Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo) sought
information from the financial services industry to attempt to understand the
industry’s contention that the registration and disclosure requirement for
political intelligence agents that Senator Grassley advanced earlier this year in
the STOCK Act was overly broad. In a letter to SIFMA, the Senators noted that,
because political intelligence activities are not disclosed, there is little
information available on the scope of political intelligence and how it is
actively prepared, marketed and sold to Wall Street.
The Senators asked SIFMA to respond by July 25, 2012 to a series of
questions designed to give Congress information about the unique public policy
implications of the growing political intelligence industry. They ask if SIFMA
supports some kind of registration requirement for political intelligence
agents and, if so, how should it be structured and, if not, why not. They asked
for a list of all SIFMA members who have retained political intelligence firms
from 2007 to the present, along with the names of the firms, and the amount of
money spent on contracts with the firms.
Congress is inviting the financial services industry to explain its position on registration, Sen. Grassley said, and trying to understand the size and scope of political intelligence gathering. If the previous disclosure provision was too broad, he indicated, the industry is welcome to propose a solution that would accomplish the same goals of transparency and accountability.
It is essential to increase disclosure and transparency requirements for political intelligence’ activities, Sen. Udall said, adding that political intelligence firms use information normal taxpayers and investors do not have to benefit their clients on Wall Street. When it comes to betting on government policy, Wall Street should not be able to secretly buy insider information.
Congress is inviting the financial services industry to explain its position on registration, Sen. Grassley said, and trying to understand the size and scope of political intelligence gathering. If the previous disclosure provision was too broad, he indicated, the industry is welcome to propose a solution that would accomplish the same goals of transparency and accountability.
It is essential to increase disclosure and transparency requirements for political intelligence’ activities, Sen. Udall said, adding that political intelligence firms use information normal taxpayers and investors do not have to benefit their clients on Wall Street. When it comes to betting on government policy, Wall Street should not be able to secretly buy insider information.
In February, the Senate gave 60 votes to a Grassley Amendment to the Stock
Act requiring the registration and disclosure of political intelligence
agents. The Amendment would have imposed the same registration
requirements on political intelligence agents that have applied to lobbyists
for decades. However, the Grassley Amendment was dropped from the final
legislation. Senator Grassley plans to revisit the provision in future legislative
vehicles.