About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Fox News invents a rule exempting SEC from FOIA compliance

July 29, 2010 9:32 am ET — 18 Comments

Fox hosts are falsely claiming that a provision in the financial reform legislation gives a "complete pass" to the Securities and Exchange Commission from complying with the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, the provision reportedly only protects proprietary information gathered from regulated firms during the course of examinations or investigations, which mirrors exemptions that exist for bank regulators.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Fox fabricates "complete pass" for SEC FOIA requests

Beck: "Now the SEC doesn't have to answer any questions from anybody? What?" On the July 28 edition of his Fox News show, Glenn Beck claimed that financial reform included "a nice little treat for the SEC." Beck claimed, "Reports and other information provided to the SEC, or any other self-regulatory organization, will be excluded from the scope of Freedom of Information Act." After reading from an SEC statement, Beck asked, "How in the world did we arrive here, America?" He later claimed he had a "theory" about "where we're headed next," and said, "Now the SEC doesn't have to answer any questions from anybody? What?"

Asman: SEC "no longer has to comply with the Freedom of Information Act when requests are made for information." During the July 28 edition of Fox Business' Bulls & Bears, host David Asman stated that "financial reform" included "a little-noticed provision" under which the "Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with the Freedom of Information Act when requests are made for information." Fox Business' Elizabeth MacDonald repeatedly noted that "what we're talking about here" is the release of information related to "active ongoing investigations. They can't disclose [that] information." However, Fox Business' Adam Shapiro insisted that MacDonald was wrong, stating, "No, that's not what we're talking about," and "It's a simple issue of nope, not going to comply."

Cavuto: SEC "gets a complete pass." During the July 28 edition of Fox News' Your World, Neil Cavuto claimed that "the SEC gets a complete pass" from complying with FOIA under financial regulatory reform. Guest and Fox News host Mike Huckabee added, "It's absurd. This is not government of the people, by the people, and for the people. This is a government of the government, by the government, and for the government."

Fox Biz's Adam Shapiro: SEC "essentially" has "a pass on Freedom of Information Act requests." During the July 28 edition of Fox Business' Countdown to the Closing Bell, host Adam Shapiro claimed that "the new financial regulatory law" contained a provision that "essentially gives the Securities and Exchange Commission a pass on Freedom of Information Act requests." He continued, "In other words, the commission can now just blanket say 'no' if you, a citizen of the United States, file an FOIA requesting documents." Shapiro also claimed that the "new law, the financial regulatory reform law, now allows the SEC to absolutely say, 'Don't bother us. Go away.' "

Varney and Shapiro: "According to this new rule, you cannot file a Freedom of Information Act and find out what [the SEC] did wrong." During the July 28 edition of Fox Business' Varney & Company, host Stuart Varney asked Shapiro, "[I]f the SEC has messed up, you cannot file -- according to this new rule -- you cannot file a Freedom of Information Act and find out what they did wrong?" Shaprio responded, "Bingo. You can file it, and they can say, 'Sorry. Not complying.' "

Malkin: "[T]he 'financial reform' bill...exempts the SEC from FOIA requests. The transparency farce continues." In a July 28 post on her website, Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin seized on Fox Business' false reporting to claim that "The story from Fox Business on how the 'financial reform' bill championed by Obama exempts the SEC from FOIA requests. The transparency farce continues." Malkin claimed this story was further evidence "of the Democrats' reign of darkness."

Provision reportedly limited to proprietary information and mirrors exemptions for bank regulators

Reuters: Lawmakers "gave the SEC a privacy mandate similar to bank regulators," but it "still has to comply with requests for other types of information requested under" FOIA. A July 28 Reuters article reported, "New financial reform legislation exempts U.S. securities regulators from having to turn over to the media information it gathers from financial institutions in its expanded supervisory role, but does not limit the disclosure of other agency data." Reuters further reported:

As part of that, lawmakers also gave the SEC a privacy mandate similar to bank regulators, who do not have to disclose the results of examinations of specific firms.

The SEC still has to comply with requests for other types of information requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

"The new provision applies to information obtained through examinations or derived from that information," said SEC spokesman John Nester in a statement.

Wash. Post's Goldfarb: Provision "only concerns documents obtained through examinations of broker-dealers and investment advisers." In a July 28 WashingtonPost.com blog post, Zach Goldfarb wrote that "it may not be time to take up arms over the latest charge by Fox Business News that 'the Securities and Exchange Commission no longer has to comply with virtually all requests for information releases from the public" under the new financial regulation law.'" Goldfarb further wrote:

While, as Fox notes, the law exempts the SEC from disclosing records derived from "surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities," this only concerns documents obtained through examinations of broker-dealers and investment advisers -- periodic or targeted reviews of financial firms.

People and organizations can still use FOIA to obtain a range of SEC information, such as inspector general reports; communications with Congress and the business community; and officials' calendar, salary and conflict-of-interest information.

Information from investigations into potential wrongdoing has never been obtainable through FOIA.

John Nester, SEC spokesman, said:

"We are expanding our examination program's surveillance and risk assessment efforts in order to provide more sophisticated and effective Wall Street oversight. The success of these efforts depends on our ability to obtain documents and other information from brokers, investment advisers and other registrants. The new legislation makes certain that we can obtain documents from registrants for risk assessment and surveillance under similar conditions that already exist by law for our examinations. Because registrants insist on confidential treatment of their documents, this new provision also removes an opportunity for brokers, investment advisers and other registrants to refuse to cooperate with our examination document requests."

So, consider this. If the SEC's exam team decides to take a look at a hedge fund's records, it may need to contact the hedge fund's broker for data on trades. That data could be subject to FOIA under the old law, and the broker, fearful that the private data would become public, might refuse to hand over the data.

Under the new law, such data is not subject to FOIA. The SEC hopes that, since it will be seeking data and documents from a broad range of financial players, it won't face resistance from firms concerned that their data might leak to the public through FOIA.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by okiepoli (July 29, 2010 10:47 am ET)
      5  
      Our very own MaineiacMan was flogging this horse yesterday.

      Please MaineiacMan, tell us where you get your talking points.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (July 29, 2010 11:07 am ET)
        4  
        I posted it yesterday . . . he copied the site's talking points verbatim.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by okiepoli (July 29, 2010 11:30 am ET)
          4  
          Yes you did - I didn't see blatant plagiarism from RadioViceOnline in MaineiacMan's post, but I didn't think that (s)he waded through the Ropes & Gray report that eweston linked to.

          I don't mind if it's "from a chain email I got..." as long as the source is cited. It really helps if I know if I'm having a discussion with a thinking human-being or a parrot unable to form their own thoughts and opinions.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by okiepoli (July 29, 2010 11:39 am ET)
            6  
            Oops, I see that you were referring to this - indeed, blatant plagiarism as evidenced by the weird characters.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bintx (July 29, 2010 11:39 am ET)
            3  
            The examples he posted were a cut and paste directly from the RadioViceOnline . . . that's how I found where he got the info. I copied and pasted one of the examples into Google and it took me right to the site.

            I don't mind people quoting things, either, but they should cite their sources.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by okiepoli (July 29, 2010 1:02 pm ET)
              1  
              I don't mind people quoting things, either, but they should cite their sources.

              It must be the educator in you.
              It's a shame really - the original post was well-written, and the concluding paragraph raised a valid point. MaineiacMan's last post on the thread made the same point as well, evidence that there is a thinking being behind the screen name. To me, this is a sign that I should make an extra effort to understand the point-of-view of the poster - a sign that there is a chance, if we meet each other half way, we could both come away with a better understanding of the topic.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by MaineiacMan (July 30, 2010 5:02 am ET)
                1
              Pay attention to what is said at around the 2:30 mark.

              Restore the transparency.

              http://video.foxnews.com/v/4296714/whats-hidden-in-financial-reform
              Report Abuse
              • Author by MaineiacMan (July 30, 2010 12:36 pm ET)
                1  
                As for the 'plagerism' I was trying to take a piece in the middle of the story, without the whole story and I havent figured out how to create nifty links (like the one in the first comment). I should have cited the source or included the web address that I got the data, so if a sorry will make you feel better, here it is, sorry. Those three examples weren't from my own research and I wasnt trying to make it look like my own info. It wasnt from the website that okiepoli cited. It came from Fox Business.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by okiepoli (July 30, 2010 8:48 pm ET)
                  2  
                  MaineiacMan;
                  Thanks - the citation works for me, no apology necessary. Fancy links and other effects are a bit tricky, but are on the top bar of the editing box - hovering your mouse pointer over them should tell you what each does (but not how to use them, darnit) - but even the simple text link like you used for the video, or even a mention of the source - like your last sentence, "It came from Fox Business." really helps.

                  That said, back to topic:

                  MMfA's article seems to clearly show that several Fox personalities are pushing the idea that the SEC is now somehow beyond public scrutiny. You provided a link to yet another Fox personality - Bill Hemmer - who was also pushing this meme. MMfA goes on to refute that idea in the article with the statement, "Provision reportedly limited to proprietary information and mirrors exemptions for bank regulators," and backs up its assertion with links and excerpts from Reuters and The Washington Post.

                  I'll respond to the video that you cited.
                  Bill Hemmer leads in to an 'interview' with Rep. Issa while the chyron reads: "Wall Street overhaul raises questions on White House transparency"
                  1.) At 00:40 Rep. Issa says: "...Speaker Pelosi said we have to pass this so we can find out what's in it..." To my knowledge, Speaker Pelosi said words to that effect on Mar. 10th at the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties while speaking about the proposed HCR legislation, but not about the Financial Reform Act. Perhaps Rep. Issa is confused?
                  2.) At 01:40 Rep. Issa states: "...You're not gonna get it through subpoena..." The language in the law seems pretty clear to me, "Nothing ... authorizes the Commission to withhold information ... or prevent(s) ... complying with an order of a court of the United States..." Is Rep. Issa confused by legalize?
                  3.) At 02:27 Rep. Issa refers to '9291.' As Tiernan Ray of Barron's "Stocks to Watch Today" blog points out, "As a few readers noted, the wrong section number was listed above for the relevant passage in HR 4173. It is Section 929I, as in Internet, not a numeral "1" on the end." Maybe Rep. Issa is confused by letters and numbers?

                  I've posted Section 929 (I) below - while not entertaining reading - it is the law and amends both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. What do you make of it?
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by okiepoli (July 30, 2010 8:56 pm ET)
                    1  
                    SEC. 929I. PROTECTING CONFIDENTIALITY OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
                    (a) SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934.-Section 24 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78x) is amended-
                    (1) in subsection (d), by striking "subsection (e)" and inserting "subsection (f)";
                    (2) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (f); and
                    (3) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
                    "(e) RECORDS OBTAINED FROM REGISTERED PERSONS.—
                    "(1) IN GENERAL.-Except as provided in subsection (f), the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose records or information obtained pursuant to section 17(b), or records or information based upon or derived from such records or information, if such
                    records or information have been obtained by the Commission for use in furtherance of the purposes of this title, including surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities.
                    "(2) TREATMENT OF INFORMATION.—For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this subsection shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552.
                    Collection of information pursuant to section 17 shall be an administrative action involving an agency against specific individuals or agencies pursuant to section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code.".
                    (b) INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940."Section 31 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-30) is amended-
                    (1) by striking subsection (c) and inserting the following:
                    "(c) LIMITATIONS ON DISCLOSURE BY COMMISSION.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any records or information provided to the Commission under this section, or records or information based upon or derived from such records or information, if such records or information have been obtained by the Commission for use in furtherance of the purposes of this title, including surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the Commission to withhold information from the Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency requesting the information for purposes within the scope of jurisdiction of that department or agency, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this section shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552. Collection of information pursuant to section 31 shall be an administrative action involving an agency against specific individuals or agencies pursuant to section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code.";
                    (2) by striking subsection (d); and
                    (3) by redesignating subsections (e) and (f) as subsections (d) and (e), respectively.
                    (c) INVESTMENT ADVISERS ACT OF 1940.-Section 210 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-10) is amended by adding at the end the following:
                    "(d) LIMITATIONS ON DISCLOSURE BY THE COMMISSION.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not be compelled to disclose any records or information provided to the Commission under section 204, or records or information based upon or derived from such records or information, if such records or information have been obtained by the Commission for use in furtherance of the purposes of this title, including surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities. Nothing in this subsection authorizes the Commission to withhold information from the Congress or prevent the Commission from complying with a request for information from any other Federal department or agency requesting the information for purposes within the scope of jurisdiction of that department or agency, or complying with an order of a court of the United States in an action brought by the United States or the Commission. For purposes of section 552 of title 5, United States Code, this
                    subsection shall be considered a statute described in subsection (b)(3)(B) of such section 552. Collection of information pursuant to section 204 shall be an administrative action involving an agency against specific individuals or agencies pursuant to section 3518(c)(1) of title 44, United States Code.".

                    Entire text here.
                    Report Abuse
      • Author by Boswell (July 29, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
        1  
        the main question (to me anyway) is how eles he molests that horse...
        Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (July 29, 2010 10:59 am ET)
      2  
      And why do I think that if this was Republican piece of legislation and the head of the SEC was a BUSH (or McCain/Palin) appointee, Fox would be telling us why the supposed (and fabircated) provision was actually necessary and good?

      ----------------------------------------
      ???
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (July 29, 2010 1:29 pm ET)
      3  
      The moral outrage should not be the fact that FOX makes up stuff, but that FOX keeps pretending to be a News organization. There are lots of magazines that just make up stuff (I see them all the time when I check out at the supermarket).

      Clearly, the companies that buy commercial time on FOX don't assume FOX is a new organization. As long as people watch then they will sell ads.

      The danger is when policy makers start believing that the nonsense spewed out on FOX is Real and try to pass laws or enforce policies based on this assumption.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Boswell (July 29, 2010 1:59 pm ET)
      1  
      effectivle every thing on Faux un-news is made-up...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by BartFargo (July 29, 2010 2:36 pm ET)
        1
      So the SEC's "vast new regulatory powers" are largely exempt from public scrutiny via FOIA requests? How can that be a good thing when it is so widely accepted that the wild west derivatives market and hedge funds helped inflate the last decade's economic bubble, and that the SEC has failed so spectacularly in stopping people like Bernie Madoff? I appreciate that many types of information need to be kept secret during an investigation, but the way this exemption is so vaguely worded in the bill, it can be (and probably will be) interpreted very broadly, beyond what any SEC spokesman is willing to admit. Methinks that if a news agency other than Fox had stumbled upon this exemption, or if another party were dominating Washington, viewpoints in this thread would be quite different.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tinka (July 30, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
      2  
      I swear the people at FOX do not know how to read!
      What else can explain the daily mis-information?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tinka (July 30, 2010 1:05 pm ET)
         
      I swear the people at FOX do not know how to read!
      What else can explain the daily mis-information?
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.