening additional areas to offshore drilling. With t...
Published: 12/13/17

Another voice: Alabama picks an honorable man

THANK YOU, Alabama.In Tuesday’s special election, the state by a narrow margin chose to spare the nation the indignity of seating an accused child molester in the U.S. Senate. Though the stain of electing Republican Roy Moore would have sullied Alaba...
Published: 12/12/17
Updated: 12/13/17
Editorial: Tax cuts aren’t worth harm to Tampa Bay

Editorial: Tax cuts aren’t worth harm to Tampa Bay

As congressional negotiators hammer out the details on an enormous, unnecessary tax cut, the potential negative impact on Tampa Bay and Florida is becoming clearer. The harmful consequences stretch far beyond adding more than $1.4 trillion to the fed...
Published: 12/12/17