Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The hidden iceberg: Why corporate treasury spending matters

Iceberg hiding money below
wenmei Zhou/Getty Images

Freed is president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.

Too much media coverage and other political analyses focus on contributions by corporate political action committees but overlook the serious consequences of political contributions made directly from corporate treasury funds.

In talks with corporate executives, the default too often is almost exclusively on company political engagement through its PAC. This ignores what one political scientist has likened to an iceberg of spending, where disclosure is not required (and hence is “dark money”) or is partial (only by the recipient, not the donor) and totals are much greater than the amounts allowed for PAC spending.


This spending matters greatly. Donations from treasury funds have been crucial for reshaping state legislatures and influencing national politics and policy over the past 14 years. In the 2010 election cycle, so-called 527’s became a strategic part of the political funding process through targeted spending. Those organizations are nonprofits formed under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which grants tax-exempt status to political committees at the national, state and local levels.

They have played a major role in underwriting changes in control of state legislatures and redistricting of political maps that followed. They have been crucial for the election of attorneys general engaging in lawsuits that impact women’s reproductive rights, voting rights, election administration and the regulatory powers of the U.S. government. They have played a major role in gubernatorial races by serving as conduits for money to evade contribution limits. These groups are the governors associations, state legislative campaign committees and attorneys general associations.

Companies are exposed to serious risks from political spending with treasury funds. It directly links their brands with controversial candidates and issues important to consumers, workers and shareholders. Accordingly, the Center for Political Accountability, unlike other research and advocacy groups, closely tracks corporate political spending from treasury funds, and its associated risk and consequences.

Let’s review the differences between corporate treasury spending and PAC spending.

Corporate treasury spending

  • It draws directly from corporate profits. When a company gives to third-party groups, it loses control over its money and can be tarred with the consequences.
  • It funds dark money groups, which are not required to disclose their donors.
  • With no contribution limits, donations can run into six- and seven-figure sums, vastly above PAC giving. This is a dominant political spending source.
  • These contributions have a major impact on state political races. They comprise almost a third of donations to 527 groups, which spend heavily in legislative, executive and judicial races. In a “massive change,” states are increasingly where policy gets made.

Corporate PAC spending

  • PAC donations largely come from contributions from employees, not directly from a company’s profits.
  • Donations to PACs, and donations they make, must be disclosed publicly.
  • Donations to PACs, and donations they make, are strictly limited.
  • Corporate PAC donations focus overwhelmingly on federal races, and attention to them diverts it from state politics and its immediate impact on voters, democracy and society more broadly.

The bottom line

More than ever, consumers, employees, shareholders and other stakeholders are keenly interested in supporting companies whose values align with their own. The political causes and candidates that a company supports are a key metric for assessing those values. Corporate PAC spending only partially illuminates the totality of a company’s political influence. To fully assess a company’s impact on the political landscape, contributions made from treasury funds must be closely examined.

The Center for Political Accountability focuses on company adoption of disclosure and accountability policies for company spending with treasury funds because of the much greater impact of this spending and the heightened risk that accompanies it. Our effort over the past two decades, using corporate governance and risk management, has made political disclosure and accountability the norm through “private ordering.” That’s when a critical mass of companies adopting a policy turns it from a practice to a standard.

Read More

Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts
A person holding a stack of dollar bills that are flying away.
Getty Images, PM Images

Trump’s Erosion of America’s “Soft Power” Will Have Economic Impacts

President Donald Trump has championed a strong, often confrontational posture toward many nations, defining his foreign policy as “America First.” This is a new U.S. that the world is dealing with, no longer the chief architect of the multilateral world of markets, democracy, and human rights that the U.S. has been, albeit imperfectly, since World War II.

But since Trump has been in office for only five months, it’s too early to tell the ultimate impacts. However, one thing is becoming increasingly clear. The Trump administration’s posturing is causing an erosion of what is known as “soft power.” And that is starting to result in some negative economic impacts.

Keep ReadingShow less
Insider trading in Washington, DC

U.S. senators and representatives with access to non-public information are permitted to buy and sell individual stocks. It’s not just unethical; it sends the message that the game is rigged.

Getty Images, Greggory DiSalvo

Insider Trading: If CEOs Can’t Do It, Why Can Congress?

Ivan Boesky. Martha Stewart. Jeffrey Skilling.

Each became infamous for using privileged, non-public information to profit unfairly from the stock market. They were prosecuted. They served time. Because insider trading is a crime that threatens public trust and distorts free markets.

Keep ReadingShow less
Could Splits Within the GOP Over Economic Policy Hurt the Trump Administration?

With Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) by his side President Donald Trump speaks to the press following a House Republican meeting at the U.S. Capitol on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Tasos Katopodis

Could Splits Within the GOP Over Economic Policy Hurt the Trump Administration?

Republican U.S. Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri is an unusual combo of right and left politics—kind of like an elephant combined with a donkey combined with a polar bear. And, yet, his views may augur the future of the Republican Party.

Many people view the Republican and Democratic parties as ideological monoliths, run by hardcore partisans and implacably positioned against each other. But, in fact, both parties have their internal divisions, influenced by various outside organizations. In the GOP, an intra-party battle is brewing between an economic populist wing with its more pro-labor positions and a traditional libertarian wing with its pro-free market stances.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Trump’s Middle East Trip

U.S. President Donald J. Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman a signing ceremony at the Saudi Royal Court on May 13, 2025, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Just the Facts: Trump’s Middle East Trip

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.

Are pro-Israel supporters of Donald Trump concerned about his recent trip to the Middle East?

Keep ReadingShow less