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

Ending taxes on home sales would benefit the wealthiest households most – part of a larger pattern in Trump tax plans

File:Homes-for-sale-Burrus-02.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Ending taxes on home sales would benefit the wealthiest households most – part of a larger pattern in Trump tax plans

Not long after U.S. housing prices reached a record high this summer – the median existing home went for US$435,000 in June – President Donald Trump said that he was considering a plan to make home sales tax-free.

Supporters of the idea, introduced by U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as the No Tax on Home Sales Act in July, say it would benefit working families by eliminating all taxes on the sales of family homes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

"Just the Facts" on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee, its impact on tech firms, startups, and healthcare, plus legal challenges and alternatives for skilled workers.

Getty Images, Popartic

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What Is the $100,000 Visa Fee?

This is a new one-time $100,000 application fee for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The visa is designed for highly skilled professionals in fields like tech, medicine, and engineering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

Dave Anderson shares how the Fed’s rate cuts reveal misconceptions about fiscal vs. monetary policy and government intervention in U.S. free markets.

Getty Images, Royalty-free

Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

The Federal Reserve Board's move on Wednesday, Sept. 17, to lower the federal funds interest rate by one-quarter of a point signals that it is a good time to discuss a major misconception that most voters have about public policy.

It is typically assumed that Democrats stand for government intervention into free markets to counteract the inherent bias towards those who are more economically well off. It is also assumed that Republicans, in contrast, reject the idea of government intervention in free markets because it violates rights to property and the natural order of free markets, which promotes the greatest total welfare.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of a nurse's hand resting on the shoulder of an older man who's hand rests on top.

September is World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month. Dr. Dona Kim Murphey explains how systemic failures, Medicare privatization, and racial disparities are deepening the dementia care crisis.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Profits Over Patients: Re-Examining Systems As Culprit in Dementia Care (or Lack Thereof)

September is World Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is the most common kind of dementia, a disorder characterized by the progressive loss of brain cells and, in its final stages, complete dependence—the inability to remember, speak, move, or even eat or swallow unassisted. Many end up in nursing homes. Seven million people are impacted by dementia in the United States today, a number that will more than double in the next 25 years.

But awareness is not just about understanding the magnitude of the problem or content expertise on the choices we make as individuals to mitigate the enormous present and future challenges of this disease. It is about a consciousness of the role of systems, namely insurance and government, that are seriously undermining our ability to care.

Keep ReadingShow less