Companies have a duty to protect shareholders from a range of risks – especially those that threaten revenue and competitiveness in a global economy. As corporate political spending grows more complex, so do the financial and reputational risks it poses.

“If you’re going to give, you have to have robust disclosures and oversight,” Freed said.

This proxy season, 13 companies have seen basically the same disclosure resolution on their ballots, according to figures from the non-partisan Center for Political Accountability, with the final one facing a vote last Friday…five majority votes in one season is almost unheard of. The resolution won one majority vote last year.

When retribution from the Oval Office threatens the nation’s legal system, there is cause for worry in C-Suites across America.

“While the companies making these contributions may be seeking a favorable regulatory environment, these political donations further erode public trust and expose companies to legal, reputational, and business risks…”

A new report warns of “profound risks” in American politics as cryptocurrency companies increase their political spending and Donald Trump oversees regulatory retreat while promising to create a “crypto strategic reserve”.

What is a 501(c)(4) organization? According to The 2024 CPA-Zicklin Index of Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability, IRC section 501(c)(4) exempts from federal income tax “certain civic groups and nonprofit organizations, whose primary purpose is to promote social welfare.”

“With Donald Trump, everything is transactional and based on his animosity towards people. Some companies donate to gain access, while others do so for protection,” Bruce Freed explains

“Every company is lining up to ‘buy favors,'” said Bruce Freed, CPA President.

“The donations to the inaugural fund are basically to gain favour and to gain access,” said Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability

The high risk of getting political spending wrong makes it ripe for focused oversight, said Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability.

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