Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Companies must manage risk through due diligence of political spending

Cash and market graphs
Javier Ghersi/Getty Images

Hanna is research director, Freed is president and co-founder, and Sandstrom is strategic advisor at the Center for Political Accountability.

As the 2024 election cycle begins in earnest, companies must act on their fiduciary responsibility to more closely monitor their political spending and the accompanying risks. Too often corporate leaders fail to fully assess and scrutinize the ultimate beneficiaries of political contributions from corporate treasury funds. This oversight constitutes a lapse in corporate officers’ duty of care to protect and advance the interests of the company and its shareholders.


This duty is ever more crucial as corporate political engagement is increasingly scrutinized by the media, employees, investors, regulators and consumers. This new reality has exponentially increased the financial risks companies face when their political spending directly or indirectly associates their brand with controversial political issues and outcomes and claims of corruption. Without the necessary due diligence, this new political landscape can also negatively affect the environment companies need to compete and operate in the long term and may expose a company to legal liability.

The Center for Political Accountability has spent the past two decades examining these risks as part of its effort to make corporate political disclosure and accountability a norm. Responsible business leaders must act on their legal obligations to protect companies from harm by increasing their scrutiny of corporate political spending and its ultimate beneficiaries and impacts. Companies can no longer give to politically active groups without giving close attention to the consequences or to what their political spending might enable. They must look behind the curtain and demand to know how their money is spent and what risks their company is assuming.

Risky business

At both the state and federal level, public companies are often legally prohibited from donating to political campaigns or face strict limitations in how much they are allowed to donate directly to candidates.

Many companies, instead, choose to contribute indirectly to third-party groups — politically active trade associations; social welfare groups; partisan, state-focused 527 committees; and super PACs — that engage in political spending and activities at both the state and national levels. These organizations then use the companies’ funds for election-related spending, often without informing corporate donors of their intentions. Corporate donations may be transferred to additional third-party groups before being spent on an election. Ultimately, a company’s donation may pass through several intermediaries before making its way to a final beneficiary.

When companies donate to third-party groups, they typically lose the ability to control or to know how their money is eventually spent. Importantly, company leaders are frequently unaware of the issues and controversies the company may be associated with or what their money enables through the ultimate beneficiaries of their donations.

A 2021 report by the Center for Political Accountability illustrates how third-party contributions seriously undermined numerous companies’ commitments to democracy, addressing climate change, LGBTQ rights, reproductive health care, and other issues that are keenly tracked by consumers, employees, and shareholders. Careless political spending decisions can also place companies and corporate executives in legal jeopardy, as demonstrated by the recent investigations and federal criminal convictions associated with FirstEnergy in Ohio.

Indirect political donations and the ensuing controversies have repeatedly exposed a serious gap in corporate due diligence. This lapse has created serious risks that companies must confront.

Pull back the curtain and control the risk

To mitigate these risks, corporate leaders can and should demand a full accounting from all recipients of how its corporate treasury funds are spent. Companies should apply standards similar to those already in use to monitor and regulate corporate contributions to charitable and philanthropic organizations. Applying similarly robust standards of due diligence to their political giving enables corporations to pull back the curtain, assert the necessary control over their corporate funds and in doing so fulfill their fiduciary responsibilities.

The CPA-Wharton Zicklin Model Code of Conduct for Corporate Political Spending provides a framework for corporate leaders to apply due diligence, honor their duty of care and manage risks associated with political spending. Specifically, the code requires companies to obligate all trade associations and other third-party groups receiving corporate treasury funds that can be used for election-related spending to report to the company how its contributions are spent and who the ultimate beneficiaries of corporate funds are. This information empowers senior management and directors to more accurately assess the risks of that spending and to avoid the risks created by ill-considered spending.

Read More

Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished’ Hype Is Just That

In an aerial view, a container ship arrives at the Port of Oakland on Aug. 1, 2025, in Oakland, California.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images/TNS

Tariff ‘Mission Accomplished’ Hype Is Just That

On May 1, 2003, George W. Bush announced, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” He was standing below a giant banner that read, “Mission Accomplished.” At the risk of inviting charges of understatement, subsequent events didn’t cooperate. But it took a while for that to be widely accepted.

We’re in a similar place when it comes to President Trump’s experiment with a new global trading order.

Keep ReadingShow less
Back to School Shopping? Expect Higher Prices, “Invisible” to the Consumer

AI-driven "surveillance pricing" hides the price increases from stressed-out parents.

Getty Images, Isabel Pavia

Back to School Shopping? Expect Higher Prices, “Invisible” to the Consumer

For families with school children, the summer is coming to a close, and it’s time to start thinking about—school shopping! New clothes, shoes, daypacks, and school supplies are topmost of mind, making sure your little Einsteins and Rembrandts are ready to take on the new school year.

But this year, it’s coming with a twist—not only are prices higher in the stores and online, but the price increases are seemingly “invisible” due to deceptive uses of new technologies and what is known as “surveillance pricing.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Celebrating National Black Business Month

National Black Business Month is about correcting an imbalance and recognizing that supporting Black-owned businesses is suitable for everyone.

Getty Images, Tara Moore

Celebrating National Black Business Month

Every August, National Black Business Month rolls around, and for a few weeks, social media lights up with hashtags and well-meaning posts about supporting Black-owned businesses. You'll see lists pop up—restaurants, bookstores, clothing lines—all run by Black entrepreneurs. Maybe your favorite coffee shop puts up a sign, or a big brand launches a campaign. But once the month ends, the noise fades, and for many, it's back to business as usual.

This cycle is familiar. It's easy to mistake visibility for progress or to think that a single purchase is enough. But National Black Business Month is meant to be more than a fleeting moment of recognition. It's a moment to interrogate the systems that got us here and to put our money—and our intent—where our mouths are. In a better world, Black business success would be a given, not a cause for annual celebration.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Abnormal Are the Revisions in This Month’s Jobs Report?

Seasonally adjusted data. Graph excludes March to August 2020, initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the reported jobs numbers were especially volatile. Shows difference between the preliminary estimate and the final revision for each month. Includes initial revision for June 2025 (BLS often issues a second revision).

How Abnormal Are the Revisions in This Month’s Jobs Report?

On Friday, President Trump announced that he was firing Erika McEntarfer, the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Earlier that day the BLS had issued its monthly national jobs report, which showed lackluster growth in employment, and a slight uptick in the unemployment rate.

The report showed a relatively small increase in employment for July: +73,000 nonfarm payroll jobs. The BLS also included revisions to the preliminary jobs numbers reported earlier, stating: “Revisions for May and June were larger than normal. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for May was revised down by 125,000, from +144,000 to +19,000, and the change for June was revised down by 133,000, from +147,000 to +14,000.”

Keep ReadingShow less