January 31, 2012
Securities and Exchange Commission
Dear Commission,
Right now, Super PACs don't have to disclose their unlimited corporate donations. That means they can keep the public in the dark about who's funding the attack ads that bombard their TV screens daily.
That's why I'm joining with the 14 United States senators who formally asked you to use your regulatory authority to require that corporations disclose their spending in elections.
SEC: Exercise your regulatory authority to require public disclosure of corporate political contributions.
THE PROBLEM IS THIS: MAJOR CORPORATIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS THE "LITTLE" CORPS THAT A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES USE. THEY ARE SOCIAL PROFIT MACHINES THAT ARE CONSTRAINED BY LAW AND ECONOMICS TO EMPHASIZE THE BOTTOM LINE. THEY ARE "DIRECTED ORGANIZATIONS" THAT ARE ACTUALLY "REQUIRED" TO IGNORE "ALL THE OTHER LINES"--THAT IS, THE ETHICS. TO ALLOW THESE ENTITIES TO DETERMINE THE OUTCOMES OF OUR ELECTIONS IS OBSCENE. THEY HAVE ONLY ONE FOCUS. SOMETIMES THAT WORKS FOR GOOD, BUT IT USUALLY HAS BAD "SIDE EFFECTS". THESE SIDE EFFECTS ARE NOT THINGS THAT ARE "HIGHLY UNLIKELY" AS IN THE CASE OF MANY MEDICATIONS THAT MOSTLY HELP PEOPLE. THESE SIDE EFFECTS ARE THE MAIN COURSE. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE. THEY CANNOT ENTER INTO THE SOCIAL "COVENANT" THAT IS AT THE HEART OF OUR REPUBLIC. THE CITIZENS UNITED DECISION MEANS THE END OF THE REPUBLIC IF IT IS NOT OVERTURNED. (AND, OF COURSE, IT DOES OPEN THE DOOR TO FOREIGN MONEY IN OUR ELECTIONS. THE FACT THAT IT'S INDIRECT SHOULD NOT MATTER.
Sincerely,
James Roper