JEFFERSON CITY — A Republican culture war push against so-called “woke investing†rules could cost Missouri taxpayers more than $2.1 million in legal expenses.
Two weeks after a federal judge struck down a controversial set of investing regulations pushed by Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, an industry group filed a request for attorney fees in connection with the case.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said in a court filing last week that Ashcroft’s failed gambit cost the group $1.3 million in attorney fees.
In addition to potentially paying for the organization’s legal bills, public payroll records show taxpayers have already paid more than $876,000 to a politically connected law firm representing Ashcroft, putting the initial price tag for the lawsuit at $2.1 million.
People are also reading…
The cost to taxpayers could rise if the Kansas City-based Graves Garrett law firm bills the state for more of its work, including a possible appeal of the decision.
The final tally is likely to remain unknown until after Ashcroft leaves office in January.
The request for compensation is the latest fallout from a Republican-led push to crack down on socially driven investment policies designed to account for the effects of businesses on the environment and other so-called “woke†issues.
Along with Ashcroft, Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey also has carried the torch to address the investing concept known as environmental, social and corporate governance criteria, or ESG for short.
Bailey, an appointee of Gov. Mike Parson who is running for a full, four-year term, signed a joint letter in February warning , the world’s largest asset manager, of basing investment decisions on an alleged political agenda rather than on the long-term health of state pension systems.
Treasurer Vivek Malek, also a Parson appointee running for a full term in November, earlier weighed in positively on Ashcroft’s now-failed lawsuit through a formal court filing.
And, Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick putting a spotlight on ESG investing policies by state pension systems, suggesting many of them need clearer policies in how they make investment decisions.
“The lack of clear guidelines for how votes should be cast has resulted in proxy votes for public retirement systems being cast in an inconsistent manner,†Fitzpatrick wrote.
In the case of Ashcroft’s lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough agreed with the securities industry that his proposed rules were “unconstitutionally vague†and threatened to do “irreparable harm†to financial advisers operating within Missouri.
In his decision, Bough warned against using political talking points in setting rules and regulations affecting companies and taxpayers.
The judge wrote that rather than imposing an unconstitutional regulation on an already tightly regulated industry, Ashcroft could have instead embarked on a “public information campaign†to advance his message.
The request from the securities industry group said many of the legal maneuvers used by attorneys for Ashcroft were time-consuming and potentially unnecessary.
“Much of the expense incurred in this hard-fought litigation resulted from defendants’ tactical choices. While defendants had every right to litigate their case vigorously, (federal law) now entitles SIFMA to compensation for the expenses that resulted,†the industry group said in an Aug. 28 filing in federal court.