政治支出的公司治理:2011年标准普尔500指数公司基准报告

Heidi J. Welsh, Robin Young
{"title":"政治支出的公司治理:2011年标准普尔500指数公司基准报告","authors":"Heidi J. Welsh, Robin Young","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1959566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Corporate accountability and disclosure of political expenditures appears to be increasing, with the boards of 31 percent of S&P 500 companies now explicitly overseeing such spending, compared to 23 percent in 2010. However, this increased oversight and transparency does not appear to correlate with less spending, as companies with board oversight of political expenditures spent about 30 percent more in 2010 than those without such explicit policies. This paper examines two years of corporate political spending governance data collected on all U.S. companies in the S&P 500 in 2010 and 2011, documenting an increasing role for boards of directors and greater transparency about the process companies use to spend money in politics - both directly in political campaigns and indirectly through trade associations and 501(c)4 non-profit groups. It finds voluntary disclosure of money spent remains limited, however, particularly for indirect spending, and inconsistencies between what companies report and data gleaned from public records. The paper also calculates a direct political spending footprint for S&P 500 companies - the amount of money companies contributed to national political committees and state-level candidates, parties and ballot initiatives, as well as federal lobbying - concluding companies disbursed $1.1 billion in 2010. In addition, the paper provides comparative \"political spending intensity\" figures normalized by revenue for different sectors. Two case studies examine ballot initiatives spending in California by PG&E in the 2010 election and indirect corporate support for judicial races in Ohio by Procter & Gamble. Appendices provide an analysis of current investor campaigns for more disclosure of political spending and excerpts from corporate policies about independent expenditures.","PeriodicalId":333883,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Political Contributions & Lobbying by Firms (Topic)","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Corporate Governance of Political Expenditures: 2011 Benchmark Report on S&P 500 Companies\",\"authors\":\"Heidi J. Welsh, Robin Young\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1959566\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Corporate accountability and disclosure of political expenditures appears to be increasing, with the boards of 31 percent of S&P 500 companies now explicitly overseeing such spending, compared to 23 percent in 2010. However, this increased oversight and transparency does not appear to correlate with less spending, as companies with board oversight of political expenditures spent about 30 percent more in 2010 than those without such explicit policies. This paper examines two years of corporate political spending governance data collected on all U.S. companies in the S&P 500 in 2010 and 2011, documenting an increasing role for boards of directors and greater transparency about the process companies use to spend money in politics - both directly in political campaigns and indirectly through trade associations and 501(c)4 non-profit groups. It finds voluntary disclosure of money spent remains limited, however, particularly for indirect spending, and inconsistencies between what companies report and data gleaned from public records. The paper also calculates a direct political spending footprint for S&P 500 companies - the amount of money companies contributed to national political committees and state-level candidates, parties and ballot initiatives, as well as federal lobbying - concluding companies disbursed $1.1 billion in 2010. In addition, the paper provides comparative \\\"political spending intensity\\\" figures normalized by revenue for different sectors. Two case studies examine ballot initiatives spending in California by PG&E in the 2010 election and indirect corporate support for judicial races in Ohio by Procter & Gamble. Appendices provide an analysis of current investor campaigns for more disclosure of political spending and excerpts from corporate policies about independent expenditures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":333883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Political Contributions & Lobbying by Firms (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Political Contributions & Lobbying by Firms (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1959566\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Political Contributions & Lobbying by Firms (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1959566","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

企业问责制和对政治支出的披露似乎在增加,标准普尔500指数(S&P 500)公司中,31%的董事会现在明确监督政治支出,而2010年这一比例为23%。然而,这种监督和透明度的增加似乎与支出的减少并不相关,因为有董事会监督政治支出的公司在2010年的支出比没有这种明确政策的公司多30%左右。本文研究了2010年和2011年收集的标准普尔500指数中所有美国公司的两年公司政治支出治理数据,记录了董事会的作用越来越大,公司用于政治支出的过程越来越透明——包括直接用于政治竞选,也包括通过行业协会和501(c)4非营利组织间接进行的政治支出。然而,报告发现,自愿披露支出资金的情况仍然有限,尤其是在间接支出方面,而且企业报告的内容与从公共记录中收集的数据之间存在不一致。该报告还计算了标准普尔500指数成分股公司的直接政治支出足迹——这些公司为国家政治委员会、州级候选人、政党和投票倡议以及联邦游说提供的资金——得出的结论是,2010年这些公司支付了11亿美元。此外,本文还提供了不同部门按收入标准化的比较“政治支出强度”数据。两个案例研究考察了2010年加州选举中PG&E公司的投票倡议支出,以及宝洁公司对俄亥俄州司法竞选的间接企业支持。附录分析了当前投资者要求更多披露政治支出的活动,并摘录了有关独立支出的公司政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Corporate Governance of Political Expenditures: 2011 Benchmark Report on S&P 500 Companies
Corporate accountability and disclosure of political expenditures appears to be increasing, with the boards of 31 percent of S&P 500 companies now explicitly overseeing such spending, compared to 23 percent in 2010. However, this increased oversight and transparency does not appear to correlate with less spending, as companies with board oversight of political expenditures spent about 30 percent more in 2010 than those without such explicit policies. This paper examines two years of corporate political spending governance data collected on all U.S. companies in the S&P 500 in 2010 and 2011, documenting an increasing role for boards of directors and greater transparency about the process companies use to spend money in politics - both directly in political campaigns and indirectly through trade associations and 501(c)4 non-profit groups. It finds voluntary disclosure of money spent remains limited, however, particularly for indirect spending, and inconsistencies between what companies report and data gleaned from public records. The paper also calculates a direct political spending footprint for S&P 500 companies - the amount of money companies contributed to national political committees and state-level candidates, parties and ballot initiatives, as well as federal lobbying - concluding companies disbursed $1.1 billion in 2010. In addition, the paper provides comparative "political spending intensity" figures normalized by revenue for different sectors. Two case studies examine ballot initiatives spending in California by PG&E in the 2010 election and indirect corporate support for judicial races in Ohio by Procter & Gamble. Appendices provide an analysis of current investor campaigns for more disclosure of political spending and excerpts from corporate policies about independent expenditures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信