Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Big companies disclosing more could-be-secret political spending, analysis shows

Hewlett Packard headquarters

Computer company Hewlett Packard received a perfect score from the index for its policies on political spending disclosure.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

An increasing number of the country's largest publicly traded companies are disclosing more than ever about political spending habits that the law permits them to keep secret.

That's the central finding of the fifth annual report from a group of academics and corporate ethicists, who say the average score among the biggest companies traded on American exchanges, the S&P 500, has gone up each year since 2014.

Though corporate political action committees must disclose their giving to candidates, those numbers are very often dwarfed by the donations businesses make to the trade associations and other outside groups that have driven so much of the steady rise in spending on elections. Conservatives say robust disclosure of these behaviors is the best form of regulating money in politics and is working fine, and this new report reflects that. Those who say campaign finance needs more assertive federal regulation will argue such corporate transparency is inconsistent and inadequate to the task, and the new report underscores that.


The most recent report, out late last month from the nonprofit Center for Political Accountability and the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the University of Pennsylvania, assesses two dozen different behaviors by each company, including their direct giving to sway elections, who runs their political operations and how easy it is to learn about the company's political behavior.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The companies are rated on a 70-point scale. The average score this year was 47.1, a three-point bump from a year ago.

Seventy-three companies were dubbed "trendsetters" this year for scoring 90 percent or higher on their disclosure and accountability policies — 16 more than last year. The four who received perfect scores were computer make Hewlett Packard, defense contractor Northrop Grumman and medical device companies Edwards Lifesciences and Becton Dickinson. Others in this top tier included Google parent Alphabet, AT&T, Bank of America, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson and Visa.

At the other end of the scale were the 59 with a score of zero. Well-known brand names on this list included Netflix, TripAdvisor, Expedia and MGM Resorts International.

The CPA-Zicklin Index also singled out 16 companies for big improvements in their transparency, including Ford Motor, Lowe's, Chubb and Kohl's.

Only a dozen companies in the S&P 500 say they spend nothing to directly influence elections — among them Accenture, Goldman Sachs Group, IBM and Ralph Lauren. Several dozen others said they limit their participation in politics to certain types of giving.

Some of this increase in disclosure can be attributed to companies aiming to repair reputations after public backlash for political involvement. There was a boycott of SoulCycle this summer, for example, after customers learned a major investor in the company intended to hold a fundraiser for President Trump. This reactive political atmosphere "will only become more volatile" in the year before the presidential election, the report says.


"With election spending again expected to set new records and the shadow of anonymous or so-called political 'dark money' growing, U.S. companies will further be in the crosshairs, whether under attack from the White House or under scrutiny by media, shareholders, workers and consumers," the report says.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less