Corporate America, a few billionaires aside, is staying noticeably quiet with just days to go until the presidential election that’s divided the nation sharply.
Not only have leaders of public companies mostly resisted endorsing a particular candidate; they’ve rejected investor calls to voice general support for the democratic process and a peaceful transfer of power.
Such reticence stands in contrast to early 2021, when dozens of businesses from
McDonald’s perhaps best demonstrated the corporate neutrality approach after Republican nominee Donald Trump served fries at a Pennsylvania franchise. The chain stressed Democratic nominee Kamala Harris is welcomed by some franchisees as well and reassured employees that it was neither red nor blue, but “golden.”
That doesn’t cut it for Josh Zinner, CEO of the Interfaith Center of Corporate Responsibility, a coalition of institutional investors that backs greater transparency on political spending. The coalition urged over 200 CEOs at the Business Roundtable this month to publicly back voting rights and a peaceful transfer of power.
“This is not a partisan thing,” Zinner said. “This is just about ensuring that we have a stable democracy. This should not be a controversial thing for people to support.”
Trillium Asset Management has engaged in similar efforts: it sent letters to five companies in recent weeks asking them to issue statements on what they’re doing to strengthen democratic institutions or enhance voter participation. None of the companies targeted have published a response yet.
There are some exceptions where corporate leaders have taken a bold approach: executives at companies including
Others’ reluctance to take any sort of stance likely can be traced to heightened scrutiny over corporate statements, said Jill Fisch, a business law professor at the University of Pennsylvania law school. Fisch noted that companies have struggled with how to talk about the Israel-Hamas conflict. She also highlighted Disney’s public clash with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) after it opposed the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which limits classroom discussion of sexual orientation.
“All of that is causing corporations to think harder about the possible ramifications of making political statements,” she said.
Election Integrity
A few months after the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol, companies from
Over a dozen large public companies Bloomberg Law contacted to see if they will make similar commitments this year did not respond or declined to comment.
Smaller peers don’t appear as hesitant to speak out. Over 300 small businesses signed a letter earlier this month supporting safe and secure elections and denouncing threats of political violence.
“Election integrity is more than a political issue; it’s an economic one,” said Katrina Golden, owner of the bakery Lil Mamas Sweets and Treats in Augusta, Georgia, who signed the letter. “Businesses need a reliable and predictable environment to operate effectively.”
Business associations also appear to have fewer hesitations. The Business Roundtable—a corporate lobbying behemoth—in mid-October supported voting rights and a peaceful transfer of power. “The strength of our nation’s democracy and the stability of America’s economy depend on free and fair elections,” Joshua Bolten, the group’s CEO, stated.
The US Chamber of Commerce made a similar statement last week: “As is the case in every election, there are likely to be legal challenges over disagreements about election processes. This is normal and we must let legal challenges play out in the appropriate courts, then respect and abide by their decisions.”
Many companies have learned that they need “to be more careful” about taking a public stance on certain issues, said Scott Shepard at the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative advocacy group.
“Current American corporate management is wise to stay schtum,” about issues like the election, he said.
Silence carries its own risk, however. The Washington Post said it lost 250,000 subscribers after owner Jeff Bezos decided not to publish a presidential endorsement this election, one of multiple news outlets reversing decades of precedent in endorsing a candidate.
Political Spending
The shareholders’ requests go further than just seeking statements: Trillium and the Interfaith Center urged companies to commit to stopping political contributions to candidates or organizations that spread misinformation or participate in voter intimidation, for example.
“Corporations fail to stand up for democracy at their peril,” said Andrea Ranger, Trillium’s director of shareholder advocacy.
The moves are the latest in a long-running investor activist push for businesses to divulge more about their political spending policies, and even their lobbying. Companies from
Action from companies is better than words, Fisch said, adding that giving employees time off to vote, for example, is one way to support democratic values. Businesses including
“Speaking out is really hard,” Fisch said. “It looks like the country is very closely divided. So it means that anything you say could potentially be objectionable to half of your shareholders, customers, employees and so forth. Unless your statement has some close links to some business operations, do you really want to take that risk?”
Zinner said he fears that most companies think they’ll be perceived as political by saying anything at all about the election.
“Our concern is that that’s what’s holding them back,” he said.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.