Employers United: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Political Speech in the Wake of the Affordable Care Act

By Leonard, Elizabeth Weeks; Scholz, Susan et al. | Journal of Corporation Law, January 1, 2013 | Go to article overview

Employers United: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Political Speech in the Wake of the Affordable Care Act


Leonard, Elizabeth Weeks, Scholz, Susan, Alexander, Raquel Meyer, Journal of Corporation Law


I. INTRODUCTION

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Form 8-K offers a unique platform for corporate political speech. The requirement that publicly traded firms issue real-time disclosures of material changes to their expected results1 both requires and allows companies to publicly comment on the financial impact of newly enacted laws. Our unique empirical study examines one such disclosure episode that immediately followed the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), on March 23, 2010.2 Following passage of that historic legislation, close to 150 companies wrote offa total of $5 billion against their 2010 earnings, triggered by just one relatively minor provision of the ACA.3 These write-offs signaled the potentially crippling impact of the entirety of the ACA on employers and the feasibility of continuing to offer employee health insurance plans. Officials in Congress and President Obama's Administration quickly rebuked the firms for unnecessarily alarming the public about the negative effects of the Administration's signature legislation.4

The Supreme Court's June 28, 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,5 upholding virtually all of the ACA, means that the law is here to stay, barring dramatic changes in the November 2012 elections and repeal of the legislation. Meanwhile, employers continue to express serious concerns about the future of employer-based health insurance.6 We recognize that SEC-compelled speech may, under certain circumstances, carry a political message and the implications of extending First Amendment protection to those statements.7 We also recognize that the Supreme Court recently extended even greater solicitude to corporate free speech rights and political participation in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.8 But what we find more troubling is the government's potential to chill otherwise accurate disclosures by damning them as political gamesmanship.9

Passage of the ACA did little to quell employers' persistent concerns about escalating health care costs and their ability to continue offering health insurance benefits to retired and active employees.10 Several provisions of the ACA, including the "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health plans,11 restrictions on lifetime and annual benefits caps,12 the extension of dependent child coverage,13 employer pay-or-play penalties,14 and new disclosure and reporting requirements, will be potentially very costly for employers.15 Those changes are against a baseline of ever-increasing costs; in 2013, health care costs are expected to rise 7.5%, which costs employers will either have to absorb, or find ways to reduce or offset.16

Although many ACA provisions will impact employers as they are implemented over the next several years,17 only one, involving a change in tax treatment for federal subsidies to employers,18 had an immediately reportable impact on firms' financial results in 2010. The ACA provision triggering the 147 companies' SEC filings purported merely to clarify tax treatment of a federal subsidy to employers offering prescription drug benefits to retired workers. Previously, employers accepting the federal retiree drug subsidy (RDS) could both exempt the subsidy amount from their taxable income and deduct that same amount as a business expense.19 Under the ACA, firms still may receive the subsidy tax-free but may no longer take the deduction.20

The narrative that the Obama Administration and ACA proponents told was that the firms' high-dollar write-offs were nothing more than sour grapes and disingenuous attempts to perpetuate the partisan battle, even after the ACA was finally and validly enacted.21 Our study tells a different story. First, we establish that the RDS write-offs were required under applicable SEC rules and consistent with financial accounting standards. Those firms issuing more prominent SEC disclosure statements regarding the RDS generally were the firms that experienced greater financial impact as a result of the change.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Employers United: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Political Speech in the Wake of the Affordable Care Act
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.