Regulatory and Legal Reform

While smart regulations can enhance manufacturers’ competitiveness, there are far too many cases of unwieldy or unnecessary rules getting in their way. That’s why the NAM is standing up for regulatory reform and providing policymakers with a list of solutions to pursue today.

The challenge: The annual regulatory cost burden for an average U.S. firm represents 21% of its payroll, forcing manufacturers to divert resources away from important investments. For smaller manufacturers, the burden can be disproportionately painful, creating barriers to growth and development.

Our work: At the NAM, we’re advocating for a predictable regulatory agenda that is based on science and facts and that offers flexibility for innovation.

• The NAM’s agenda, contained in its policy blueprint Competing to Win, seeks to combat the fundamental problems in our outdated regulatory system.
• That includes ensuring that regulations focus on outcomes and rely on data; improving regulatory analysis; minimizing unnecessary burdens; strengthening industry outreach; preserving the ability of companies to grow; and reducing the abuse of our legal system.

What we’re saying: “Manufacturers in the United States should be able to grow, compete and win without being stymied by outdated and unnecessary regulations,” said NAM Director of Regulatory, Tax and Domestic Economic Policy Alex Monié.

• “We are proud of the work that the NAM has done to reduce the burden on businesses while also protecting the men and women who make things in America.”
• “We are committed to pressing forward so that every manufacturer can support their workforce, participate in market innovation, contribute to their communities, promote competitiveness and advance U.S. leadership.”

Learn more: Check out the NAM’s full regulatory reform agenda in Competing to Win—a strategic blueprint for the policies that manufacturers in America need to compete with the rest of the world.

Following the events of January 2021, the processes for counting electoral votes has received renewed attention—and some members of Congress are working together to fix it.

The background: The law that governs the counting of electoral votes following a presidential election, called the Electoral Count Act, was written in 1887.

• Over the course of more than a century, the law has remained the same, even as ambiguities have caused conflicts and upheavals—most notably after the 2020 election.
• In the past two years, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators, led by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Susan Collins (R-ME), have come together to develop the Electoral Count Reform Act, which is intended to remove ambiguities around the counting of electoral votes.

The proposal: While the ECRA is still being drafted, a few key provisions have been discussed. For example:

• The ECRA would clarify that the vice president’s role in vote counting is ceremonial, and that he or she is not empowered to throw out or change any state’s electoral votes.
• The bill raises the threshold for members of Congress to object to a state’s slate of electoral votes.
• Certain versions of the bill contain provisions that would increase election security, including by increasing penalties against individuals who threaten election officials.
• The bill would make clear that state legislatures cannot override the popular vote in their states or throw a state’s electors to someone other than the candidate chosen by their voters.
• The bill would also clear up ambiguities about presidential transition funds, ensuring that these funds can be disbursed to both candidates in the event of a disputed election in order to prevent delays.

Where we are: The current proposal has 17 cosponsors and is bipartisan. It has been through a hearing in the Rules Committee in the Senate, and it seems likely that some form of the ECRA will be considered this fall.

Our take: “The National Association of Manufacturers supports a clear, secure democratic process that doesn’t confer any partisan advantage and reduces opportunities to exploit ambiguities in the law,” said NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly. “A stable democracy is good for manufacturers and good for the world. That’s something we can all agree upon.”

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has rescinded critical components of a landmark 2020 rule regulating so-called “proxy advisory firms”—and the NAM is fighting back in court.

The long road here: In 2020, after years of NAM advocacy, the SEC finalized a major rule designed to combat proxy firms’ errors and conflicts of interest.

• Proxy firms influence publicly traded companies by recommending how institutional asset managers should vote in corporate proxy contests, often without any accountability.
• The 2020 rule required proxy firms to engage with public companies and their investors, and it subjected the firms to the SEC’s anti-fraud standards.

The about-face: Beginning last year, however, the SEC’s new leadership has worked to undermine the rule, including by refusing to enforce it—an unlawful decision the NAM opposed in court. Last week, the SEC officially rescinded many of the rule’s critical reforms.

The response: The NAM has filed a lawsuit against the SEC to preserve the 2020 rule. Our complaint argues that the SEC’s actions are “arbitrary and capricious”—and that the 2022 rescission should be overturned.

The issue: Federal agencies are required to articulate a reasoned explanation for making a new policy decision—especially when that decision is based on the same facts but reaches a different outcome than a recent rule.

• In this case, the SEC finalized a compromise rule in 2020 based on a decade of bipartisan research, analysis and discussion—and no new evidence has emerged since 2020 given that the SEC prevented the rule from taking effect. So, the agency’s about-face “epitomizes ‘arbitrary and capricious’ rulemaking.”

What we’re saying: “Manufacturers depend on federal agencies to provide reliable rules of the road, and the SEC’s arbitrary actions to rescind this commonsense regulation clearly violate its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act,” said NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly. “The NAM Legal Center is filing suit to preserve the 2020 rule in full and protect manufacturers from proxy advisory firms’ outsized influence.”

Washington, D.C. – The National Association of Manufacturers filed a lawsuit in federal court today challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rescission of critical components of its 2020 rule on proxy advisory firms. Following the submission, NAM Chief Legal Officer Linda Kelly released the following statement:

“The SEC has failed to provide any substantive justification for its dramatic about-face. Manufacturers depend on federal agencies to provide reliable rules of the road, and the SEC’s arbitrary actions to rescind this commonsense regulation clearly violate its obligations under the Administrative Procedure Act. The NAM Legal Center is filing suit to preserve the 2020 rule in full and protect manufacturers from proxy advisory firms’ outsized influence.”

Background:

The NAM has long called for increased oversight of proxy advisory firms. In July 2020, the SEC issued final regulations to enhance transparency and accountability for proxy firms, a move NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons called a “long-sought, major win for the industry and millions of manufacturing workers.” In October 2020, the NAM filed a motion to intervene in ISS v. SEC (ISS’s attempt to overturn the rule) in support of these reforms. A summary judgment hearing in ISS v. SEC is scheduled for July 29, 2022.

In June 2021, the SEC announced that it was suspending enforcement of the 2020 rule; the NAM voiced concern about the agency’s “efforts to bypass the required notice-and-comment process to keep this lawfully issued rule on ice indefinitely.” The NAM later filed suit against the SEC in October 2021 challenging this unlawful suspension. The Western District of Texas held a summary judgment hearing in NAM v. SEC on May 25, 2022; we await the court’s opinion.

In November 2021, the SEC proposed to rescind critical portions of the 2020 rule, a proposal the NAM called “deeply troubling.” The SEC finalized its rescission rule in July 2022, a move that Timmons said “epitomizes ‘arbitrary and capricious’ rulemaking.”

-NAM-

The National Association of Manufacturers is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs more than 12.8 million men and women, contributes $2.77 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 58% of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. For more information about the NAM or to follow us on Twitter and Facebook, please visit www.nam.org.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed a new rule that could undermine key reforms the NAM secured in 2020—and empower activist shareholders.

The background: Shareholders in public companies generally have the right to submit proposals to corporate proxy ballots.

• These proposals, which voice shareholders’ views on business and governance topics relevant to the company, can then receive a vote by the full shareholder base.
• To qualify for inclusion on the ballot, shareholder proposals must meet certain criteria.

Submission thresholds: In 2020, the NAM supported—and the SEC finalized—new thresholds to make it more difficult for activist shareholders to place politically motivated proposals on the proxy ballot.

• These thresholds require higher degrees of ownership and shareholder support before a proposal can be submitted or resubmitted.

The new rule: The SEC’s proposal leaves the 2020 thresholds in place, but it creates other opportunities for activists and limits the tools companies can use to prevent them from hijacking the proxy ballot.

• Currently, companies can exclude shareholder proposals that have already been substantially implemented, are duplicative of other proposals on the proxy ballot or are resubmissions of previous failed proposals. Each of these abilities would be limited significantly under the proposed rule.
• For example, rather than being allowed to exclude all duplicative proposals, companies would only be permitted to exclude virtually identical proposals that address the same subject matter, seek the same objective and do so by the same means.

What we’re saying: “The NAM is concerned that the SEC’s proposed rule may prioritize the agendas of activists over the needs of long-term shareholders investing for the future,” said NAM Senior Director of Tax and Domestic Economic Policy Charles Crain.

• “We look forward to working with the SEC in the coming months to ensure that manufacturers’ shareholder engagement can continue to focus on issues critical to business growth and investor returns.”

Next steps: Comments on the proposed rule are due to the SEC by Sept. 12.

As the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission turns its back on a bipartisan agreement on proxy advisory firms, the NAM is taking action.

The background: In 2020, the NAM supported—and the SEC finalized—a major rule to increase oversight and transparency with regard to proxy advisory firms. These unregulated and unaccountable entities influence publicly traded companies by recommending how institutional asset managers should vote in corporate proxy contests.

• Since last January, the SEC’s new leadership has taken steps to undermine and reverse the 2020 rule. The NAM has filed suit against the SEC for refusing to enforce the 2020 rule, called on the agency to provide “reliable rules of the road” and opposed a proposed rule to reduce proxy firm oversight.

The new rule: Yesterday, the SEC released a final rule that rescinds many of the critical reforms the NAM secured in 2020. Specifically, the new rule removes requirements for proxy firms to engage with impacted companies and their shareholders, and it weakens the 2020 rule’s anti-fraud provisions.

Arbitrary and capricious: The SEC is making these substantial changes absent any new evidence—because the 2020 rule was never allowed to take effect. It has also failed to articulate a satisfactory policy justification. Federal agencies are prohibited from issuing regulations that are “arbitrary and capricious”—an easy descriptor for the SEC’s actions given the agency’s abrupt and unjustified about-face.

NAM in action: The NAM announced yesterday that it plans to file suit against the SEC to preserve the 2020 rule. It will argue that the SEC’s decision to change course without allowing the 2020 rule to take effect and be fairly evaluated epitomizes arbitrary and capricious rulemaking.

What we’re saying: “The SEC has offered no justification for abandoning a decade’s worth of bipartisan, consensus-driven policymaking,” said NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons. “This move will undoubtedly harm the competitiveness of publicly traded manufacturers, and it will hurt Main Street investors.”

Washington, D.C. – Following the Securities and Exchange Commission’s announcement that it is rescinding critical reforms designed to protect publicly traded manufacturers and their investors from unregulated and unaccountable “proxy advisory firms,” National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons released the following statement:

“The SEC has offered no justification for abandoning a decade’s worth of bipartisan, consensus-driven policymaking. This move will undoubtedly harm the competitiveness of publicly traded manufacturers, and it will hurt Main Street investors. The SEC’s decision to change course without allowing the 2020 rule to take effect and be fairly evaluated epitomizes ‘arbitrary and capricious’ rulemaking. The NAM will be filing suit in the coming weeks to preserve the 2020 rule’s commonsense reforms and protect manufacturers from proxy advisory firms’ outsized influence.”

Background:

The NAM has long called for increased oversight of proxy advisory firms. In July 2020, the SEC issued final regulations to enhance transparency and accountability for proxy firms, a move Timmons called a “long-sought, major win for the industry and millions of manufacturing workers.” In October 2020, the NAM filed a motion to intervene in ISS v. SEC (ISS’s attempt to overturn the rule) in support of these reforms.

In June 2021, the SEC announced that it was suspending enforcement of the 2020 rule; the NAM voiced concern about the agency’s “efforts to bypass the required notice-and-comment process to keep this lawfully issued rule on ice indefinitely.” The NAM filed suit against the SEC in October 2021 challenging this unlawful suspension. Oral arguments in NAM v. SEC took place in May 2022.

In November 2021, the SEC proposed to rescind critical portions of the 2020 rule, a move the NAM called “deeply troubling.” The NAM filed comment opposing the recission proposal in December 2021.

-NAM-

The National Association of Manufacturers is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs more than 12.7 million men and women, contributes $2.71 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 58% of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. For more information about the NAM or to follow us on Twitter and Facebook, please visit www.nam.org.

Washington, D.C. – Following the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in West Virginia vs. EPA, National Association of Manufacturers President and CEO Jay Timmons released the following statement:

“Manufacturers share a deep commitment to protecting our planet and our people, and manufacturing innovation holds the key to solving the generational challenge of climate change. The court’s decision affirms the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to issue appropriate greenhouse gas regulations while providing a reminder that the agency must stay within the guardrails delegated by Congress. As some of the largest electricity consumers and as electricity generators, manufacturers are ready to work with the EPA to deliver innovative and balanced solutions that protect our environment and our competitiveness as it considers next steps.”

Background: Earlier this week, the NAM along with 42 state partners sent President Biden a letter highlighting the importance of affordable, reliable electricity for manufacturers to remain competitive. It signals manufacturers’ eagerness to work with policymakers on the important decisions and planning surrounding the future of the electrical grid and broader energy policy.

-NAM-

The National Association of Manufacturers is the largest manufacturing association in the United States, representing small and large manufacturers in every industrial sector and in all 50 states. Manufacturing employs more than 12.7 million men and women, contributes $2.71 trillion to the U.S. economy annually and accounts for 58% of private-sector research and development. The NAM is the powerful voice of the manufacturing community and the leading advocate for a policy agenda that helps manufacturers compete in the global economy and create jobs across the United States. For more information about the NAM or to follow us on Twitter and Facebook, please visit www.nam.org

An ongoing push for new unionization policies would be damaging for manufacturers and their workforces, and the NAM is leading the fight against them. NAM Director of Labor and Employment Policy Brian Walsh recently laid out what these efforts are and what they mean for the manufacturing industry.

The background: Recent unionization efforts at major corporations like Starbucks and Amazon have gained headlines across the US. But, according to Walsh, these movements are part of a much broader effort:

• “Where manufacturers should be really concerned…is the possible changes to union-organizing activity through legislation, such as the PRO Act, or through decisions from the National Labor Relations Board that will change current interpretations of labor law and enact card check nationwide,” said Walsh.

Card check: In case you aren’t familiar with it, card check is an alternative to the secret ballot elections that are required to occur with federal oversight.

• To begin the unionization process, card check efforts require over 50% of employees to sign a card indicating their interest in forming a union. Card check proposals also jeopardize employees’ right to privately cast their ballots and could lead to less secure union elections, according to Walsh.
• “The NLRB’s General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, aims to overturn longstanding practices surrounding union elections and card check policies,” added Walsh. “She has also called for overruling prior standards that have given employers the right to speak to their employees on union organizing. This would be devastating for employers.”

PRO Act: “Manufacturers support workers’ federally protected right to collectively bargain, but the Protecting the Right to Organize Act would hurt relationships between employers and employees by allowing unions to access personal employee information in union-organizing drives,” said Walsh.

• “It is also another way to eliminate the secret ballot by taking away the ability for workers to privately cast their votes in a union election. This makes a worker’s vote known on a physical card for union organizers and their co-workers to see—making them susceptible to pressure campaigns.”

The NAM in action: The NAM is advocating against these policies and has been successful at holding back the PRO Act in the Senate.

• Most recently, the NAM has been leading a campaign to make sure that card check language is not included in Congress’ final China competition bill.

What’s ahead: “Because of the composition of the NLRB, we expect many cases to be decided against employers,” said Walsh. “This is where the work of the NAM Legal Center is going to be really important in our efforts to beat back union tactics. We will be engaged in NLRB proceedings—and are prepared to go to court when necessary.”

Get involved: To take action on this issue, go here.

As the Securities and Exchange Commission considers a prescriptive rule that imposes significant and burdensome climate-related disclosure obligations on public companies, the NAM is pushing back. It is fighting for critical changes that will support manufacturers’ leadership on climate change.

The background: Manufacturers have long been leaders on climate solutions, working to create the technologies and processes needed to combat climate change while also providing material information about their climate-related efforts to investors.

• But a recent rule proposed by the SEC would mandate that companies, large and small, report reams of complex climate-related information, even when that information may not have any impact on their financial performance or operations.

The rule: The proposed rule, which the SEC released in March, would require qualitative descriptions of companies’ climate-related risks and strategies as well as quantitative reporting of their greenhouse gas emissions and any climate-related impacts on their financial statements.

• The result would be an unworkable framework that does not align with current practices—imposing an enormous burden on manufacturers across the country.
• Additional information can be found about the rule here and about the NAM’s engagement with the SEC on climate disclosures here.

The response: The NAM has laid out a series of necessary changes that the SEC must make to reduce the compliance costs and liability risks associated with the rule’s requirements. Our recommendations will align the rule more closely with current climate reporting practices—decreasing burdens on public companies and increasing information utility for investors. Specifically, the NAM is calling on the SEC to:

• Delay annual GHG emissions reporting, granting manufacturers time to collect and verify data for a midyear report (rather than the proposed February deadline).
• Strike disclosure of Scope 3 emissions, which requires tracking emissions data through the supply chain. While some manufacturers are already working to understand these emissions, the data collection, estimation and reporting methodologies are still evolving. At a minimum, the SEC should provide more flexibility for companies subject to the Scope 3 requirement.
• Rescind accounting changes that would require climate impact analyses of companies’ consolidated financial statements on a line-by-line basis.
• Adjust the climate-related risk disclosures and Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting requirements to make the provisions less prescriptive and more aligned with existing company practices.
• Fine-tune the guidelines for reporting on climate-related goals to avoid penalizing companies that set ambitious targets.
• Remove requirements that companies disclose competitively sensitive information about the internal tools they use to understand and plan for climate risks, scenarios and activities.

The last word: “The SEC’s climate rule as written would be harmful for both large and small manufacturers and unhelpful for investors,” said NAM Senior Director of Tax and Domestic Economic Policy Charles Crain. “The NAM is committed to supporting our members in their efforts to combat climate change and inform investors about this critical work, and the recommendations we’ve offered present an important step toward that goal.”

Watch: NAM President & CEO Jay Timmons joined CNBC to discuss the impact of the proposed rule.