- CII Policies
- CII Correspondence and Testimony
- Comment Opportunity Tracker
- Dual-Class Stock
- Majority-Supported Shareowner Proposals
- Director Elections
- Executive Compensation
- Fair Financial Rules
- Investor-Company Engagement
- Independent Board Leadership
- Legal Issues
Preserve the Independence of the SEC
Flexible rulemaking authority
The SEC needs to be nimble to respond to changing market needs. But some in the business community and on Capitol Hill seek to tie the SEC’s hands by heaping unnecessary reviews on the agency. That would hamstring its rulemaking capacity and undermine its ability to fulfill its mission. The SEC would do little else but evaluate its rules.
Shareholders are no fans of unneeded regulation. But the SEC already performs cost-benefit analyses on proposed rules, as numerous laws require (including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act). While some costs of proposed rules can be estimated reliably, the benefits of regulation are often difficult to measure. Congress should not shackle the SEC with excessive cost-benefit analysis requirements.
Sufficient, stable and independent funding
Appropriate funding for the nation’s chief securities regulator is critical to ensuring the integrity of the U.S. capital markets. While reducing the federal deficit and burdens on American taxpayers are vitally important, the SEC needs sufficient and reliable resources to fulfill its mission: protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation.
Funding the SEC does not increase the federal deficit or cost taxpayers any money. Its funding is fully offset by transaction fees from self-regulatory organizations. The SEC is the only independent federal agency that is tasked explicitly with protecting investors. Congress should give the SEC the resources it needs to police the markets effectively.