SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Conflict Mineral Ruling 'Sets Dangerous Precedent' on Corporate Personhood
'A corporation is hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for their actions, and the Court has ruled their right to secrecy is more important than the public's right to know.'
Aug 19, 2015
In a ruling based on what one rights group described as "a warped interpretation of the First Amendment," a three-judge panel has held that corporations have a constitutional right to conceal information about whether minerals in their supply chains may have funded conflict.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot force public companies to declare whether their products may contain "conflict minerals" from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) because it violates their right to free speech. The three-judge panel ruled, 2-1, such disclosure rules only apply to advertisements.
The National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups have worked to overturn the disclosure rule since its inception.
And they will surely be emboldened by Tuesday's decision, which the pro-democracy group Move to Amend said "sets a dangerous precedent" on corporate personhood.
"Rulings such as this one send the message that so-called corporate 'rights' actually trump 'We the People's' rights," stated Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, national director of Move to Amend. "In this case, a corporation is hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for its actions, and the Court has ruled that its right to secrecy is more important than the public's right to know."
The SEC's conflict minerals rule--strongly backed by human rights groups--is a provision mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, requiring manufacturers to conduct due diligence on their supply chains to try and track the origins of minerals including tantalum, tin, gold, and tungsten to determine if they may have come from the DRC.
"Today's decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws."
--Zorka Milin, Global Witness
As Global Witness and Amnesty International explained in a report released earlier this year: "These minerals are essential for electronic devices, such as smartphones and laptops. For over fifteen years, armed groups in eastern Congo have preyed on the mining sector to finance their operations with devastating impact, committing gross human rights abuses in the process." That report found that 79 of the 100 companies analyzed failed to meet the minimum requirements of the U.S. conflict minerals law.
Reuters reports:
Tuesday's ruling still largely upholds the majority of the SEC's conflict minerals rules, which went into effect last year.
Companies still must conduct due diligence and file reports to the SEC with their findings, but they are not required to state whether or not the products are deemed "conflict free."
However, Ron Fein of Free Speech for People said the ruling would have implications beyond conflict mineral disclosure. "[T]hese judges are coming for the entire set of transparency laws that help make our stock markets the most trusted in the world," he said. "And perhaps they won't stop there; according to these judges, nearly every disclosure or sunshine law in modern society is now subject to corporate First Amendment challenge."
Zorka Milin, senior legal advisor at Global Witness, agreed. "Today's decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws," she said in a statement.
"The convoluted logic of the decision is a perversion of the First Amendment and intrudes on the mandate of a democratically-elected Congress," she continued. "Given the potential implications of the ruling, particularly the warped interpretation of the First Amendment, we urge the court to reconsider and overrule this decision."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
constitutional rightscorporate powerdodd-frankdr congohuman rightsminingmove to amendsecurities and exchange commissioncorporate personhood
In a ruling based on what one rights group described as "a warped interpretation of the First Amendment," a three-judge panel has held that corporations have a constitutional right to conceal information about whether minerals in their supply chains may have funded conflict.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot force public companies to declare whether their products may contain "conflict minerals" from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) because it violates their right to free speech. The three-judge panel ruled, 2-1, such disclosure rules only apply to advertisements.
The National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups have worked to overturn the disclosure rule since its inception.
And they will surely be emboldened by Tuesday's decision, which the pro-democracy group Move to Amend said "sets a dangerous precedent" on corporate personhood.
"Rulings such as this one send the message that so-called corporate 'rights' actually trump 'We the People's' rights," stated Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, national director of Move to Amend. "In this case, a corporation is hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for its actions, and the Court has ruled that its right to secrecy is more important than the public's right to know."
The SEC's conflict minerals rule--strongly backed by human rights groups--is a provision mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, requiring manufacturers to conduct due diligence on their supply chains to try and track the origins of minerals including tantalum, tin, gold, and tungsten to determine if they may have come from the DRC.
"Today's decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws."
--Zorka Milin, Global Witness
As Global Witness and Amnesty International explained in a report released earlier this year: "These minerals are essential for electronic devices, such as smartphones and laptops. For over fifteen years, armed groups in eastern Congo have preyed on the mining sector to finance their operations with devastating impact, committing gross human rights abuses in the process." That report found that 79 of the 100 companies analyzed failed to meet the minimum requirements of the U.S. conflict minerals law.
Reuters reports:
Tuesday's ruling still largely upholds the majority of the SEC's conflict minerals rules, which went into effect last year.
Companies still must conduct due diligence and file reports to the SEC with their findings, but they are not required to state whether or not the products are deemed "conflict free."
However, Ron Fein of Free Speech for People said the ruling would have implications beyond conflict mineral disclosure. "[T]hese judges are coming for the entire set of transparency laws that help make our stock markets the most trusted in the world," he said. "And perhaps they won't stop there; according to these judges, nearly every disclosure or sunshine law in modern society is now subject to corporate First Amendment challenge."
Zorka Milin, senior legal advisor at Global Witness, agreed. "Today's decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws," she said in a statement.
"The convoluted logic of the decision is a perversion of the First Amendment and intrudes on the mandate of a democratically-elected Congress," she continued. "Given the potential implications of the ruling, particularly the warped interpretation of the First Amendment, we urge the court to reconsider and overrule this decision."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
In a ruling based on what one rights group described as "a warped interpretation of the First Amendment," a three-judge panel has held that corporations have a constitutional right to conceal information about whether minerals in their supply chains may have funded conflict.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cannot force public companies to declare whether their products may contain "conflict minerals" from the war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) because it violates their right to free speech. The three-judge panel ruled, 2-1, such disclosure rules only apply to advertisements.
The National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups have worked to overturn the disclosure rule since its inception.
And they will surely be emboldened by Tuesday's decision, which the pro-democracy group Move to Amend said "sets a dangerous precedent" on corporate personhood.
"Rulings such as this one send the message that so-called corporate 'rights' actually trump 'We the People's' rights," stated Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, national director of Move to Amend. "In this case, a corporation is hiding behind the First Amendment to avoid accountability for its actions, and the Court has ruled that its right to secrecy is more important than the public's right to know."
The SEC's conflict minerals rule--strongly backed by human rights groups--is a provision mandated by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, requiring manufacturers to conduct due diligence on their supply chains to try and track the origins of minerals including tantalum, tin, gold, and tungsten to determine if they may have come from the DRC.
"Today's decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws."
--Zorka Milin, Global Witness
As Global Witness and Amnesty International explained in a report released earlier this year: "These minerals are essential for electronic devices, such as smartphones and laptops. For over fifteen years, armed groups in eastern Congo have preyed on the mining sector to finance their operations with devastating impact, committing gross human rights abuses in the process." That report found that 79 of the 100 companies analyzed failed to meet the minimum requirements of the U.S. conflict minerals law.
Reuters reports:
Tuesday's ruling still largely upholds the majority of the SEC's conflict minerals rules, which went into effect last year.
Companies still must conduct due diligence and file reports to the SEC with their findings, but they are not required to state whether or not the products are deemed "conflict free."
However, Ron Fein of Free Speech for People said the ruling would have implications beyond conflict mineral disclosure. "[T]hese judges are coming for the entire set of transparency laws that help make our stock markets the most trusted in the world," he said. "And perhaps they won't stop there; according to these judges, nearly every disclosure or sunshine law in modern society is now subject to corporate First Amendment challenge."
Zorka Milin, senior legal advisor at Global Witness, agreed. "Today's decision affects not only the conflict minerals rule but could also be exploited by companies to bring legal challenges to other corporate transparency laws," she said in a statement.
"The convoluted logic of the decision is a perversion of the First Amendment and intrudes on the mandate of a democratically-elected Congress," she continued. "Given the potential implications of the ruling, particularly the warped interpretation of the First Amendment, we urge the court to reconsider and overrule this decision."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.