Officials from Merck and Pfizer detailed their companies’ political transparency efforts. | AP Photos Execs: No more anonymous cash

An alliance of business executives is posing a challenge to its corporate brethren: stop giving out anonymous cash.

The nonpartisan Committee on Economic Development wants companies to be upfront about their political activity, even though new laws have made it easier for them to do it under the radar. The group, made of about 200 executives, has also called on Congress to pass new disclosure laws.


“Over the last decade, it’s fair to say that corporate America has not had the greatest reputation,” Charles Kolb, president of the group said Monday afternoon at a rollout of its campaign campaign at the Washington Court Hotel. “Stick with what you do best. Stick to producing goods and services for this country.”

Ed Kangas, the chairman and retired chief executive officer of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, said that “disclosure and transparency are essential to our financial markets. The same is true for our political system.”

“Substitution of the rule of cash for the rule of law,” is how Landon Rowland, a director and chairman emeritus of the Janus Capital Croup, described the nation’s current campaign finance landscape.

“We’re pledged to undo the evils of Citizens United,” he said, referencing the 2010 Supreme Court decision that enhanced organizations’ ability to spend money on politics.

While Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has allowed unions and special interests to spend unlimited sums to support or oppose political candidates (as long as they disclose the activity), most corporations have opted to funnel money to either 501(c)(4) or 501(c)(6) nonprofit organizations, which in turn spend the money on political advocacy without having to reveal their donors.

That’s markedly different from the requirements imposed on so-called “super PACs” and 527 political committees, which may also raise and spend unlimited sums of money on political advertisements but must disclose the root sources of their cash.

For Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman and founder of the pro-Citizens United Center for Competitive Politics, the Committee on Economic Development’s campaign will largely be ignored by companies – and should be.

“It’s ideology that they’re trying to dress up as a good business plan,” Smith said, noting that the Committee on Economic Development’s membership represents just a tiny fraction of all corporations. “It may be good for some companies, and they can decide that for themselves. Leave the others alone.”

Smith added that many smaller companies, particularly those that can’t hire a massive stable of lobbyists, should not be hindered in their ability to contribute money to organizations with which they politically agree or engage in national politics as they see fit.

“We think that there is benefit from companies being engaged in the political process given the impact that the government has on the business environment (regulations, etc),” said Blair W. Latoff, the director of communications for the Chamber of Commerce. “As the New York Times outlined in a story today, unions are ramping up their political agenda and these efforts to get companies to unilaterally disarm ignores unions’ immense political influence. This whole exercise is not about disclosure, it’s about silencing the business community.”

During Monday’s event, officials from pharmaceutical firms Merck and Pfizer, as well as American Electric Power, detailed their companies’ political transparency efforts, which to varying degrees go beyond what’s required by federal law.

To date, it’s unknown how much corporate money has fueled the tens of millions of dollars in independent political expenditures and other electioneering communications that have been spent by non-profit organizations since the Citizens United decision.

Corporations are still not legally able to donate directly to political candidates. They may, however, sponsor political action committees that are allowed to raise limited amounts of money (primarily from employees) that may then be sent to political candidates.