Arizona Lawmakers Push Back At SEC Climate Agenda

Arizona Lawmakers Push Back At SEC Climate Agenda

By Daniel Stefanski |

An Arizona Republican State Senator is pushing back against a new regulation from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Last week, Senator Shawnna Bolick added her name to a letter addressed to Members of the U.S. Congress over the SEC’s “radical climate agenda rule that would require most public companies to disclose their greenhouse gas emissions in order to be listed on American stock exchanges.” The letter was sent by a coalition of leaders under the umbrella of Advancing American Freedom.

On her “X” account, Bolick wrote, “It is always an honor to push back against Biden’s job killing policies.”

The signers of the letter requested legislators to “use all of the legislative powers at your disposal to strike down the SEC’s climate disclosure rule, including defunding the rule via the appropriations process and overturning it through the Congressional Review Act resolution effort being led by Congressman Bill Huizenga and Senator Tim Scott.”

In the letter, the coalition of organization heads highlighted that “American investors are concerned with financial returns and increasing shareholder value, not advancing an ideological climate agenda that stifles American innovation through mountains of paperwork and endless red tape for the American businesses that keep our economy strong.”

They noted that almost two dozen states have challenged the rule from the SEC. Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, who led one of the lawsuits, said, “Biden’s radical climate mandate is the most outrageous act of overreach we’ve seen from the Securities and Exchange Commission since Biden took office. The SEC is supposed to prevent people from getting ripped off, not force an illegal climate mandate that is far outside of their wheelhouse. His climate mandate will only saddle businesses with costly red tape, threaten our supply chain, and devastate Iowa family farms.”

The Arizona Senate Democrats Caucus “X” account took aim at Bolick’s involvement in the letter, posting, “Just to clarify Senator Bolick, which policy are you pushing back against? Historically low unemployment, under 4% for two full years. Nearly 15 million new jobs added under President Biden. Inflation is down nearly 2/3 from its peak. In 2023, the economy grew 3.1%.”

Additional signers of the letter included leaders from Americans for Tax Reform, Americans for Prosperity, Consumers’ Research, American Commitment, 60 Plus Association, National Taxpayers Union, American Energy Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Job Creators Network, and several others.

Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.

Arizona Joins Coalition Fighting Against Climate Change Disclosures In SEC Filings

Arizona Joins Coalition Fighting Against Climate Change Disclosures In SEC Filings

By B. Hamilton |

Arizona has joined a 16-state coalition pushing back against a Biden Administration initiative that would require companies to make policy statements unrelated to financial performance to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Arizona joins the West Virginia-led fight against what is seen as an attack on the freedom of speech.

The attorneys general of Alaska, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming join in arguing that the initiative would require companies to make policy statements not related to financial performance to serves a political agenda.

In comments filed this week to SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, the attorneys general expressed concerns that the proposed climate change disclosures are unnecessary from a market protection standpoint, writing that “the Commission has an important and difficult mandate with respect to safeguarding public trading, but it is hard to see how it can legally, constitutionally, and reasonably assume a leading role when it comes to climate change.”

The attorneys general contend that to pass constitutional muster, “speech regulation must advance a constitutionally sufficient government interest, must be adequately related to advancing that end and may be required to use the least restrictive means,” the comments read.