 |
|
May 28, 2008 - Political Disclosure Tops 50 Companies
April 21, 2008 - Key Proxy Advisor Recommends Vote Against AT&T Management on Political Contributions Disclosure
April 3, 2008 - Shareholders Call Information Giant McGraw-Hill 'Hypocritical' for Blocking Political Disclosure
February 28, 2008 - Directors strongly support corporate political spending disclosure, question whether contributions help companies, CPA poll finds
February 28, 2008 - Five New Companies Agree to Political Disclosure, Including Trade Association and c4 payments
February 25, 2008 - Money, Politics and the Corporate Agenda: Big Business in the Political Process
February 19, 2008 - New Companies Bring Number Adopting Political Spending Disclosure to 38
January 10, 2008 - CPA calls on US Chamber of Commerce to disclose its 2008 political spending
December 19, 2007 - Use of trade associations, c4s as conduits for secret political spending hightlighted by Wall Street Journal
November 15, 2007 - Fidelity shift in 2007 proxy season tips scales toward corporate political disclosure
November 13, 2007 - Use of 501(c)(4)s for secret campaign spending underscores need for corporate political disclosure, CPA warns
September 26, 2007 - Dell, Oracle latest companies to adopt political disclosure
August 24, 2007 - CPA and the Zicklin Center at The Wharton School to Collaborate on Corporate Governance and Corporate Political Accountability Issues
April 4, 2007 - Gaining Momentum: Number of Companies Adopting Political Disclosure Hits 31
April 2, 2007 - CPA report faults S&P 100 companies for weak regulation of political spending, proposes strong model code to protect companies and shareholders
February 8, 2007 - 44 companies to face political disclosure shareholder resolution in 2007 proxy season
January 24, 2007 - In Major Expansion, Four Leading Companies Widen Political Disclosure
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Open Windows: How Company Codes of Conduct Regulate Political Spending and a Model Code to Protect Company Interests and Shareholder Value
Faulting S&P 100 companies for weak regulation of their political spending, a Center for Political Accountability report urges the adoption of a strong model code of conduct to protect companies and their shareholders.
The report, entitled Open Windows: How Company Codes of Conduct Regulate Political Spending and a Model Code to Protect Company Interests and Shareholder Value, found that the codes of conduct of most S&P 100 companies handled political spending in “a weak and cursory manner.” According to the study, none of the companies surveyed included comprehensive policies in their codes to ensure broad political transparency and accountability and ethical political behavior. Based on a CPA survey of company codes conducted between June 2006 and January 2007, the report includes an 11-point model code to provide guidance to companies.
“Corporate political spending exposes companies and shareholders to serious risks that are increasing as companies come under heightened pressure to contribute and as trade associations play a larger political role,” the report warned. “Corporate codes of conduct provide an opportunity to develop political spending policies that establish transparency and accountability that can help mitigate these risks.” Click here to read the report.
Model Code of Conduct for Corporate Political Spending
|
Clarification:
General Motors posted its corporate political disclosure and accountability policy on its website on January 19, 2007. This was done as the Center for Political Accountability was completing its final review of the S&P 100’s political spending policies for the Open Windows report. According to the company's policy, corporate political contributions are authorized by the Vice President- Government Relations and reviewed at least annually by the Public Policy Committee of General Motors’ board of directors. In addition, the company has committed to annual disclosure of its soft money political contributions. For further information, see General Motors’ Policy on Corporate Political Contributions and Expenditures at www.gm.com. |
Corporate Political Spending:
What It Includes, How It Is Defined
To assure that transparency covers the full range of corporate political spending, the Center for Political Accountability has written a primer on corporate political spending and political spending and disclosure requirements.
It is important that companies, shareholders and the media understand what that spending comprises and the various ways in which corporate money can be used for political purposes. The paper
- defines corporate political spending,
- provides an inclusive picture of the different routes that corporate money can take, and
- provides a map of corporate political spending and disclosure, noting the significant breaks in transparency.
By working from a common understanding of what constitutes political spending, companies can create disclosure and approval policies that cover the relevant activities. Shareholders and other interested parties will know what is being disclosed. Click here for the primer.
Directors strongly support corporate political spending disclosure, question whether contributions help companies, CPA poll finds.
By strong majorities, directors expressed support for a set of reforms to bring greater transparency to corporate political spending. Two thirds (66%) of directors said that recent corporate scandals involving political activities have “damaged the public’s confidence and trust in corporate America.” A similar majority (60%) agreed that reforms were necessary to “protect companies from risk,” according to the poll.
The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, a leading non-partisan public opinion firm. Based on interviews with 255 members of boards of directors between February 4 and 15, 2008, the poll has a margin of error of +/- 6 percentage points.
Hidden Rivers: How Trade Associations Conceal Corporate Political Spending, Its Threat to Companies, and What Shareholders Can Do
In a new report entitled Hidden Rivers, the Center for Political Accountability (CPA) calls trade associations “the Swiss bank accounts of American politics” for their role in helping companies conceal and spend over $100 million in corporate funds. This spending, the report notes, poses serious risks to company economic interests and reputations and to shareholder value. The report is the first in-depth examination of how the nation’s trade associations have become conduits for unlimited corporate political spending. Trade associations are subject to even less disclosure than the much criticized spending of independent political committees ("527s"). Hidden Rivers looks at judicial races in seven states in 2004 to develop a picture of the secret flow of corporate money through trade associations and related groups.
It identifies 18 public companies whose trade association payments and political contributions underwrote, directly or indirectly, political activity in 2004 on behalf of a group of judicial candidates with strong stands on controversial social issues that companies traditionally have avoided. In one case, $300,000 from a trade association funded ads on behalf of a Mississippi supreme court candidate accused of running a racist campaign. Click here for the report.
|
Click here for full discussion.
In a poll looking at shareholder attitudes on corporate political spending, 85 percent of American shareholders are concern that company political spending “puts corporations at legal risk and endangers” shareholder value. The poll, which was commissioned by the Center for Political Accountability, found that 84 percent wanted companies to adopt political disclosure and accountability. In a strong message to mutual funds, 85 percent of shareholders said that funds and other equity managers should vote their proxies for political reform resolutions. As for their company proxies, 87 percent said they would vote them for those resolutions.
The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, a leading non-partisan public opinion firm. Based on interviews with 800 adult shareholders between March 6 and 9, 2006, the poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points. Click here for the survey.
Corporations have the responsibility to use corporate resources to build shareholder value. Corporate political activism unrelated to core business objectives poses unique risks to shareholder value. To guard against those risks, corporate political activity should be transparent to shareholders and the line of accountability clearly drawn. View the Principles...
The Center for Political Accountability has released a groundbreaking report that finds that corporate secrecy on political contributions harms shareholders by denying them information critical for evaluating management performance and company behavior. The first analysis of the problem, the "Green Canary" study says that company disclosure of corporate political contributions could alert shareholders to signs of possible management, reputational and financial problems that could depress a company’s stock price. Click here to read the report.
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
|
Transparency & Accountability Reports
Click here to view our updated reports. |
|
|
|
Proxy Season Results
Click here to view voting
results for the 2006, 2005 & 2004 proxy seasons
|
|
