THE ISSUE:
The state comptroller takes legal action to require a large corporation to be more open about its political spending.
THE STAKES:
Other public officials ought to emulate him.
Finally, a positive development to hail in the never-ending struggle to minimize the pervasive influence of big money on American politics. Kudos to state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli for his tenacity in getting the huge wireless technology company Qualcomm Inc. to come clean about the money it spends on campaign contributions and lobbying.
Suddenly, Qualcomm is quite willing to engage in the civic transparency that up to now it had shown no interest in. Its contributions to political candidates and political parties will be posted online. So, too, will relevant information about the money it gives to trade associations and nonprofit social welfare organizations as well as what it spends to try to influence ballot measures.
Very prudent on the company's part; very wise to recognize that Mr. DiNapoli is the wrong crusader to confront in a protracted legal battle over campaign finance reform. After all, he has the unusual leverage of being the sole trustee of state pension funds, which hold investments worth $359 million in Qualcomm — 359 million good reasons not to challenge the lawsuit Mr. DiNapoli filed early this year legitimately demanding what the public needs to know.
Yes, corporations are like real people when it comes to political spending, as the Supreme Court so maddeningly ruled in the Citizens United case three years ago. Corporations also can be influenced by the same kind of political hardball that they might wish was solely their game to play.
Here was Mr. DiNapoli, making the logical, and legal, connection between Citizens United and Qualcomm's political expenditures:
"Shareholders have a strong interest in knowing how corporate funds are spent, especially in the political arena," his lawsuit said. "Citizens United's elimination of long-standing prohibitions against corporate political expenditures and the consequent increase in such expenditures have heightened the risk that corporate managers and fiduciaries could use corporate funds to achieve objectives which may be antithetical to the best interest of the corporation and its shareholders."
In other words, shareholders have a right to judge whether their equity is supporting bad politics and bad financial practices.
Listen, too, to what Qualcomm said to get Mr. DiNapoli to drop that lawsuit in exchange for disclosure of how it spends its money, including $4.5 million last year on lobbying:
"Qualcomm agrees with the New York State Common Retirement Fund that increased transparency for election-related activities by corporations is very beneficial," says Paul Jacobs, its CEO.
Quite a turnaround for an outfit that less than two months ago was claiming that Mr. DiNapoli's lawsuit was without merit.
We encourage Mr. DiNapoli to continue to use the $152.9 billion state pension fund's ample clout to make more companies come clean.
And let's hope that other public pension trustees and other public officials are following this instructive tale. Let's see similar demands by other states against other companies inclined to hide their political agendas under the cover of 501(c)4 nonprofit groups and their exemption from campaign disclosure laws.
In the pursuit of that critical cause, Mr. DiNapoli stands out as a national model.