In thinking ahead to the 2025 proxy season, companies should consider, among other things, their CPA-Zicklin Index score.

When Donald Trump was elected the 47th US president earlier this month, he did so with considerable help from corporate America. But corporate money is not just deeply embedded in political campaigns, it also has a major influence on the success or failure of specific legislation.

The Index’s data reflect leading companies holding firm overall to established norms of political disclosure and accountability, despite fierce headwinds against environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and related principles for investors and U.S. corporations.

In 2020, fewer than half of companies in the S&P 500 disclosed their election-related contributions to PACs and trade associations, according to the Center for Political Accountability. Among those that did disclose, two-thirds of their spending went to trade associations.

Wells Fargo gave a total of $704,300 to three Democratic and three Republican organizations known as 527s that are focused on electing governors, attorneys general and state lawmakers, according to data from the Center for Political Accountability

“two of the largest institutional investors, BlackRock and Vanguard, voted for CPA’s resolution for the first time last year. BlackRock did so for six of the 12 CPA resolutions and Vanguard for three.”

Electric co-ops top industry’s political contributions; utilities change approach.

DoorDash and CVS also contributing funds to Raga group trying to re-elect Todd Rokita, who favors total abortion ban.

As it sought a massive, corrupt bailout in Ohio, Akron-based FirstEnergy also spent lavishly on Trump-aligned dark money groups and at hotels and golf courses owned by the former president, a new report said this week.

…the Center for Political Accountability issued an analysis that showed Comcast and other corporations that have liberal abortion employee policies were major contributors to the Republican State Leadership Committee.

87 percent of respondents said they believe publicly traded companies should be required to have a code of conduct for assessing and governing their political spending

“What’s important to understand is that they are doing this in a social setting, so [lobbyists and staffers] become friends. It’s not just lobbyists going into the office,” said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability.

A recently released survey, commissioned by the Zicklin Center for Governance and Business Ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Center for Political Accountability and conducted by a leading non-partisan polling firm, set out to identify how retail shareholders expect companies to approach, govern and assess their political spending

What exactly is the scope and impact of corporate political spending? Much has been written about the risks – legal, reputational and bottom line – faced by companies engaging in this spending.

Corporate Underwriters: Where the Rubber Hits the Road, from the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability, examines “the scope of corporate political spending and its impact on state and national politics and policy” by taking a deeper dive into six highly influential “527” organizations.

Voters who are invested in the stock market want more transparency of corporate political spending, according to a new poll released as races heat up for the White House and down-ballot offices.

CEOs are looking to keep doors open” with both Republicans and Democrats.

Even as some corporate bigwigs have taken to the sidelines, Trump’s fundraising has outstripped President Biden’s.

It’s a real problem and it raises questions in terms of conflicts and what the companies are doing, and how their money is being used,” said Bruce Freed, the president of the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability.

“Climate change is such an important area of risk,” says Jeanne Hanna, research director at the Center for Political Accountability. “A lot of companies acknowledge that they face quantifiable economic risks if climate change carries on. It can do damage to their markets. It could do damage to their production. Companies themselves recognize it as…