

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

The Corporate Reform Coalition applauds the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) commitment to seek disclosure of all corporate political spending in response to a historic demonstration of investor demand for such a rule-making.
The Corporate Reform Coalition applauds the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) commitment to seek disclosure of all corporate political spending in response to a historic demonstration of investor demand for such a rule-making.
In one of the last actions of departing SEC Chair Mary Schapiro's term, the agency announced that it will consider a proposed rule to require that public companies provide disclosure to shareholders regarding the use of corporate resources for political activities. A petition requesting this rulemaking was filed in 2011 by a bipartisan committee of leading law professors.
In a telephone press conference today, coalition members urged the agency to move swiftly on the rule, now that it is on the agenda.
The SEC has a responsibility to protect investors by regulating the securities markets to ensure that they have the information they need to make investment decisions. Shareholders have a right to know how the companies in their investment portfolio are spending their invested money, especially where these actions are outside the scope of normal business activities, or where the interests of shareholders and management may diverge. This is particularly true with corporate political spending, where certain choices may diverge from a company's stated values or policies, or may endanger the company's brand by embroiling it in hot-button issues.
By putting this rule on its agenda, the SEC has responded in part to the Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down laws restricting non-coordinated corporate spending to influence elections. In Citizens United, Justice Anthony Kennedy emphasized the importance of disclosure and accountability for corporate political spending, writing that disclosure requirements "provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters."
Unfortunately, the current public reporting regime does not actually require disclosure of all relevant sources of corporate political spending, and post-Citizens United secret corporate political spending has been on the rise. Corporate funds are frequently funneled through third-party groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which refuse to disclose the underlying donors who provide the financial resources for their political activities. The Chamber of Commerce was the single largest outside spender in the 2010 elections, and spent more than $36 million on the 2012 elections.
Americans across the political spectrum strongly support requiring transparency and accountability in corporate political spending. A record number of public comments - more than 322,940 and counting - have been filed with the SEC in support of the petition requesting a rule requiring disclosure of corporate political spending. These comments have come from such diverse sources as a large group of firms managing more than $690 billion in assets, the Maryland State Retirement Agency, U.S. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.) and 42 other members of the House, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and 12 other senators, John Bogle (former CEO of the Vanguard Group), five state treasurers, US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, the Sustainable Investments Institute, and many more.
In a recent poll, eight out of 10 Americans (81%) believe that corporations should only spend money on political campaigns if they disclose their spending immediately (including 77 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of Democrats). Eighty-six percent of Americans agree that prompt disclosure of political spending would help voters, customers, and shareholders hold companies accountable for political behavior (support ranged from 83 percent to 92 percent across all political subgroups). Eighty one percent of Americans agree that the secret flow of corporate political spending is bad for democracy, and 84 percent agree that corporate political spending drowns out the voices of average Americans. Seventy-five percent of respondents said they would sign a petition to the SEC in support of corporate disclosure.
Public Citizen, Demos, CREDO Action, Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending, Common Cause, New Progressive Alliance, Walden Asset Management, Natural Investments LLC, Responsible Endowments Coalition, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, The New School Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility, the Campaign Legal Center, Green Century Capital Management, Krull and Company, Colorado Sustainable Financial Planning, Effective Assets(tm), Alliance for a Just Society, Main Street Alliance, Corporate Ethics International/ Business Ethics Network, the AFL-CIO, Friends of the Earth, Democracy 21, Sunlight Foundation, Pax World Mutual Funds, Domini Social Investments LLC, Public Campaign, Citizen Works, NorthStar Asset Management, Inc., the Communications Workers of America, the American Sustainable Business Council, AFSCME, Trillium Asset Management LLC, CREW, Zevin Asset Management, CTW Investment Group, Coffee Party USA, the Social Equity Group, People For the American Way, the League of Conservation Voters, and US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment participate in the Corporate Reform Coalition working to increase transparency and accountability for corporate political spending.
QUOTES FROM KEY PLAYERS:
"We congratulate the SEC for listening to investors and the public, in moving forward on a rule that would require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending. For Mary Schapiro it is an important legacy, and we ask the incoming chair to move the rule forward to completion this year," said Lisa Gilbert, Director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch
"I am delighted that the SEC is carefully considering our petition and the research that convinced us that investors should be given the information they need to assess whether and how their money is spent on politics, said Robert Jackson, law professor at Columbia University and one of the original petition filers. "I hope the SEC will propose rules that will shine light on corporate political spending this year."
"I am delighted that the Division of Corporation Finance will be considering this year whether to recommend that the SEC issue a proposed rule for corporate political spending as our rulemaking petition urged," said Lucian Bebchuk, Director of the Program on Corporate Governance at Harvard law School who co-chaired the committee on disclosure of political spending. "The case for such a rule is strong, and the rulemaking petition has attracted exceptional levels of support from the record number of comments filed with the SEC. We very much appreciate the contribution of the Coalition to encouraging the submission of comments to the file."
"The SEC has taken a step in the right direction by putting disclosure of corporate political spending on its agenda and we will hold them to this promise. We cannot continue to keep our nation's pension funds and investors in the dark about the use of corporate treasury dollars in elections. I urge the incoming SEC Commissioners to act quickly to enact these new rules on disclosure," said Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, trustee of the New York City Employee Retirement System and founder of the Coalition for Accountability in Political Spending (CAPS).
"Undisclosed corporate political spending is a risk factor for investors, and now, with the SEC's willingness to consider a disclosure rule, investors will have a fighting chance to ensure that such spending is only made in their interests," said Brandon Rees, Acting Director of the AFL-CIO Office of Investment.
"The SEC should be commended for taking this first concrete step to prevent further secret corporate political spending. Our democratic system of self-government works when we are all political equals. If corporate managers choose to spend money to influence elections, they must do so transparently so they can be held accountable for their positions" said Liz Kennedy, Counsel at Demos.
"Over 150,000 CREDO members took time out of their busy schedules to submit a public comment to the SEC to help end the corrosive flood of anonymous corporate money into our political system. People care deeply about this -- it's not just a wonky regulatory issue -- and it's a small but important first step toward undoing the damaging impact of Citizens United and restoring a measure of sanity to our political system," said Becky Bond, Political Director of CREDO Action.
"We are pleased that we are one step closer to ending the days where public corporations can secretly give to political campaigns without any accountability to the public or their shareholders," said Bob Edgar, President of Common Cause.
"Fortunately, the SEC is reasserting its historical role as the guardian of market integrity in the face of increasing corporate money in politics. This new rule making follows in the footsteps of the SEC's investigations post-Watergate that uncovered illegal corporate political spending, and the SEC's recent rules addressing pay to play in the municipal bond market and pay to play for investment advisors to public pension funds," added Assistant Professor of Law at Stetson University College of Law Ciara Torres-Spelliscy.
"We are heartened that the SEC has taken a step in the right direction in addressing one of the most pressing issues facing our country: anonymous corporate money in our democracy," said Marge Baker, Executive Vice President of People For the American Way. "Poll after poll shows that this is an issue about which Americans care deeply. Without increased transparency, accountability, and a new approach to addressing corporate political spending, wealthy special interests will continue to undermine our democracy."
"Full disclosure of all political spending is the only way in which shareholders can evaluate risk. Corporate spending for political purposes should be focused solely on creating shareholder value and should be done in a completely transparent manner. I applaud the SEC for taking up the petition to mandate disclosure of political spending and urge them to protect shareholder rights by ruling in favor of more transparency," said New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, trustee of the $150.1 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000The administration is "now acknowledging what economists and business leaders have told us from the beginning: that tariffs are driving up prices," said one journalist.
Although President Donald Trump didn't actually confess that his global trade war is driving up the cost of groceries for Americans, he did finally drop his dubiously named "reciprocal" tariffs on key imports on Friday.
According to a White House fact sheet, Trump's new executive order ends his tariffs on beef; cocoa and spices; coffee and tea; bananas, oranges, and tomatoes; other tropical fruits and fruit juices; and fertilizers.
The New York Times had reported Thursday that "the Trump administration is preparing broad exemptions to certain tariffs in an effort to ease elevated food prices that have provoked anxiety for American consumers."
The reporting drew critiques of the administration's economic policies, including from members of Congress such as Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said that "Trump just admitted it: Americans are footing the bill for his disastrous tariffs."
"While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump's crazy tariff scheme."
Also responding to the Times reporting, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Friday: "After months of increasing grocery prices, Donald Trump is finally admitting he was wrong. Americans are literally paying the price for Trump's mistakes."
More lawmakers and other critics piled on after Trump issued the order. CNN's Jim Sciutto said: "Trump administration now acknowledging what economists and business leaders have told us from the beginning: that tariffs are driving up prices."
MeidasTouch and its editor in chief, Ron Filipkowski, also called out the president on social media, with the outlet sarcastically noting, "But Trump said his tariffs don't raise prices."
OR, Trump Admits His Tariffs Caused Grocery Prices to Rise.
[image or embed]
— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) November 14, 2025 at 5:52 PM
Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va), who serves on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, said in a Friday statement that "President Trump is finally admitting what we always knew: His tariffs are raising prices for the American people."
"After getting drubbed in recent elections because of voters' fury that Trump has broken his promises to fix inflation, the White House is trying to cast this tariff retreat as a 'pivot to affordability,'" Beyer said, referencing Democrats who won key races last week, from more moderate Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, the incoming governors of New Jersey and Virginia, to democratic socialist Mayors-elect Zohran Mamdani of New York City and Katie Wilson of Seattle.
In addition to those electoral victories for Democrats, last week featured a debate over Trump's trade war at the US Supreme Court. According to Beyer: "The simple truth is that Republicans want credit for something they think the Supreme Court will force them to do anyway, after oral arguments before the court on Trump's illegal abuses of trade authorities went badly for the administration. Trump is still keeping the vast majority of his tariffs in place, and his administration is also planning new tariffs in anticipation of a Supreme Court loss."
"The same logic—that Trump's tariffs are driving up prices on coffee, fruit, and other comestibles—is equally true for the thousands of other goods on which his tariffs remain," he continued. "While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump's crazy tariff scheme."
"Only Congress can do that, by reclaiming its legal responsibility under the Constitution to regulate trade, and permanently ending Trump's trade war chaos," he stressed. "All but a handful of Republicans in Congress are still refusing to stand up to Trump, stop his tariffs, and lower costs for the American people, and unless they find a backbone, our economy will continue to suffer."
Huh. Trump dropped the tariffs on coffee, beef, and tropical fruit to LOWER PRICES. I thought other countries paid for those?
— Angry (@angrystaffer.bsky.social) November 14, 2025 at 5:50 PM
As the Associated Press noted Friday, "The president signed the executive order after announcing that the U.S. had reached framework agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Argentina designed to ease import levies on agricultural products produced in those countries."
Trump's order also came just a day after Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report showing that US families are paying roughly $700 more each month for basic items since Trump returned to office in January—with households in some states, such as Alaska and California, facing an average of over $1,000 monthly.
The president has floated sending Americans a $2,000 check, purportedly funded by revenue collected from his tariffs, but as Common Dreams reported Wednesday, economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research crunched the numbers and found that the proposed "dividend" doesn't add up.
"After over two years of slaughter, forced starvation, and mass atrocities in Gaza, the global consensus is clear: The Israeli government has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza."
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and 20 Democratic colleagues on Friday introduced legislation that would officially recognize Israel's 25-month war on Gaza as a genocide, a move that came as Israeli forces continued killing Palestinians in the coastal strip and violating a tenuous ceasefire with Hamas.
Tlaib (D-Mich.)—the only Palestinian American in Congress—introduced H.Res. 876, which, if passed, would "officially recognize that the state of Israel has committed the crime of genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza" and affirm that it is official US policy to "prevent and punish the crime of genocide, wherever it occurs."
“The Israeli government’s genocide in Gaza has not ended, and it will not end until we act," Tlaib said in a statement Friday. "Since the so-called ‘ceasefire’ was announced, Israeli forces haven’t stopped killing Palestinians."
According to Gaza's Government Media Office (GMO), Israel has violated the ceasefire agreement 282 times as of November 10, 2025—exactly one month after the US-brokered truce took effect. Alleged violations include airstrikes resulting in massacres, shootings of civilians, property demolitions, and raids beyond the ceasefire's "yellow line" buffer zones.
GMO says Israeli forces have killed least 242 Palestinians and injured more than 620 others during the truce.
This, in addition to the at least 249,000 Palestinians who have been killed or wounded by Israeli forces since October 2023, including upward of 10,000 people who are missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the ruins of Gaza, which could take decades to clear. Around 2 million Palestinians have been starved, sickened, and forcibly displaced. Many others have been arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, and allegedly subjected to rape and other sexual abuse.
"After over two years of slaughter, forced starvation, and mass atrocities in Gaza, the global consensus is clear: The Israeli government has committed genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza," Tlaib noted.
She continued:
Palestinians in Gaza have attested to this genocide for over two years and it has been concluded by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and highly respected international, Palestinian, and Israeli human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Doctors Without Borders, Al-Haq, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Forensic Architecture, and the University Network for Human Rights.
The resolution calls for the United States to "respect its obligations under the Genocide Convention by employing all means reasonably available to it to prevent and punish the crime of genocide."
These include:
“Impunity only enables more atrocity," Tlaib warned. "As our government continues to send a blank check for war crimes and ethnic cleansing, Palestinian children’s smiles are extinguished by bombs and bullets that say made in the USA."
"To end this horror, we must reject genocide denial and follow our binding legal obligations under the Genocide Convention to take immediate action to pursue justice and accountability to prevent and punish the crime of genocide," she added. "We must hold individual perpetrators and complicit corporations to account. We must stop sending weapons to a genocidal military. We must follow international law and use all means available to us, including sanctions, to bring this genocide to an end.”
Despite existing laws prohibiting US assistance to foreign security forces that commit gross human rights violations, the United States—which grew into a world power in part via genocide of Indigenous Americans—has provided arms and diplomatic cover to the perpetrators of genocides in Paraguay, Guatemala, Bangladesh, East Timor, Kurdistan, and Gaza over the past half-century, while turning a blind eye to other genocides.
Under the Biden and Trump administrations, the US has provided Israel with more than $20 billion in armed aid while thwarting efforts to end the genocide by vetoing numerous United Nations Security Council ceasefire resolutions.
The Trump administration has also slapped sanctions on ICC judges after the tribunal issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation.
Trump has also targeted individuals and nations who seek justice for Palestinians, acknowledge the Gaza genocide, or recognize Palestinian statehood.
Tlaib's resolution is co-sponsored by Democratic Reps. Becca Balint (Vt.), André Carson (Ind.), Greg Casar (Texas), Maxine Dexter (Ore.), Maxwell Alejandro Frost (Fla.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Al Green (Texas), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), “Hank” Johnson Jr. (Ga.), Ro Khanna (Calif.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Lateefah Simon (Calif.), Nydia Velázquez (NY), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ).
The resolution—which is unlikely to get through the Republican-controlled Congress—is also endorsed by more than 100 organizations.
“This resolution is an important step towards recognizing Israel’s actions against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip for what they are—genocide," Amnesty International Middle East and North Africa advocacy director Elizabeth Rghebi said in support of the measure.
"The US ratified the Genocide Convention which imposes a duty on states to prevent and punish the crime," Rghebi added. "Amnesty International calls on all members of Congress to urgently support this resolution and ensure the US begins taking the actions necessary to prevent and punish Israel’s genocide in Gaza."
Beth Miller, political director at Jewish Voice for Peace Action, said that “for over two years, the US has been a full partner in the Israeli government’s genocide against Palestinians. Presidents and members of Congress have denied and erased Israel’s ongoing atrocities in Gaza, shielded Israel from accountability in the international arena, and attempted to dehumanize Palestinians."
"Congresswoman Tlaib and the original co-sponsors joining her on this historic resolution are making clear that this complicity must come to an end," Miller added. "These representatives are heeding the call of the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to see an end to his genocide and a halt to US support for war crimes."
A letter implored the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to "stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power."
A series of nuclear power-related executive orders issued by President Donald Trump seek to legitimize people's "suffering as the price of nuclear expansion," said one expert at Beyond Nuclear on Friday, as the nongovernmental organization spearheaded a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and top Trump administration officials warning of the public health risks of the orders.
More than 40 civil society groups—including Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), Sierra Club, Nuclear Watch South, and the Appalachian Peace Education Center—signed the letter to the commission, calling on officials not to revise the NRC's Standards for Protection Against Radiation, as they were directed to earlier this year by Trump.
"NRC has not made a revision yet, and has been hearing that the Part 20 exposure (external only) should be taken from the existing 100 mr [milliroentgen] a year, per license, to 500 mr a year, and in view of some, even to 10 Rems [Roentgen Equivalent Man], which would be 100 times the current level," reads the letter.
In 2021, noted PSR, the NRC "roundly rejected" a petition "to raise allowable radiation exposures for all Americans, including children and pregnant women, to 10 Rems a year."
The revision to radiation limit standards would result in anywhere from 5-100 times less protection for Americans, said the groups, with 4 out of 5 adult males exposed over a 70-year lifetime developing cancer that they otherwise would not have.
"Radiation is dangerous for everyone,” said Amanda M. Nichols, lead author of the 2024 study Gender and Ionizing Radiation. “[Trump’s] executive order will allow the industry to relax the current standards for radiological protection, which are already far from adequate. This will have detrimental health consequences for humans and for our shared environments and puts us all at higher risk for negative health consequences. ”
The change in standards would be even more consequential for women, including pregnant women, and children—all of whom are disproportionately susceptible to health impacts of ionizing radiation, compared to adult males.
"Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
In Gender and Ionizing Radiation, Nichols and biologist Mary Olson examined atomic bomb survivor data and found that young girls "face twice the risk as boys of the same age, and have four to five times the risk of developing cancer later in life than a woman exposed in adulthood."
Despite the risks to some of the country's most vulnerable people, Trump has also called for a revision of "the basis of the NRC regulation," reads Friday's letter: the Linear No Threshold (LNT) model, the principle that there is no safe level of radiation and that cancer risk to proportional to dose.
The LNT model is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, the letter states, but one of Trump's executive orders calls for "an additional weakening of protection by setting a threshold, or level, below which radiation exposure would not 'count' or be considered as to have not occurred."
The Standards for Protection Against Radiation are "based on the well-documented findings that even exposures so small that they cannot be measured may, sometimes, result in fatal cancer," reads the letter. "The only way to reduce risk to zero requires zero radiation exposure."
Trump's orders "would undermine public trust by falsely claiming that the NRC’s radiation risk models lack scientific basis, despite decades of peer-reviewed evidence and international consensus supporting the LNT model," it adds.
The signatories noted that the US government could and should strengthen radiation regulations by ending its reliance on "Reference Man"—a model that the NRC uses to create its risk assessments, which is based on a young adult male and fails to reflect the greater impact on infants, young children, and women.
“Newer research has shown that external radiation harms children more than adults and female bodies more than male bodies," reads the letter. "Existing standards should therefore be strengthened to account for these life-stage and gender disparities… not weakened. Radiation causes infertility, loss of pregnancy, birth complications and defects, as well as solid tumor cancer, leukemia, non-cancer outcomes including cardiovascular disease, increased incidence of autoimmune disease, and ongoing new findings.”
Olson, who is the CEO of the Generational Radiation Impact Project, which also helped organize the letter, warned that "radiation causes cancer in women at twice the rate of adult men, while the same exposure in early childhood, will, across their lifetimes, produce seven times more cancer in young females, and four times more in young males.”
The groups emphasized that "executive orders do not have the power to require federal agencies to take actions that violate their governing statutes, nor to grant them powers and authorities that contradict those governing statutes. The NRC needs to stand up to the executive order’s marching orders to 'promote' nuclear power—a mission outside its legal regulatory mandate under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 and the concurrent amendments to the Atomic Energy Act."
Federal agencies including the NRC, they added, "should not favor industry propaganda asserting that some radiation is safe over science-based protection of the public. This is a deliberate subversion of science and public health in favor of corporate interests."