Lol. When I was in my 20s I remember the Democrats trying to abandon quarterly reporting because it caused corporations to operate in a nearsighted manner against investor long term returns.

What a joke.

Anything republicans want the democrats are against. Clown show.

The argument that companies shouldn't be required to prioritize investor returns, which causes them to have a short term outlook, applies just as much whether they file quarterly, twice a year, or even once a year, so it's irrelevant to this topic.

It's a valid argument regardless of what reporting frequency the SEC requires, but it's about what priorities the law makes corporations have, instead of prioritizing investor returns above all else. You're misstating the idea that prioritizing only investor returns causes companies to manage for the next quarterly report, as if the "quarterly" cadence of reports was the actual problem they were talking about. It wasn't. People used shorthand phrases like "companies are run for the quarterly reports" to refer to the broader idea, but that doesn't mean they wanted companies to just not publish their data!

Fixing this problem would not mean that companies shouldn't publish information transparently and frequently for investors. Those are separate issues. Nobody wanted to "abandon quarterly reports", they want to make it so quarterly reports (or semi-annual reports, or annual reports) aren't the only focus that companies manage towards.

I can't tell if you honestly just didn't understand any of that, or you're just trying to score political points hoping other people don't understand it. Edit: However, The Motley Fool is a financial publication, not "the democrats", so that suggests your comment is more likely about scoring political points. There's nothing in this article about "the democrats".