March, 30 2015, 12:15pm EDT

As Dark Money Monsters Torment Investors, Shareholders Need SEC Chair to Be Superhero; They Ask: 'Where Is Mary Jo White?'
Investors and Organizations Launch Anti-Dark Money Ad Blitz to Push Agency for a Rule Requiring Corporations to Disclose Political Spending
WASHINGTON
With monsters on the loose slinging blobs of corporate cash, frantic investors ask, "Who can rescue us from this dark money menace?" In the crowd, a woman remembers rumors that the chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has special powers to curb corporate political spending. "Mary Jo White is the superhero we need to end this menace," another onlooker shouts. "Where is Mary Jo White?"
That's the narrative of a month-long ad campaign launched today by investors and public interest organizations. The goal is to persuade the SEC to require publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's overreaching decision in Citizens United, corporations have had greater leeway to spend shareholder money to influence politics, but no new rules or procedures have been established to ensure that shareholders - those who own the corporations - are informed of decisions about spending in politics.
Subway travelers who enter and exit Union Station in Washington, D.C. - a major transit hub near the SEC's headquarters - will see every available ad space taken up with comic strip-style illustrations of frightened investors and voters calling on SEC Chair Mary Jo White to save them from monsters that have taken shareholder democracy hostage. SEC Chair Mary Jo White is depicted as a superhero who can rescue them from dark money threatening their investments, but where is she? The ads will be promoted by a social media campaign centered around #WhereIsMJW and including an animated video.
The ads and video, available at www.WhereIsMJW.com, are part of a push by the Corporate Reform Coalition to ensure that shareholders and voters know how much corporations spend to influence elections, and which races they fund. The ads were paid for by Avaaz, Public Citizen, Common Cause, U.S. PIRG, Greenpeace, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Communications Workers of America.
"From Big Oil to Big Pharma, this undisclosed dark money is rotting our corporate democracy from the inside out, and thousands of citizens are saying no more dirty secrets," said Joseph Huff-Hannon, senior campaigner with Avaaz. "This cheeky ad campaign is calling on SEC Chair Mary Jo White to defend us and our country from these creatures. We know she can. The only question is, will she?"
"Corporate political spending requires particular investor protections because it exposes investors to significant new risks," said Lisa Gilbert, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch division. Public Citizen is a co-founder of the Corporate Reform Coalition. "Corporate political spending choices may diverge from a company's stated values or policies, or may embroil the company in hot-button issues. Investors have a right to know what candidates or issues their investments are going to support or oppose."
The ad campaign comes in advance of the SEC's spring announcement of its rulemaking agenda. Under former Chair Mary Schapiro, the agency had included a political disclosure rule on its 2013 agenda, but Mary Jo White removed the rule last year, sparking outrage among investors and the public and leading many to ask, "Where is Mary Jo White on this important investor priority?"
A petition requesting the rulemaking was filed in 2011 by a bipartisan committee of leading law professors. A record-breaking million-plus comments have been submitted to the SEC from retail and institutional investors in support of a rule. The comments have come from diverse sources such as John C. Bogle, founder and former CEO of Vanguard; more than 70 current and former members of Congress; five state treasurers; the Maryland State Retirement Agency; US SIF: The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment; and a large group of firms managing more than $690 billion in assets.
As evidence of strong investor concern about political spending, in the past five years, shareholders have filed more than 500 resolutions on corporate political activity. In 2014, resolutions on political activity were the highest scoring proxy proposals, and four proposals received majority support despite opposition from corporate management.
This year, investors have filed more than 110 proposals around corporate political activity - more than a quarter of all shareholder proposals filed. At meetings in April and May, shareholders will go up against some of the largest companies in the world, but most will not achieve the disclosure they deserve. The ad campaign is designed to spotlight the fact that SEC Chair Mary Jo White is the superhero with the power to end the menace of dark money in investments.
Additional quotes:
"Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United in 2010, the political landscape has changed drastically, but the rules of corporate governance have not caught up. The court's opinion was predicated on disclosure and the process of corporate democracy, but the 2014 midterms were flooded with almost $200 million in dark money, and shareholders, the owners of corporate wealth, had no way of knowing where that money was coming from. Investors need SEC Chair Mary Jo White to act and require all publicly traded corporations to disclose their political spending."
- Emma Boorboor, democracy advocate, U.S. PIRG
"Disclosure of political spending is required for labor organizations. SEC Chair Mary Jo White should make the same requirement for corporations."
- George Kohl, senior director, Communications Workers of America
"Publicly traded corporations, including many in the fossil fuel industry, are getting away with hiding their political spending from shareholders and the public, polluting not only our climate, but our democracy. The public deserves to know how corporations are spending investor cash to influence elections. More than a million people have asked the Securities and Exchange Commission to take action, so the question is, 'Where is Mary Jo White?' "
- Rachel Rye Butler, democracy campaigner, Greenpeace
"The Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United to unleash corporate political spending was premised largely on the idea that voters would know which corporations were investing in which candidates and how much they were giving to each. We thought a little humor might draw attention to the issue while still calling on the need for the SEC to force public companies to provide that vital information."
- Karen Hobert Flynn, senior vice president for strategy and programs, Common Cause
"Corporations are secretly spending millions of dollars on political campaigns, and as investors, the Teamsters are concerned that we cannot evaluate potential conflicts or risks."
- Jim Hoffa, general president, Teamsters. The Teamsters invest more than $100 billion in the capital markets through affiliated pension and benefit funds.
"The SEC has the authority to regulate public corporations in the public interest and to protect investors. Five years after Citizens United allowed new corporate spending in elections, Chair Mary Jo White cannot continue to evade her responsibility to update the agency's rules to require disclosure of corporate political spending in the face of growing need and demonstrated demand."
- Liz Kennedy, campaign strategist and counsel, Demos
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) 588-1000LATEST NEWS
Judge Blocks Trump From Requiring Proof of Citizenship on Federal Voting Form
"Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," said one plaintiff in the case.
Oct 31, 2025
A federal judge on Friday permanently blocked part of President Donald Trump's executive order requiring proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms, a ruling hailed by one plaintiff in the case as "a clear victory for our democracy."
Siding with Democratic and civil liberties groups that sued the administration over Trump's March edict mandating a US passport, REAL ID-compliant document, military identification, or similar proof in order to register to vote in federal elections, Senior US District Judge for the District of Columbia Colleen Kollar-Kotelly found the directive to be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers.
“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the states and to Congress, this court holds that the president lacks the authority to direct such changes," Kollar-Kotelly, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, wrote in her 81-page ruling.
"The Constitution addresses two types of power over federal elections: First, the power to determine who is qualified to vote, and second, the power to regulate federal election procedures," she continued. "In both spheres, the Constitution vests authority first in the states. In matters of election procedures, the Constitution assigns Congress the power to preempt State regulations."
"By contrast," Kollar-Kotelly added, "the Constitution assigns no direct role to the president in either domain."
This is the second time Kollar-Kotelly has ruled against Trump's proof-of-citizenship order. In April, she issued a temporary injunction blocking key portions of the directive.
"The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to."
"The court upheld what we've long known: The president doesn't have the authority to change election procedures just because he wants to," the ACLU said on social media.
Sophia Lin Lakin of the ACLU, a plaintiff in the case, welcomed the decision as “a clear victory for our democracy."
"President Trump’s attempt to impose a documentary proof of citizenship requirement on the federal voter registration form is an unconstitutional power grab," she added.
Campaign Legal Center president Trevor Potter said in a statement: "This federal court ruling reaffirms that no president has the authority to control our election systems and processes. The Constitution gives the states and Congress—not the president—the responsibility and authority to regulate our elections."
"We are glad that this core principle of separation of powers has been upheld and celebrate this decision, which will ensure that the president cannot singlehandedly impose barriers on voter registration that would prevent millions of Americans from making their voices heard in our elections," Potter added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘It Does Not Have to Be This Way’: Child Hunger Set to Surge as Trump Withholds SNAP Funds
Two federal courts ruled Friday that the White House must release contingency food assistance funds, but officials have suggested they will not comply with the orders.
Oct 31, 2025
Though two federal judges ruled on Friday that the Trump administration must use contingency funds to continue providing food assistance that 42 million Americans rely on, White House officials have signaled they won't comply with the court orders even as advocates warn the lapse in nutrition aid funding will cause an unprecedented child hunger crisis that families are unprepared to withstand.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is planning to freeze payments to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program on Saturday as the government shutdown reaches the one-month mark, claiming it can no longer fund SNAP and cannot tap $5 billion in contingency funds that would allow recipients to collect at least partial benefits in November.
President Donald Trump said Thursday that his administration is "going to get it done," regarding the funding of SNAP, but offered no details on his plans to keep the nation's largest anti-hunger program funded, and his agriculture secretary, Brooke Rollins, would not commit on Friday to release the funds if ordered to do so.
"We're looking at all the options," Rollins told CNN before federal judges in Massachusetts and Rhode Island ordered the administration to fund the program.
The White House and Republicans in Congress have claimed the only way to fund SNAP is for Democratic lawmakers to vote for a continuing resolution proposed by the GOP to keep government funding at current levels; Democrats have refused to sign on to the resolution because it would allow healthcare subsidies under the Affordable Care Act to expire.
The administration previously said it would use the SNAP contingency funds before reversing course last week. A document detailing the contingency plan disappeared from the USDA's website this week. The White House's claims prompted two lawsuits filed by Democrat-led states and cities as well as nonprofit groups that demanded the funding be released.
On Thursday evening, US Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) addressed her followers on the social media platform X about the impending hunger emergency, emphasizing that the loss of SNAP benefits for 42 million Americans—39% of whom are children—is compounding a child poverty crisis that has grown since 2021 due to Republicans' refusal to extend pandemic-era programs like the enhanced child tax credit.
"One in eight kids in America lives in poverty in 2024," said Jayapal. "Sixty-one percent of these kids—that's about 6 million kids— have at least one parent who is employed. So it's not that people are not working, they're working, but they're not earning enough."
"I just want to be really clear that it is a policy choice to have people who are hungry, to have people who are poor," she said.
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, an economist at Georgetown University, told The Washington Post that the loss of benefits for millions of children, elderly, and disabled people all at once is "unprecedented."
“We’ve never seen the elderly and children removed from the program in this sort of way,” Schanzenbach told the Post. “It really is hard to predict something of this magnitude."
A Thursday report by the economic justice group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) emphasized that the impending child hunger crisis comes four months after Republicans passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed food assistance by shifting some of the cost of SNAP to the states from the federal government, expanding work requirements, and ending adjustments to benefits to keep pace with food inflation.
Meanwhile, the law is projected to increase the incomes of the wealthiest 20% of US households by 3.7% while reducing the incomes of the poorest 20% of Americans by an average of 3.8%.
Now, said ATF, "they're gonna let hard-working Americans go hungry so billionaires can get richer."
At Time on Thursday, Stephanie Land, author of Class: A Memoir of Motherhood, Hunger, and Higher Education, wrote that "the cruelty is the point" of the Trump administration's refusal to ensure the 61-year-old program, established by Democratic former President Lyndon B. Johnson, doesn't lapse for the first time in its history.
"Once, when we lost most of our food stamp benefit, I mentally catalogued every can and box of food in the cupboards, and how long the milk we had would last," wrote Land. "They’d kicked me, the mother of a recently-turned 6-year-old, off of food stamps because I didn’t meet the work requirement of 20 hours a week. I hadn’t known that my daughter’s age had qualified me to not have to meet that requirement, and without warning, the funds I carefully budgeted for food were gone."
"It didn’t matter that I was a full-time student and worked 10-15 hours a week," she continued. "This letter from my local government office said it wasn’t sufficient to meet their stamp of approval. In their opinion, I wasn’t working enough to deserve to eat. My value, my dignity as a human being, was completely dependent on my ability to work, as if nothing else about me awarded me the ability to feel satiated by food."
"Whether the current administration decides to continue to fund SNAP in November or not, the intended damage has already been done. The fear of losing means for food, shelter, and healthcare is the point," Land added. "Programs referred to as a 'safety net' are anything but when they can be removed with a thoughtless, vague message, or scribble from a permanent marker. It’s about control to gain compliance, and our most vulnerable populations will struggle to keep up."
On Thursday, the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) expressed hope that the president's recent statement saying the White House will ensure people obtain their benefits will "trigger the administration to use its authority and precedent to prevent disruptions in food assistance."
"The issue at hand is not political. It is about ensuring that parents can put food on the table, older adults on fixed incomes can meet their nutritional needs, and children continue to receive the meals they rely on. SNAP is one of the most effective tools for reducing hunger and supporting local economies," said the group.
"Swift and transparent action is needed," FRAC added, "to restore stability, maintain public confidence, and ensure that our state partners, local economies and grocers, and the millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities, and veterans who participate in SNAP are not left bearing the consequences of federal inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Immigration Agents Cause Chaos In Chicago Suburb as New Report Documents 'Pattern of Extreme Brutality'
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out," said Evanston, Illinois Mayor Daniel Biss.
Oct 31, 2025
Officials in Evanston, Illinois are accusing federal immigration officials of "deliberately causing chaos" in their city during a Friday operation that led to angry protests from local residents.
As reported by Fox 32 Chicago, Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss and other local leaders held a news conference on Friday afternoon to denounce actions earlier in the day by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.
"Our message for ICE is simple: Get the hell out of Evanston," Biss said during the conference.
In a social media post ahead of the press conference, Biss, who is currently a candidate for US Senate, described the agents' actions as "monstrous" and vowed that he would "continue to track the movement of federal agents in and around Evanston and ensure that the Evanston Police Department is responding in the appropriate fashion."
As of this writing, it is unclear how the incident involving the immigration officials in Evanston began, although witness Jose Marin told local publication Evanston Now that agents on Friday morning had deliberately caused a car crash in the area near the Chute Elementary School, and then proceeded to detain the vehicle's passengers.
Videos taken after the crash posted by Chicago Tribune investigative reporter Gregory Royal Pratt and by Evanston Now reporter Matthew Eadie show several people in the area angrily confronting law enforcement officials as they were in the process of detaining the passengers.
“You a criminal!” Evanston residents angrily confront immigration agents pic.twitter.com/t7jVaC4czq
— Gregory Royal Pratt (@royalpratt) October 31, 2025
Another video of ICE grabbing at least two people after a crash on Oakton/Asbury in Evanston
Witnesses say at least three were arrested by Feds pic.twitter.com/DStgCrKWTA
— Matthew Eadie (@mattheweadie22) October 31, 2025
The operation in Evanston came on the same day that Bellingcat published a report documenting what has been described as "a pattern of extreme brutality" being carried out by immigration enforcement officials in Illinois.
Specifically, the publication examined social media videos of immigration enforcement actions taken between October 9 to October 27, and found "multiple examples of force and riot control weapons being used" in apparent violation of a judge's temporary restraining order that banned such weapons except in cases where federal officers are in immediate danger.
"In total, we found seven [instances] that appeared to show the use of riot control weapons when there was seemingly no apparent immediate threat by protesters and no audible warnings given," Bellingcat reported. "Nineteen showed use of force, such as tackling people to the ground when they were not visibly resisting. Another seven showed agents ordering or threatening people to leave public places. Some of the events identified showed incidents that appeared to fall into more than one of these categories."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


