Political donations revisited

5 February 2010

Sarah Wilson

Latest News

Minerva Proxy Update

Follow This challenges Shell days before key vote

SRD III is Europe’s chance to fix proxy plumbing

SEC Steps Closer to Unwinding Climate Disclosure Rules

Minerva Proxy Update

EU Parliament signals more enforceable path for SFDR 2.0

Featured Briefings

Australia Proxy Season Review 2025

2026 Proxy Season Preview

Diversity Divergence: Shareholders Steadfast Amid Pervasive Political Posturing

The US Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, has sent shockwaves through the US corporate governance community and re-awakes concerns that companies will use shareholder funds to influence US political elections.

Nearly all restraint on corporate political spending has been lifted by the ruling, prompting the Center for Political Accountability to launch a letter campaign aimed at getting S&P 500 companies to disclose all political contributions, including those to trade associations and tax-exempt groups. The letter also advocates for board oversight of corporate political giving.

As James McRitchie points out in his blog corpgov.net: "We either need a law like in the UK so that companies must get permission from their shareowners in advance to make political contributions in excess of some amount or we need a massive number of shareowner resolutions at each company to accomplish the same."

Political response to the ruling has been rapid with three draft bills now proposed that would give shareholders the right to veto corporate political expenditure.

RepresentativeMichael Capuano introduced H.R. 4537, the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010. The bill would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require (1) an authorizing vote of a majority of shareowners before general treasury funds can be spent on political activities; and (2) quarterly notification to all shareowners on corporations’ contributions or expenditures for political activities.

RepresentativeAlan Grayson has introduced two bills which, if passed, would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to prohibit any national securities exchange from effecting any transaction in a security issued by a corporation unless the corporation’s registration with the exchange includes a certification that the corporation is currently in compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 governing contributions and expenditures by corporations which were in effect with respect to elections held during 2008. H.R. 4487, the “End the Hijacking of Shareholder Fund Act,” introduced January 21, would require the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareowners for the company to spend money to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services. 


Links

Congress Blog >>

Center for Political Accountability >>

Political Parties, Elections And Referendums Act 2000 >>


Related Stories

Political Spending Clash: Shareholder Challenges Cadence Micromanagement Appeal

January 9, 2026

Jack Grogan-Fenn

Read More

Minerva Analytics Files Texas Public Information Act Request as State Escalates Campaign Against Proxy Advisors

September 18, 2025

home

Read More

From Super-Voting to Equal Voting: Lyft’s Class B Share Conversion

September 12, 2025

Editor

Read More

The White House Loyalty Scorecard: Blurring the Lines Between State and Market

September 11, 2025

Editor

Read More

Stewardship Under Siege: Minerva CEO Criticises Regulatory Attacks on Proxy Advisors

June 24, 2025

Jack Grogan-Fenn

Read More

Climate Cutback: US EPA to Scrap GHG Emission Limits

June 13, 2025

Jack Grogan-Fenn

Read More