Elizabeth Warren: Wall Street Should Disclose Its Think Tank Contributions

[kpete]

Elizabeth Warren:

Wall Street Should Disclose Its Think Tank Contributions

Wall Street banks have the right to express their views to lawmakers and regulators through lobbying, but the law is clear: If they want to influence lawmakers, they must disclose their lobbying expenditures. Yet these same institutions can make huge contributions to think tanks with an eye toward influencing the same lawmakers and keep the whole transaction secret. This is wrong.

If the big banks expect to buy influence when they give money to favored think tanks, then the public has a right to know. If the big banks don't expect to buy influence and are merely making charitable contributions, then their shareholders have a right to know. Either way, there's no excuse for keeping these payments secret.

MORE:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-warren/wall-street-should-disclo_b_5069515.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[reformist2]

1. Lobbying is inherently unfair. Get rid of it, and encourage congress to talk to their constituents!!

[4Q2u2]

2. The Curtain

But if we pull back the curtain the GREAT and POWERFUL OZ will leave the Emerald City and all will be lost.
Panic will ensue and the First Holy Stockmarket will lose all of it's faithful. We must enshine the Flocks trust in OUR system.

[Electric Monk]

3. Excellent idea. Please, think of the shareholders! ;-)

If the big banks expect to buy influence when they give money to favored think tanks, then the public has a right to know. If the big banks don't expect to buy influence and are merely making charitable contributions, then their shareholders have a right to know. Either way, there's no excuse for keeping these payments secret.

[renate]

4. I can kind of see how anonymous donations can be allowed b/c of free speech

I absolutely think it's wrong to allow the political process to be bought and sold in secret, but I can understand a legal justification for it; anonymous free speech allows for safe political writing and dissent, and nothing could be more American.

But under Citizens United, are the recipients required to protect the donors' anonymity? Or could they be asked to reveal the names and amounts? I know there are plenty of conservative voters who couldn't care less who bankrolls their candidates, but I think most people are starting to get fed up with the way the super-rich own the government and, ceteris parabus, would be happier to vote for politicians who are at least open about who they get their money from.

Obviously no incumbent politician except a handful of Democrats would actually instigate this, but could they be pressured by the public or by journalists into telling?