Trillium Asset Management Solicits Shareholder Support for “No Political Spending” Proposals at Bank of America, 3M
As the annual stockholder meetings of 3M and Bank of America approach next week, Trillium Asset Management has reached out to shareholders seeking their support for our shareholder proposals at the two companies. The proposals call upon the companies to cease making all types of political contributions, both directly and indirectly through third-party vehicles. Read the full press release here.
Lobbying Disclosure – FedEx Corporation (2012)
Whereas, businesses, like individuals, have a recognized legal right to express opinions to legislators and regulators on public policy matters.
It is important that our company’s lobbying positions, and processes to influence public policy, are transparent. Public opinion is skeptical of corporate influence on Congress and public policy and questionable lobbying activity may pose risks to our company’s reputation when controversial positions are embraced. Hence, we believe full disclosure of FedEx’s policies, procedures and oversight mechanisms is warranted.
Resolved, the stockholders of FedEx Corporation (“FedEx”) request the Board authorize the preparation of a report, updated annually, and disclosing:
1. Company policy and procedures governing the lobbying of legislators and regulators, including that done on our company’s behalf by trade associations. The disclosure should include both direct and indirect lobbying and grassroots lobbying communications.
2. A listing of payments (both direct and indirect, including payments to trade associations) used for direct lobbying as well as grassroots lobbying communications, including the amount of the payment and the recipient.
3. Membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation.
4. Description of the decision making process and oversight by the management and Board for
a. direct and indirect lobbying contribution or expenditure; and
b. payment for grassroots lobbying expenditure.
For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation.
Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels.
The report shall be presented to the Audit Committee of the Board or other relevant oversight committees of the Board and posted on the company’s website.
Supporting Statement
As stockholders, we encourage transparency and accountability in the use of staff time and corporate funds to influence legislation and regulation both directly and indirectly. We believe such disclosure is in stockholders’ best interests. Absent a system of accountability, company assets could be used for policy objectives contrary to FedEx’s long-term interests.
FedEx spent approximately $38.7 million in 2010 and 2011 on direct federal lobbying activities, according to disclosure reports. (US Senate Office of Public Records).This figure may not include grassroots lobbying to directly influence legislation by mobilizing public support or opposition. Also, not all states require disclosure of lobbying expenditures. And FedEx does not disclose its contributions to tax-exempt organizations that write and endorse model legislation, such as FedEx’s $25,000 contribution to the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”) annual meeting (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/05/288823/alec-exposed-corporations-funding/).
Membership and financial support of ALEC became very controversial when ALEC’s role in creating and promoting model state legislation on Arizona style immigration bills, Stand Your Ground legislation, anti-environmental legislation and restrictions on voter registration was exposed.
Facing this controversy, companies like Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, Wendy’s and Kraft Foods withdrew their involvement and funding of ALEC.
On 2nd Anniversary of Citizens United, Trillium, Green Century Capital Management & Advocacy Groups Launch Drive to Stem Corporate Political Spending
On the second anniversary of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, Trillium Asset Management, LLC and Green Century Capital Management announce that they have filed shareholder resolutions at three companies, Bank of America, 3M & Target Corporation, urging them to refrain from making political donations in the future. This is the first time institutional shareholders have asked corporations to entirely refrain from political spending.
Read more here
Prohibit Political Spending From Corporate Treasury Funds – Bank of America (2012)
WHEREAS:
Political spending and corporate money in politics is a highly contentious issue, made more prominent in light of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case that affirmed companies’ rights to make unlimited political expenditures to independent groups. In the 2012 election year, we expect even more media and public attention to corporate spending to influence elections. Experts predict that an unprecedented amount of money will be spent in the 2012 election season.
Recent polls highlight the public’s disapproval. In a June 2010 Harris poll, 85% of voters said that corporations “have too much influence over the political system today….” In February 2010, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 80% opposed Citizens United, noting, “the bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times.”
Corporate political contributions can backfire on a corporation’s reputation and bottom line. In 2010, Target and Valero received unwanted attention, consumer boycotts, and protests for their support of controversial candidates and ballot measures. In a Harris Poll released in October 2010, a sizable portion (46)% of respondents indicated that if there were option, they would shop elsewhere if they learned that a business they patronized had contributed to a candidate or a cause that they oppose.
According to the Institute for Money in State Politics, Bank of America’s political spending on the state and federal levels totaled over $2.1 million in 2007-2008. However, this figure does not include payments to trade associations or other tax-exempt organizations that may channel corporate money to political ends.
Many trade associations that receive corporate contributions spend vast sums in electoral politics; these payments are not required to be disclosed. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged to spend between $50 and $75 million in the 2010 election season, and announced that it would work to unseat any member of Congress who voted for healthcare reform. According to Public Citizen, only 32% of groups broadcasting electioneering communications in the 2010 primary season revealed the identities of donors in their Federal Election Commission filings, down from nearly 100 percent in the 2004 and 2006 cycles.
Increasingly, companies such as IBM, Colgate Palmolive, Wells Fargo and others are adopting policies prohibiting spending of political funds directly or indirectly to influence elections.
Given the risks and potential negative impact on shareholder value, the proponents believe Bank of America should adopt a policy to refrain from using treasury funds in the political process.
RESOLVED:
The shareholders request that the board of directors adopt a policy prohibiting the use of corporate funds for any political election or campaign.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT:
We believe this policy should include any direct or indirect contribution that is intended to influence the outcome of an election or referendum. It should also prohibit the use of trade associations or non-profit corporations from channeling our company’s contributions or membership dues to influence the outcome of any election or referendum.
Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – Chubb Corp (2012)
Resolved, that the shareholders of Chubb Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, 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 oversight committee and posted on the company’s website.
Stockholder Supporting Statement
As long-term shareholders of Chubb Corp., 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.
Chubb Corp. contributed at least $415,000 in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)
However, 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 Merck, MetLife and Microsoft 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. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.
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.
Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending – CenturyLink (2012)
Resolved, that the shareholders of CenturyLink (“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 CenturyLink, 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.
CenturyLink contributed at least $1.3 million in corporate funds since the 2006 election cycle. (CQ: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)
However, 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 Exelon, Merck and Microsoft 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. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.
Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending- Ford Motor – (2012)
Resolved, that the shareholders of Ford Motor (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, 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’ audit committee or other relevant oversight committee and posted on the Company’s website.
Stockholder Supporting Statement
As long-term shareholders of Ford Motor, 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.
Ford Motor contributed at least $1.9 million in corporate funds since the 2002 election cycle. (CQ: http://moneyline.cq.com/pml/home.do and National Institute on Money in State Politics: http://www.followthemoney.org/index.phtml.)
However, 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 spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations for political purposes. This would bring our Company in line with a growing number of leading companies, including Merck, Microsoft and Prudential that have adopted disclosure and accountability of their political spending.
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.
Disclosure of Direct and Indirect Political Spending -State Street Corp (2012)
Resolved, that the shareholders of State Street Corporation (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, 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 oversight committee and posted on the company’s website.
Stockholder Supporting Statement
As long-term shareholders of State Street, 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. We urge your support for this critical governance reform.
Prohibit Political Spending From Corporate Treasury Funds – 3M (2012)
WHEREAS:
Political spending and corporate money in politics is a highly contentious issue, made more prominent in light of the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court case that affirmed companies’ rights to make unlimited political expenditures to independent groups. In the 2012 election year, we expect even more media and public attention to corporate spending to influence elections. Experts predict that an unprecedented amount of money will be spent in the 2012 election season.
Recent polls highlight the public’s disapproval. In a June 2010 Harris poll, 85% of voters said that corporations “have too much influence over the political system today….” In February 2010, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 80% opposed Citizens United, noting, “the bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times.”
Corporate political contributions can backfire on a corporation’s reputation and bottom line In a Harris Poll released in October 2010, a sizable portion (46)% of respondents indicated that if there were option, they would shop elsewhere if they learned that a business they patronized had contributed to a candidate or a cause that they oppose. In 2010, Target Corporation was subjected to consumer boycotts, and protests for their support of a controversial candidate whom 3M also supported.
According to the Center for Political Accountability, 3M has spent approximately $1.5 million in corporate funds to political activities since 2002. However, this figure does not include payments to trade associations or other tax-exempt organizations that may channel corporate money to political ends.
Many trade associations that receive corporate contributions spend vast sums in electoral politics; these payments are not required to be disclosed. For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce pledged to spend between $50 and $75 million in the 2010 election season, and announced that it would work to unseat any member of Congress who voted for healthcare reform. According to Public Citizen, only 32% of groups broadcasting electioneering communications in the 2010 primary season revealed the identities of donors in their Federal Election Commission filings, down from nearly 100 percent in the 2004 and 2006 cycles.
Increasingly, companies such as IBM, Colgate Palmolive, Wells Fargo and others are adopting
policies prohibiting spending of political funds directly or indirectly to influence elections.
Given the risks and potential negative impact on shareholder value, the proponents believe 3M should adopt a policy to refrain from using treasury funds in the political process.
RESOLVED:
The shareholders request that the board of directors adopt a policy prohibiting the use of corporate funds for any political election or campaign.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT:
We believe this policy should include any direct or indirect contribution that is intended to influence the outcome of an election or referendum. It should also prohibit the use of trade associations or non-profit corporations from channeling our company’s contributions or membership dues to influence the outcome of any election or referendum.
