Government increasingly leverages its regulatory function by embodying in law standards that are promulgated and copyrighted by non-governmental organizations. Departures from such standards expose citizens to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, yet private actors generate, control and limit access to them. Despite governmental ambitions, no one is responsible for evaluating the legitimacy of this approach and no framework exists to facilitate analysis. This Article contributes an analytical framework and, for the federal government, nominates the Director of the Federal Register to implement it. Analysis is animated using among the oldest and broadest examples of this pervasive but stealthy phenomenon: embodiment by Congress and the Securities and Exchange Commission of privately-promulgated accounting standards in public law. With accounting standards as a case study, the framework delineates three routes through which private standards are embodied in public law—denominated as strong, weak and semi-strong—and articulates associated copyright and lawmaking consequences. As to copyright, the framework mediates conflicts between public access to legal materials and private incentives to produce standards. It addresses the effect of copyright protection that biases standard setters to focus on quantity instead of quality and prevents third parties from improving standards through derivative works. As to lawmaking, the Article explains alternative governmental strategies to achieve regulatory leverage while adhering to private non-delegation doctrines and publication requirements. The Article appeals to scholars of administrative law, theorists concerned with intellectual property law and its broader political and public policy contexts, and those interested in informational and standard-setting aspects of accounting. Contributions will be of practical use to governmental officials who look to private standards in their regulatory functions, standard-setters in developing standards to aid those officials, and judges in resolving disputes involving citizens subject to or using these standards. While driving new avenues in three specific legal areas (copyright law, administrative law and securities regulation), the Article’s inquiry into contemporary lawmaking is of general significance.

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

Private Standards in Public Law: Copyright, Lawmaking and the Case of Accounting

A thorough examination of the much ballyhooed Sarbanes-Oxley Act reveals dominantly a federal codification of extant rules, regulations, practices, and norms. Despite advertising it as "the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of FDR," a soberly apolitical view sees the Act as more sweep than reform. Important are provisions calling for nine studies; redundant but much publicized were the certification requirements imposed during the summer of 2002; other moves are mere patchwork responses to precise transgressions present in the popularized scandals. The Act is far from trivial, however. A silver bullet relates to the structure and funding of those who set the standards for auditing and accounting in the United States. Stripped of power is the AICPA, and altered in funding structure is the FASB.

All parties but Congress are singled out for a wrist-slapping (auditors, accountants, officers, directors and committee members, lawyers, securities analysts, credit rating agencies, investment banks and financial advisors, state corporate lawmakers, the SEC, the Federal Sentencing Commission and even the Supreme Court). No reexamanation of Congressional reforms relating to private securities litigation or the erstwhile barrier between investment and commercial banking appear. In fact there is implicit endorsement of the Congressional approach, rooted in the process and control philosophy of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which the Act follows. This reading of the Act as modest is advanced in three stages of this Article. The first sets the background by summarizing the salient features of the dominant precipitating scandals and their times. The second stage dissects every material provision of the Act in context. The third and final stage suggests why the political rhetoric and substance diverged so widely, with illustrations of what a substantively bold Act might have looked like.

Explaining the Act's rhetoric-reality yawn requires speculation but informed hunches readily emerge. On the one hand, Congress may have understood that the visible debacles were not chronic epidemics but discrete pathologies and their root causes were market psychology beyond its regulatory reach (hence a reformless Act). On the other, Congress knew that the public perceived an acute systemic crisis of power abuse they had no responsibility for creating (hence the "sweeping" rhetoric). Another explanation, which also explains the Act's call for so many studies, is that it is too soon to diagnose deep causes or broad shortcomings but that immediate action was politically expedient. The studies bridge the gap between action and knowledge, constituting continuing threats to their targets to abide by the spirit of the Act, a threat to make the "sweeping" rhetoric real "reform."

The Sarbanes-Oxley Yawn: Heavy Rhetoric, Light Reform (And It Might Just Work).

Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to restore investor confidence, which had been deflated by massive business and audit failures, epitomized by the demise of the Enron Corporation and Arthur Andersen LLP. The Act altered the roles and responsibilities of auditors, corporate officers, audit committee members, as well as other participants in the financial reporting process. We evaluate the potential legal implications of some of the Act’s major provisions and anticipate participants’ likely responses. Our evaluation suggests that these provisions will significantly change behavior, increase compliance costs and alter the legal landscape. We also identify promising avenues for future research in light of the new landscape.

Search LIRA@BC Law

Search

Resource type (2)

Creator (3)

Keyword (53)

Collection (2)

Availability (2)

Subject (13)

Results

Private Standards in Public Law: Copyright, Lawmaking and the Case of Accounting

The Sarbanes-Oxley Yawn: Heavy Rhetoric, Light Reform (And It Might Just Work).

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Legal Implications and Research Opportunities

Sarbanes-Oxley and the Role of Lawyers in Public Companies