Posts Tagged ‘Lobbying’

SEC’s Non-Decision Decision on Corporate Political Activity a Policy and Political Mistake

Posted by John Coates, Harvard Law School, on Friday December 13, 2013 at 8:51 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter

The SEC’s recent decision to take disclosure of political activities off the SEC’s agenda is a policy mistake, as it ignores the best research on the point, described below, and perpetuates a key loophole in the investor-relevant disclosure rules, allowing large companies to omit material information about the politically inflected risks they run with other people’s money. It is also a political mistake, as it repudiates the 600,000+ investors who have written to the SEC personally to ask it to adopt a rule requiring such disclosure, and will let entrenched business interests focus their lobbying solely on watering down regulation mandated under the Dodd-Frank Act and the 2012 securities law statute, rather than having also to work to influence a disclosure regime.

…continue reading: SEC’s Non-Decision Decision on Corporate Political Activity a Policy and Political Mistake

Corporate Political Spending and the Mutual Fund Vote

Posted by Bruce F. Freed, Center for Political Accountability, on Monday December 9, 2013 at 9:33 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: Bruce F. Freed is president and a founder of the Center for Political Accountability. This post is based on the CPA’s Annual Mutual Fund Survey; the full report, including a description of the data source and appendix, is available here.

Mutual funds’ support for corporate political disclosure reached a new high in 2013, according to a ten-year analysis by the Center for Political Accountability. Forty large US mutual fund families voted in favor of corporate political spending disclosure an unprecedented 39% of the time, on average.

CPA’s review of mutual fund votes looks at how 40 of the largest U.S. fund families voted on 276 shareholder requests for disclosure of corporate political contributions at U.S. companies over proxy seasons from 2004 to 2013 (covering shareholder meetings from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2013). Together, these fund families manage around $3.3 trillion in U.S. securities, according to Morningstar® fund data, and control a large portion of the shareholder vote in US securities.

…continue reading: Corporate Political Spending and the Mutual Fund Vote

ISS Updates Proxy Voting Policies, Requests Peer Group Changes

Editor’s Note: Holly J. Gregory is a corporate partner specializing in corporate governance at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. This post is based on a Weil Gotshal alert; the complete publication, including appendicies, is available here.

On November 21, 2013, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) released updates to its proxy voting policies for the 2014 proxy season, effective for meetings held on or after February 1, 2014. [1] In addition, ISS has requested that companies notify it by December 9, 2013 of any changes to a company’s self-selected peer companies for purposes of benchmarking CEO compensation for the 2013 fiscal year.

This post provides guidance to US companies on how to address ISS policy changes and also highlights recent developments regarding potential regulation or self-regulation of proxy advisory firms.

The amendments to ISS proxy voting policies for the 2014 proxy season relate to:

…continue reading: ISS Updates Proxy Voting Policies, Requests Peer Group Changes

ISS Releases 2014 Voting Policies

Editor’s Note: David A. Katz is a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz specializing in the areas of mergers and acquisitions and complex securities transactions. This post is based on a Wachtell Lipton memorandum by Mr. Katz, Trevor S. Norwitz, David E. Kahan, Sabastian V. Niles, and S. Iliana Ongun.

Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) recently published its 2014 Corporate Governance Policy Updates, which would apply to annual meetings beginning in February 2014. ISS updated relatively few of its policies this year, but the changes largely represent a more measured, company-specific approach to corporate governance practices, which reflects a move by ISS to avoid “one-size-fits-all” policies and recommendations. ISS also announced a new consultation and comment period concerning potential policy changes applicable to the 2015 proxy season or beyond with respect to director tenure, director independence, independent chair shareholder proposals, equity-based compensation plans and auditor ratification.

2014 Policy Updates

Board Response to Majority Supported Shareholder Proposals. As announced last year, ISS evaluates a company’s response to shareholder proposals that receive a majority of shares cast in considering “withhold” recommendations against the full board, committee members or individual directors. With respect to such majority supported shareholder proposals, ISS will now make vote recommendations on director elections on a case-by-case basis and will no longer require boards to fully implement majority supported shareholder proposals in all cases. Instead, ISS will consider mitigating factors in cases involving less than full implementation, including the board’s articulated rationale for its response and level of implementation (with consideration of such rationales being a new factor not previously considered by ISS), disclosed shareholder outreach efforts by the board in the wake of the vote, the level of support and opposition for the proposal, actions taken, and the continuation of the underlying issue as a voting item on the ballot (as either shareholder or management proposals).

…continue reading: ISS Releases 2014 Voting Policies

2013 Proxy Season Review

Editor’s Note: James R. Copland is the director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy. The following post is based on a memorandum from the Proxy Monitor project; the complete publication, including footnotes, is available here.

Corporate America’s “proxy season” has now wrapped up: most of America’s large publicly traded companies hold annual meetings to vote on business, including shareholder proposals, between April 15 and the end of June. Among the 250 largest U.S. public companies by revenues that constitute the Manhattan Institute’s Proxy Monitor database, 214 had held meetings by July 1.

In 2013, companies faced more shareholder proposals, on average, than in 2012, but the average support for proposals fell and a smaller percentage of proposals received the support of a majority of shareholders. The most commonly introduced type of proposal, as in 2012, involved companies’ political spending or lobbying; but as in 2012, none of these proposals passed, and shareholder support for this class of proposals held steady at a modest 18 percent.

This post discusses these results in more detail. First, the post summarizes 2013 shareholder proposals, including their rate of introduction and a breakdown of shareholder proposal types and shareholder proposal sponsorship. Next, the post examines voting results. Finally, the post looks in more depth at the most common class of proposal: that involving political spending or lobbying.

…continue reading: 2013 Proxy Season Review

Benefits Trust and Walgreens Collaborate on Political Spending Disclosure

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Sunday February 17, 2013 at 10:21 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Meredith Miller, Chief Corporate Governance Officer, and Cambria Allen, Corporate Governance Director, of the UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust, which provides health care benefits to over 800,000 UAW retirees and their dependents and has $52 billion under management. This post is based on a January 8, 2013 Press Release, available here.

The UAW Retiree Medical Benefits Trust (Trust) and leading drugstore chain Walgreen Co. (Walgreens) recently announced an agreement to a multi-year collaboration in which the company would develop a best practice policy approach to corporate political spending and lobbying activities. A product of constructive dialogue between the Trust and Walgreens, the agreement highlights the utility of the shareholder engagement process by underscoring that companies and shareholders can work together to their collective long-term interest.

Walgreens is to be applauded for coming to the table and developing an agreement to work together with the Trust.

The main components of the agreement are:

…continue reading: Benefits Trust and Walgreens Collaborate on Political Spending Disclosure

Corporate Campaign Contributions and Abnormal Stock Returns after Presidential Elections

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Wednesday December 26, 2012 at 9:44 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Jürgen Huber, Professor of Finance at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, and Michael Kirchler, Associate Professor of Finance at the University of Innsbruck, Austria and visiting professor at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

A hard-fought campaign is over and President Obama has been reelected. Should shareholders take notice? In brief, yes. In the paper, Corporate campaign contributions and abnormal stock returns after presidential elections, forthcoming in Public Choice, we explore the stock market performance of top corporate contributors after the elections that brought Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, respectively, to power. In both cases, the top contributors strongly outperformed the market.

We focus on campaign contributions by corporations before a presidential election and their stock market performance afterwards. From a rent-seeking perspective, companies can have an incentive to spend money for presidential candidates. And, as presidential hopefuls need to raise large sums, campaign contributions by companies and business associations are usually a welcome source of funds. After the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United against FEC, which grants companies the same free speech rights (and thus spending in the political process) as those accorded to individuals, corporate campaign contributions are likely to become even more important in the future.

…continue reading: Corporate Campaign Contributions and Abnormal Stock Returns after Presidential Elections

The Merits of One-Size-Fits-All Securities Regulation

Posted by R. Christopher Small, Co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Friday September 21, 2012 at 8:39 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Henry Friedman of the Accounting Area at UCLA and Mirko Heinle of the Department of Accounting at the University of Pennsylvania.

Recent securities regulation, like Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, has been criticized for taking a costly one-size-fits-all approach. The critics suggest that, instead, regulation tailored to different firms, industries, or sectors is beneficial as it reduces compliance costs and the costs that arise from constraining firms’ operating and financing choices. In our paper, The Merits of One-Size-Fits-All Securities Regulation, which was recently posted on SSRN, we develop an analytical model to highlight indirect effects caused by choosing an individualized or generalized regulatory regime.

Securities regulation is enacted to reduce the potential for managers to extract rents from their firm’s investors. We model a regulatory agency that is in charge of securities regulation and can be influenced by two groups: investors and managers. Managers can reduce the extent of regulation by lobbying the agency, which helps them maintain their ability to extract rents. The existence of rents, however, reduces the payouts from firms to investors and this translates into negative political consequences for the regulator. The regulatory agency chooses the quality of securities regulation taking into consideration both the firms’ lobbying and investors’ interests. Our model of an economy with two firms can be interpreted as a multi-industry or multi-sector economy where each firm represents an industry or sector. We compare two regulatory regimes, one in which the regulator is constrained to define a general regulatory quality for both firms or industries (the one-size-fits-all approach) and one where the agency may set different regulation for different firms.

…continue reading: The Merits of One-Size-Fits-All Securities Regulation

Update on Corporate Political Activity

Posted by John Coates, Harvard Law School, on Tuesday July 3, 2012 at 9:27 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: John Coates is the John F. Cogan, Jr. Professor of Law and Economics at Harvard Law School. This post relates to research by Professor Coates discussed on the Forum here, as well as a recent post on a Manhattan Institute Legal Policy Report, discussed here. Work from the Program on Corporate Governance about corporate political spending includes Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides? by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert Jackson, discussed on the Forum here. A committee of law professors co-chaired by Bebchuk and Jackson submitted a rulemaking petition to the SEC concerning corporate political spending; that petition is discussed here.

Corporate politics continue to generate controversy. Recent items of note include (1) the US Supreme Court’s decision to expand the reach of Citizens United in Western Tradition Partnership; (2) the continued increase in the number of and support for shareholder proposals calling for disclosure of corporate political activity; and (3) a recent “study” sponsored by the conservative Manhattan Institute (and described on the Forum here) purporting to find that – as the Wall Street Journal put it – “politics spending pays” – contrary to my own research, which finds that large public companies that were politically active before Citizens United experience a decline in their industry-adjusted market value after the decision. Each of these developments is discussed briefly below.

…continue reading: Update on Corporate Political Activity

Corporate Political Spending: Why the New Critics Are Wrong

Posted by Noam Noked, co-editor, HLS Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, on Saturday June 30, 2012 at 10:47 am
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
Editor’s Note: The following post comes to us from Robert J. Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon, LLC, and is based on the executive summary of a Manhattan Institute Legal Policy Report by Mr. Shapiro and Douglas Dowson, available in full here. Work from the Program on Corporate Governance about corporate political spending includes Corporate Political Speech: Who Decides? by Lucian Bebchuk and Robert Jackson, discussed on the Forum here. A committee of law professors co-chaired by Bebchuk and Jackson submitted a rulemaking petition to the SEC concerning corporate political spending; that petition is discussed here.

Since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision held that corporate political expenditures are free speech under the First Amendment, various groups and individuals have advocated imposing new limits on corporate political activity. These efforts include calls on shareholders to demand that corporations refrain from involvement in the political process. Such demands have been buttressed by an emergent academic literature which, in contrast to what had been an established perspective, has questioned whether corporate financial contributions and even lobbying are actually in the interest of corporate shareholders. This paper reviews this new literature, contrasts it with previous work on this subject, and determines that the new studies ultimately fail to establish that corporate political activity adversely affects shareholder returns.

Corporate political activities take a variety of forms, including direct campaign contributions, joining and supporting trade associations, lobbying, the hiring of former public officials, advertising to move public opinion, and grassroots advocacy promotions. Lobbying has long been the dominant form for political participation by corporations and other interests: In the 2010 election cycle, for example, firms and other interests spent $6.8 billion on lobbying, compared with PAC expenditures of $1.3 billion.

…continue reading: Corporate Political Spending: Why the New Critics Are Wrong

Next Page »
 
  •  » A "Web Winner" by The Philadelphia Inquirer
  •  » A "Top Blog" by LexisNexis
  •  » A "10 out of 10" by the American Association of Law Librarians Blog
  •  » A source for "insight into the latest developments" by Directorship Magazine