In this Article, prepared as part of a Symposium on the intersection of corporations and money in politics, I illustrate the various ways that corporations can spend their money to influence politics in America and the relevant disclosure rules (or lack thereof)that track this political activity. I also highlight opportunities for individuals to exploit corporate transparency loopholes to illegally spend money in American politics and address the question whether proof of possible nefarious activity is sufficient to justify regulations targeting actual nefarious activity, drawing on recent debates about voter fraud. Finally, I argue that campaign finance laws have been created, justified, implemented, and interpreted in relative isolation from one another, creating unnecessary (though perhaps anticipated) loopholes in enforcement that undermine the goals of oversight and accountability in campaigns and elections. Campaign finance regulations can only be effective insofar as they respond to the dynamic character of political campaigns. Thus, policymakers should refine their “comprehensive” reforms to better address the integrated nature of campaign finance. Given the strategic nature of political actors, this shift will likely result in more emphasis on as‐applied challenges in the courts.

The increased ease of infusing money into our political system has made it much harder to fight the problem of excessive billionaire, corporate, and special interest money in politics. The money flow has been helped by the deadlocked Federal Election Commission’s oversight of the issue, overreaching court cases stripping or nullifying our current system significantly, and the Senate Republican leader’s personal attention to the issue of money in politics. The good news is that defenders of our campaign finance system continue to be creative and are stepping up efforts in new areas. In particular, organizations are working on pushing the envelope inside corporations, supporting shareholder resolutions calling for the companies to be completely honest about how they attempt to influence politics. This strategy is particularly meaningful in the era of President Trump, where corporate to government connectivity has reached new heights. At this critical juncture, a twofold strategy is needed: advocates must call out our new Administration on its conflicts and corruption while simultaneously pushing for corporate‐level affirmative changes, such as enhanced transparency on influence peddling.

The United States has a long history of reliance on science to inform policy decisions. Today, science is employed on a daily basis to protect Americans’ health and safety, to bolster technological advancement, and to help the nation predict and prepare for security threats. It informs, illuminates, and steers our nation’s direction on everything from global security policy down to keeping safe the food and products in your home. As the ability of science to impact policy increases, however, the temptation also increases for political, ideological, and financial interests to manipulate or suppress inconvenient data. When science is undermined in such a manner, the public is left with laws and regulations that inadequately meet the needs of citizens. Today, the use of science in government is under threat from multiple fronts. Political, ideological, and financial interests are working to undermine the ability of science to inform federal decision‐making, harming the public good. The initial months of the Trump Administration have already raised new concerns. Executive orders, cabinet appointments of individuals with little expertise and clear conflicts of interest, and a sympathetic Congress all create new threats to the government’s ability to make science‐informed policy decisions. In recent cases, politics have overridden what should have been science‐based decisions by federal agencies. This Article will survey the history of federal scientific integrity and discuss the current risks to the federal scientific enterprise in three main areas: (1) corporate capture of the federal government; (2) dismantling the process of science‐based rulemaking; and (3) intimidation and control of scientists.

The Internet spawned hopes for a golden age of government transparency, but while many government agencies have adopted digital technology, functional transparency remains elusive. Achieving transparency means becoming aware of how data can, through deliberate manipulation or technical ignorance, be locked away in formats that make it difficult to access or analyze. This Article identifies how the shift to the digital world has fallen short of its potential, analyzes why advances in technology have not yielded commensurate advances in transparency, and how public interest advocates can work to improve both the quality and access to public data.

Investing in property means investing in our future, and this Article addresses the ways in which corporate ownership influences the future of society. First, it discusses the impact of corporations on government spending and the allocation of resources. The Article suggests that agents acting on behalf of investors are required to act in a way that maximizes return on investment. As a result, the strategies adopted to maximize such return on investment are unimportant, leading to corporate indifference in the creation of negative externalities. Second, the Article recommends ways in which businesses can move away from such indifference and become part of the solution. Specifically, it argues there should be a change in governance rules to consider all stakeholders (and not just shareholders) through benefit corporation law, and action should be taken at the investment stewardship level to avoid negative sum strategies. Finally, the Article concludes by proposing five principles the Author believes should be adopted by institutional investors to encourage looking beyond individual interests to the interests of society as a whole.

This Article analyzes the advent of benefit corporations in Florida, and it argues that benefit corporations provide a sound business model for social enterprises. The Author begins by providing an overview about the history of the corporate social enterprise movement leading up to the passing of the benefit corporation statutes. The Author then focuses on Florida’s benefit corporation statutes’ key features and provides examples of benefit corporations in Florida. Lastly, the Author addresses some concerns regarding benefit corporations, the potential issue of the use of benefit corporations as a form of greenwashing, and provides some recommendations to the benefit corporation statutes.

The Author advocates that because benefit corporation statutes provide more flexibility for social entrepreneurs and investors to engage in social and environmental causes, which are positive developments in corporate law, and therefore positively impacts society and economy by creating innovation, increased revenue and investments, and flexibility for social entrepreneurs to seek solutions to social and environmental issues.