Senator Squadron (Photo: NYS Senate)

This afternoon, the State Senate Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions Committee voted to prevent the Corporate Political Accountability to Shareholders Act from moving out of committee. The Act, which was sponsored by Senator Daniel Squadron, would have forced businesses to disclose political donations by requiring shareholder approval and eliminated the secrecy surrounding super PACs in this state. Though the bill lost its vote today Mr. Squadron is circulating a petition that will bring the legislation to a vote on the Senate floor if it is signed by 38 senators.

"Today, Senate Republicans chose corporations over people and prevented my bill from moving out of committee. But our fight to counter Citizens United, rein in unchecked corporate political influence and bring transparency to our politics isn't over: I'm petitioning to bring the bill to a vote on the Senate floor," Mr. Squadron wrote in a note on his Facebook page.

The Corporate Political Accountability to Shareholders Act would require “that corporate contributions to a political candidate or party committee or in support or opposition to a candidate or ballot referendum be approved by a majority of shareholders.” Mr. Squadron believes his legislation could serve as a model for other states to combat corporate influence on the political process. In a statement released today, Mr. Squadron encouraged his fellow senators to sign the petition.

"By reining in unchecked political influence and bringing desperately-needed transparency to the process, our bill would be a key step toward countering the flood of corporate influence that washes away the voice of regular people. I urge my colleagues to stand up for people over corporations in our politics and join the effort to move this bill to the floor," he said.

Senator Squadron (Photo: NYS Senate)

On Monday, the State Senate Corporations Committee will vote on legislation that would force businesses to disclose political donations. Senator Daniel Squadron sponsored the Corporate Political Accountability to Shareholders Act to address the effects Citizen's United Supreme Court decision of January 2010 that allowed businesses to make undisclosed and campaign contributions through super PACs.

"As we all look on in horror at the effect of Citizen's United on the political process, here in New York, we have a chance to do something about it. This bill would reign in unchecked corporate influence in a way that the Supreme Court still allows," Mr. Squadron told The Politicker. "It would require shareholders of corporations to approve political spending, it would require disclosre of political spending and it would require corporations to justify the corporate puprose of that spending. Too often people are using corporations to grind their own political axe. It's not good for shareholders and it's not good for the political system." 

The Corporate Political Accountability to Shareholders Act would require "that corporate contributions to a political candidate or party committee or in support or opposition to a candidate or ballot referendum be approved by a majority of shareholders." Mr. Squadron believes his legislation could be a model for other states to address the growing controversy over corporate influence on the political process.

"Corporations exist under state law. The Supreme Court is clear that the state and disclosure were the way to react to Citizen's United," Mr. Squadron said.

If the Corporate Political Accountability to Shareholders Act passes the committee vote on Monday, it will be put before the Senate for a vote. Mr. Squadron said he's hopeful it will pass and move on to the Assembly.

"I hope it passes, I think it will certainly be a great opportunity to see if folks are willing to stand up against corp influence in politics," he said.

The deadline was January 1.

"This is the latest example of the need to restructure the oversight of the state’s campaign finance laws and ensure that sufficient resources are available for implementation and enforcement of the laws," writes Bill Mahoney, the legislative coordinator for NYPIRG.

The new ethics law, called The Public Integrity Reform Act of 2011 amendment was signed into law on August 15, and would have required the board to disclose those who give money to independent campaign arms--rather than the campaigns themselves--prior to the election.

Writes Mr. Mahoney:

"The Board of Elections has had six months to meet its deadline.  Yet when these regulations were discussed during the Board’s December 15^th meeting Commissioners and staff said that despite 'numerous rewrites' it was not ready to be put out for public comment.  Co-chair Douglas Kellner questioned why the Board would not issue the proposal as drafted to meet the statutory deadline, but was told that “it’s not ready.”  Instead of trying to finalize whatever additional “minor tweaks” they felt were needed, in less than two and half minutes the Commissioners moved on to other business.

NYPIRG points out that the each year hundreds of donors give contributions larger than the state’s generous legal limits and often do not face consequences, while candidates submit partial and incomplete information about their donors and are never forced to follow disclosure laws.

Legislators and the governor included the January 1^st deadline for a reason.  Independent expenditures have been increasing in recent election cycles in New York, and will likely continue their upward march this year. Unions and political strategists have recently promised to run more large-scale independent campaigns in future elections.  Newly emboldened interest groups who will be running massive national campaigns in the shadow of Citizens United could very well get involved in state-level races.

 

This most recent failure of the Board highlights the need for any campaign finance proposals introduced in 2012 to either take campaign finance enforcement powers away from the bipartisan board or drastically restructure an independent enforcement unit.  Changes such as public financing of elections or lower contribution limits are needed to reduce the oversized role played by wealthy interests in state elections, but will not be effective if candidates can casually ignore their requirements without fear of reprisal.  Moreover, the state needs to demonstrate its commitment to campaign finance transparency and enforcement of election law by ensuring that there is adequate funding and staffing to implement state law.