By Joe Trotter“Corporations have an obligation to do what is in the best interest of their shareholders, not comply with the demands of a non- profit that opposes speech by the business community.”The videos debunking CPA’s oft-repeated claims feature former SEC Commissioner Paul Atkins, Director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy James R. Copland, former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley A. Smith, and CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson.“With all of the misinformation peddled by groups like the Center for Political Accountability, it’s important to recognize the implications of activist investing and dragging the SEC into politics,” said former Brad Smith. “CPA has no obligation to worry about the actual interests of shareholders, and nothing suggests that they have the best interest of the business community at heart.”“The overwhelming majority of shareholders are primarily concerned with company value,” said CCP Legal Director Allen Dickerson. “Politicizing corporate governance doesn’t deliver that value. Perhaps that is why these misguided proxy efforts are consistently rejected by the very shareholders whose interests they purport to represent.”
As the Center for Political Accountability releases another flawed and partisan grading scheme on companies disclosure practices, it is important to recognize the FACTS from investors, boards and management, and the shoddy practices behind tabulating the index and proxy results….…THE BOTTOM LINE: The CPA and their allies are a coordinated group of economically disinterested shareholders who are working together to create the illusion of a mainstream mandate for companies to cease public affairs activities altogether. An idea a wide majority of economically interested shareholders reject year after year.
Fox: Tea Party leader: We’re disgusted, looking for justice in IRS scandal after Lois Lerner’s retirement
NORDVIG: Well, I’m not sure we can trust what the IRS says right now. So an in-house critique of Lois Lerner by the IRS really means nothing to me. She did call us very dangerous. Actually, we received letters with her signature on it. We have two of them with her signature on it. I actually have one right here. And you can see Lois Lerner’s signature. The timelines that she put out didn’t match up. Really what happened was she knew about it all along. It has become very clear. And she took away our First Amendment rights of freedom of association and freedom of speech. She wants to hide behind it.
Roll Call: The End of Contribution Limits?
By Eliza Newlin Carney“This case is not about base limits; they make sense,” said McCutcheon, whose challenge in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court on Oct. 8. “The corruption argument on base limits is pretty solid. If you were running for Congress and I gave you $1 million, wouldn’t you owe me?”The Republican National Committee has joined McCutcheon in arguing that the aggregate limits muzzle free speech. Indiana lawyer James Bopp Jr., who is representing the RNC in the case, also stresses: “We’re not challenging base limits in this case.”
Lobbying and Ethics
The Hill: NRSC ramps up attacks targeting Landrieu for husband’s lobbyist ties
By Alexandra JaffeThe committee sent mailers to 2,000 “opinion leaders, shapers and activists” in Louisiana and Washington, D.C., according to an NRSC source, that characterizes the “Landrieu team” as “sold.” They also passed the mailers out outside of a Landrieu fundraiser on Thursday.The mailer is fashioned after a real estate listing, and states that the Landrieu team is “serving K Street, Capitol Hill, and Washington’s most influential in need of premier real estate.”
By Niels Lesniewski“The committee has previously concluded that mere allegations, with no evidence or information to support their substantive merit, are insufficient to extend the Committee’s investigative process, ” wrote Ethics Chief Counsel and Staff Director John Sassaman., “The committee has previously concluded that mere allegations, with no evidence or information to support their substantive merit, are insufficient to extend the Committee’s investigative process, ” wrote Ethics Chief Counsel and Staff Director John Sassaman.