You are here
Shell Companies and Disclosure
Monday, December 17th, 2012
Robert Wechsler
Transparency in government should not be limited only to officials.
Disclosure rules should also apply to everyone seeking special benefits from government, such as
contracts, permits, or grants. For one thing, without transparency
on both sides of every transaction, it is impossible for the public or officials to know if
there are any conflicts that particular officials need to deal with.
One popular way to get around transparency is the shell company. A company can easily be set up so that its ownership is secret. This is often done with development companies. The company has to have a front man, at least an attorney, who appears at zoning board meetings and the like. But it usually is not required to disclose the names of its owners. Without the disclosure of these names, how can anyone know whether officials, their family members, or their business associates own a company involved in a matter before them? And without disclosure, it is easy for an official to say she didn't know her brother was an owner, if this fact comes out later.
Shell companies are also used by contractors who have relationships with officials or who have gotten into trouble with the law. Nonprofits, which due to limited reporting requirements are often not much different from shell companies, are used to get grant money to officials' family members. And as we saw in the 2012 election, shell companies are a good way to get around campaign finance disclosure requirements.
Where should company ownership disclosure rules be placed? They could be placed in zoning laws or regulations, grant-related laws or regulations, and procurements laws or regulations. But this would mean numerous reforms, which might easily be stopped or watered down along the way. Therefore, the best way to handle such disclosure is to place it in an ethics code, and have the rule require action by each of these areas to make disclosure requirements clear to companies seeking benefits, for example, by including the disclosure requirement in every RFP and other procurement document, in every grant request, and in every permit request. The disclosure requirement should include a requirement to disclose the names of immediate family members and business associates of both individuals and company owners (say, where there is at least 10% ownership by an individual or immediate family). And there should be a requirement to update such information quarterly, even after the contract, grant, or permit has been obtained, for at least the contract, grant, or permit period.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
One popular way to get around transparency is the shell company. A company can easily be set up so that its ownership is secret. This is often done with development companies. The company has to have a front man, at least an attorney, who appears at zoning board meetings and the like. But it usually is not required to disclose the names of its owners. Without the disclosure of these names, how can anyone know whether officials, their family members, or their business associates own a company involved in a matter before them? And without disclosure, it is easy for an official to say she didn't know her brother was an owner, if this fact comes out later.
Shell companies are also used by contractors who have relationships with officials or who have gotten into trouble with the law. Nonprofits, which due to limited reporting requirements are often not much different from shell companies, are used to get grant money to officials' family members. And as we saw in the 2012 election, shell companies are a good way to get around campaign finance disclosure requirements.
Where should company ownership disclosure rules be placed? They could be placed in zoning laws or regulations, grant-related laws or regulations, and procurements laws or regulations. But this would mean numerous reforms, which might easily be stopped or watered down along the way. Therefore, the best way to handle such disclosure is to place it in an ethics code, and have the rule require action by each of these areas to make disclosure requirements clear to companies seeking benefits, for example, by including the disclosure requirement in every RFP and other procurement document, in every grant request, and in every permit request. The disclosure requirement should include a requirement to disclose the names of immediate family members and business associates of both individuals and company owners (say, where there is at least 10% ownership by an individual or immediate family). And there should be a requirement to update such information quarterly, even after the contract, grant, or permit has been obtained, for at least the contract, grant, or permit period.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments