Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Halliburton (2012)
Resolved, that the shareholders of Halliburton Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semiannually, disclosing the Company’s:
1. Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.
2. Monetary and non-monetary contributions and expenditures (direct and indirect) used to participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, and used in any attempt to influence the general public, or segments thereof, with respect to elections or referenda. The report shall include:
a. An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above; and
b. The title(s) of the person(s) in the Company responsible for the decision(s) to make the political contributions or expenditures.
The report shall be presented to the board of directors or relevant board oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.
Stockholder Supporting Statement
As long-term shareholders of Halliburton, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These include any activities considered intervention in any political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties, or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state or local candidates.
Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with federal ethics laws. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision recognized the importance of political spending disclosure for shareholders when it said “[D]isclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” Gaps in transparency and accountability may expose the company to reputational and business risks that could threaten long-term shareholder value.
Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political spending. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In some cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations used for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Prudential, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.
The Company’s Board and its shareholders need comprehensive disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets.
In 2011, this proposal received support from more than 46% of shares voted. We urge you to vote For this critical governance reform.
Haliburton – Report on Political Contribution
RESOLVED
The shareholders of Halliburton (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:
- Policies and procedures for political contributions and expenditures (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds;
- Monetary and non-monetary political contributions and expenditures not deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code, including but not limited to contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political candidates, political parties, political committees and other political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code and any portion of any dues or similar payments made to any tax exempt organization that is used for an expenditure or contribution if made directly by the corporation would not be deductible under section 162 (e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code. The report shall include the following:
- An accounting through an itemized report that includes the identity of the recipient as well as the amount paid to each recipient of the Company’s funds that are used for political contributions or expenditures as described above;
- Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making the decisions to make the political contribution or expenditure; and
The report shall be presented to the board of directors’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
As long-term shareholders of Halliburton, we support transparency and accountability in corporate spending on political activities. These activities include direct and indirect political contributions to candidates, political parties or political organizations; independent expenditures; or electioneering communications on behalf of a federal, state or local candidate.
Disclosure is consistent with public policy, in the best interest of the company and its shareholders, and critical for compliance with recent federal ethics legislation. Absent a system of accountability, company assets can be used for policy objectives that may be inimical to the long-term interests of and may pose risks to the company and its shareholders.
Relying on publicly available data does not provide a complete picture of the Company’s political expenditures. For example, the Company’s payments to trade associations used for political activities are undisclosed and unknown. In many cases, even management does not know how trade associations use their company’s money politically. The proposal asks the Company to disclose all of its political contributions, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Hewlett-Packard, Aetna and American Electric Power that support political disclosure and accountability and present this information on their websites.
The Company’s Board and its shareholders need complete disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets. Thus, we urge your support for this critical governance reform.
Halliburton – Implement Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Policy
WHEREAS
Halliburton does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in its written employment policy;
Our competitors Baker Hughes and Bechtel explicitly prohibit this form of discrimination in their written policies, according to the Human Rights Campaign;
Over 86% of the Fortune 500 companies have adopted written nondiscrimination policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, as have 98% of the Fortune 100 companies, according to the Human Rights Campaign;
We believe that corporations that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation have a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining employees from the widest talent pool;
National public opinion polls consistently find more than three quarters Americans support equal rights in the workplace for gay men, lesbians and bisexuals.
According to a September 2005 survey by Harris Interactive and Witeck-Combs, 57% of heterosexual respondents consider it extremely or very important that a company have a written non- discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation, compared to only 43% in 2002. Additionally, only 47% believe that senior executives at their companies welcome, hire, and encourage a diverse workforce.
A March 2003 Gallup poll found 88% of respondents favored equal opportunity in employment for gays and lesbians.
Minneapolis, San Francisco, Seattle and Los Angeles have adopted legislation restricting business with companies that do not guarantee equal treatment for lesbian and gay employees;
Our company has operations in, and makes sales to institutions in states and cities that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation;
Seventeen states, the District of Columbia and 167 cities and counties (including Houston), have laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, and in Houston, at least 30 major employers have sexual orientation nondiscrimination policies and 25 grant same-sex domestic partner benefits (www.hrc.org/worknet);
RESOLVED
The Shareholders request that Halliburton amend its written equal employment opportunity policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and to substantially implement the policy.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation diminishes employee morale and productivity. Because state and local laws are inconsistent with respect to employment discrimination, our company would benefit from a consistent, corporate wide policy to enhance efforts to prevent discrimination, resolve complaints internally, and ensure a respectful and supportive atmosphere for all employees. Halliburton will enhance its competitive edge by joining the growing ranks of companies guaranteeing equal opportunity for all employees.
