Overview
Title
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require corporations to disclose to their shareholders the amounts disbursed for certain political activity, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The OPEN Act wants companies to tell their owners how much money they spend on politics and certain types of ads, and to make sure they follow rules to avoid spending too much, like setting limits for special organizations.
Summary AI
H.R. 6913, also known as the “Openness in Political Expenditures Now Act” or the “OPEN Act,” seeks to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The bill requires corporations to disclose to their shareholders the amounts they spend on certain political activities, provided the expenses exceed specific thresholds. It outlines the necessary disclosures and reporting methods while also amending the Internal Revenue Code to limit political activities by social welfare organizations based on their total expenditures. Additionally, the bill includes a severability clause, ensuring that if a part of the law is declared unconstitutional, the remaining sections will still stand.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The proposed legislation, known as the "Openness in Political Expenditures Now Act" or the "OPEN Act," aims to increase transparency around political spending by corporations. This bill seeks to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by requiring corporations to disclose certain political expenditures to their shareholders. It introduces detailed reporting requirements for corporations on their spending for specific political activities. Additionally, the bill imposes limits on the political expenditures that social welfare organizations can engage in without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Summary of Significant Issues
One primary concern with the bill is the threshold set for disbursement disclosures. Critics argue that these might be unnecessarily low, which could result in an onerous administrative burden on corporations, particularly smaller ones that might not have the resources to comply with extensive reporting requirements.
Further complicating the bill is the broad definition of "covered political activity," which encompasses a wide range of activities, including some that might not typically be viewed as direct political actions. This broad scope might lead to confusion or result in corporations over-reporting their political spending, adding to the administrative load.
The requirement for corporations to post hyperlinks to reports on their websites raises practical concerns. Smaller corporations or those without a strong online presence might struggle to meet this requirement, potentially putting them at a competitive disadvantage.
Additionally, the existing definitions and thresholds of political disclosures are juxtaposed with the new regulation, which might lead to confusion and difficulty in maintaining compliance with the law. Furthermore, the bill introduces a "de minimis" provision allowing minimal over-expenditures without penalty under certain circumstances. This flexibility might be leveraged to sidestep restrictions, undermining the bill's intent.
Finally, the severability clause assumes that any unconstitutional element of the Act will not impact the remainder of the legislation. However, if key sections are challenged and deemed unconstitutional, this assumption might be proven incorrect, potentially affecting the overall efficacy of the law.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this bill signifies a move toward increased transparency in political funding. By requiring corporations to disclose their political expenditures, shareholders and, indirectly, the public will have greater insight into the influence of corporate money in politics. This could lead to more informed decision-making by stakeholders and foster public trust in political processes.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Corporations: Businesses, especially smaller ones, might face challenges in complying with the new reporting requirements, as the administrative and financial burden of documenting and disclosing political activities could be significant.
Social Welfare Organizations: These groups would face limitations on their political spending unless they adhere to strict guidelines, potentially affecting their operations and missions. This could necessitate shifts in their funding strategies and political engagement practices.
Regulatory Bodies: Government agencies tasked with overseeing these disclosures would require additional resources to ensure compliance and manage the increased volume of reported data.
Shareholders and Investors: The disclosures could empower shareholders with critical information regarding a corporation's political alignments, potentially influencing investment decisions and shareholder activism.
Overall, the OPEN Act potentially increases corporate transparency in political spending. However, it also raises substantive issues for corporations and other stakeholders in terms of compliance and operational adjustments. As this legislation advances, addressing these challenges will be essential for achieving the intended improvements in political accountability.
Financial Assessment
The proposed Openness in Political Expenditures Now Act (H.R. 6913) introduces several financial-related measures aimed at enhancing transparency regarding corporate political expenditures. Below is an analysis of how the bill handles financial disclosures and potential issues linked to these monetary references.
Disclosure Thresholds for Political Expenditures
The bill mandates that corporations report political expenditures to their shareholders if the amounts exceed specific thresholds. These thresholds are set as follows:
- $250 for independent expenditures, which encompass spending geared towards influencing elections without coordinating with candidates.
- $10,000 for electioneering communications, which are usually public advertisements aired close to elections that mention specific candidates.
These financial thresholds are intended to ensure corporations disclose significant political spending to their shareholders. However, it is worth noting that setting the threshold for independent expenditures at $250 might place a substantial reporting burden on corporations. Particularly for smaller entities, this could mean increased administrative efforts for relatively minor sums, possibly diverting resources from other business activities.
Expanded Definition of Political Activities
The bill further classifies certain payments and communications as "covered political activities," expanding the financial reporting requirements. This broadened scope includes payments to trade associations or organizations defined under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. These activities might not traditionally fall under political engagements, raising concerns about potential over-reporting and ambiguity in what needs to be disclosed. The financial implications here could include either over-complying and inflating reported political spending or not fully understanding the requirements, thereby risking non-compliance penalties.
Social Welfare Organizations Limitation
Another critical financial element is the restriction on social welfare organizations regarding their political activity expenditures. These organizations face a limit based on the lesser of 10% of their total expenditures or $10,000,000 for their political activities. This cap aims to deter excessive political influence by entities benefiting from tax-exempt status. Yet, the flexibility introduced by the 'de minimis' condition found in SEC. 3 could allow small excesses if deemed due to reasonable cause and not willful, potentially creating loopholes for strategic financial maneuvering.
Hyperlink Posting Requirements
Corporations are required to maintain an online hyperlink to their reported political expenditure statements. This stipulation, while fostering transparency, may impose additional demands on smaller firms without a robust online presence, thereby creating an uneven playing field where some organizations might struggle to meet these posting requirements seamlessly.
Conclusion
H.R. 6913's financial transparency initiatives significantly contribute to shareholder insight into corporate political activities. However, the low thresholds for disclosure, broad definitions, and specific reporting mandates might lead to challenges, particularly for smaller entities. Companies may face increased financial reporting duties, potentially requiring additional human and financial resources. While the bill has commendable transparency goals, careful consideration of its financial implications is crucial to avoid inadvertent burdens, ensuring the legislation achieves its intended purpose without unnecessary strain on corporate resources.
Issues
The threshold amounts for disbursement disclosures in SEC. 2 might be considered too low, potentially burdening corporations, particularly smaller ones, with excessive reporting requirements for minor expenditures. This could lead to unintended administrative and financial burdens on these entities (SEC. 2).
The definition and inclusion of 'covered political activity' in SEC. 2 and SEC. 3 appear to cover a broad range of communications and payments, some of which might not traditionally be considered political activities. This broad definition could lead to ambiguity or over-reporting by corporations, requiring clarity (SEC. 2, SEC. 3).
The required posting of hyperlinks, as stipulated in SEC. 2, might not be feasible for all corporations, particularly smaller ones or those lacking a robust web presence, thereby potentially disadvantaging these entities (SEC. 2).
The overlapping definitions and thresholds within the proposal and existing regulations could create confusion, making legal compliance challenging for corporations, thereby complicating the regulatory landscape for political disclosures (SEC. 2, SEC. 3).
The 'de minimis' provision in SEC. 3 allows exceeding spending thresholds for covered political activities under certain conditions, introducing flexibility that might be exploited to circumvent restrictions (SEC. 3).
The severability clause in SEC. 4, while common in legislation, assumes that any unconstitutional element does not impact the rest of the Act, which may be contested in future legal challenges if key provisions are found unconstitutional (SEC. 4).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be officially called the “Openness in Political Expenditures Now Act” or simply the “OPEN Act”.
2. Disclosure by corporations to shareholders of disbursements for political activity Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Corporations must include information about their political spending in their regular reports to shareholders if the spending exceeds certain thresholds. They also need to report this information to a government commission and provide an online link to these reports on their website.
Money References
- , the ‘applicable threshold’ with respect to a disbursement for covered political activity during a period covered by a report is as follows: “(A) In the case of covered political activity consisting of an independent expenditure, $250. “(B) In the case of covered political activity consisting of an electioneering communication or a communication described in subsection (c)(3), $10,000. “(C) In the case of covered political activity consisting of a payment described in subsection (c)(4), the amount of the limitation on contributions which is in effect under section 315(a)(1)(C) as of the last day of the period.
325. Disclosures by corporations to shareholders of information on disbursements for certain political activity Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
Corporations that report to their shareholders must disclose their spending on certain political activities if the amounts exceed specific thresholds, and they are required to share this information with the Commission and provide a link on their website. Covered political activities include independent expenditures, electioneering communications, and payments to specific associations or organizations.
Money References
- — (1) IN GENERAL.—A corporation which submits regular, periodic reports to its shareholders shall include in each such report, in a clear and conspicuous manner, the information described in paragraph (2) with respect to the disbursements made by the corporation for covered political activity during the period covered by the report, but only if the amount of the disbursement made for such activity during the period covered by the report equals or exceeds the applicable threshold for the activity described in paragraph (3). (2) INFORMATION DESCRIBED.—The information described in this paragraph is, for each disbursement for covered political activity— (A) the date of the disbursement; (B) the amount of the disbursement; (C) in the case of a disbursement consisting of an independent expenditure or an electioneering communication, or in the case of a covered political activity described in subsection (c)(3), the name of the candidate identified in the independent expenditure or electioneering communication involved, the Commission ID assigned to the candidate, and the office sought by the candidate; and (D) in the case of a covered political activity described in subsection (c)(4), the identification of the association or organization to whom the disbursement was made, and the Commission ID (if any) assigned to the association or organization. (3) APPLICABLE THRESHOLD FOR DISCLOSURE.—For purposes of paragraph (1), the “applicable threshold” with respect to a disbursement for covered political activity during a period covered by a report is as follows: (A) In the case of covered political activity consisting of an independent expenditure, $250. (B) In the case of covered political activity consisting of an electioneering communication or a communication described in subsection (c)(3), $10,000.
3. Limitation on engaging in covered political activities by social welfare organizations Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
This section limits how much money social welfare organizations can spend on political activities. If an organization spends more than 10% of its total expenses or $10 million, whichever is less, it will not be able to maintain certain tax benefits, and rules are set to prevent organizations from bypassing these limits.
Money References
- (a) In general.—Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following: “(C)(i) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity for a taxable year if the total expenditures of such entity for the taxable year for covered political activity exceed the lesser of— “(I) 10 percent of the total expenditures of such entity for the taxable year, or “(II) $10,000,000.
4. Severability Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
If any part of the Act, or changes made by it, is found to be unconstitutional, the rest of the Act and its changes will still remain in effect and won't be impacted by that decision.