March 6, 2017
I am writing to express my support for the continued implementation of the Conflict Minerals Rule. As a consumer, it is important to me that I am able to access key information about the companies I purchase from, including information about their conflict minerals sourcing practices.
I do not want my purchases to support violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and the Conflict Minerals Rule has made it easier for me to assess which companies are taking steps to ensure their products are not linked to this decades-long conflict. Additionally, I believe transparent supply chains are an important indicator of a companys overall stability, which is a key factor for making both purchasing and investment decisions.
There is NO evidence that this rule contributes to increased security threats to the US. In fact, making it more difficult for companies to purchase conflict minerals increases security over the long term. Removing this rule is not a security measure this action is only aimed at reducing transparency, which is NOT in the best interests of either American consumers or the nations which export conflict minerals.
We STRONGLY OPPOSE removing this rule
I urge you to keep the Conflict Minerals Rule fully intact, and to work with your fellow SEC commissioners to enforce the Rule moving forward.