Companies Should Follow Own Rules, Scrap Inauguration Donations

Now that the election is over, the tradition of paying tribute to the new leader is in full swing with gestures of fealty and currying favor. In ancient times, noblemen might have traveled great distances to bestow a king with gold or dazzling jewels. In our democracy, it involves corporations and their leaders sending a seven-figure check to the president’s inauguration committee, attending lavish inauguration fetes, and, perhaps, announcing policy reversals to align with the new president’s agenda.

It’s not the proudest moment for corporate conduct.

Since Election Day, President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee has raised north of $170 million for his inauguration activities, presidential library, and political operations—that’s a sizable jump from the amount raised for his 2017 inauguration—$106 million.

Corporate donations are welcome, and there are no maximums. Trump isn’t the first to use the inauguration as a fundraising opportunity—it’s become an integral part of 21st-century Washington politics. After banning corporate donations and limiting donations to $50,000 per person for his first inauguration that raised over $50 million, President Barack Obama sparked controversy by lifting the corporate ban and soliciting up to $1 million for VIP inauguration packages in 2013, raising over $40 million.

President Joe Biden’s 2021 inauguration drew tens of millions of dollars from corporate donors, generating about $62 million. And in 2025, the scale of donations is clearly ramping up. The line of donors for the 2025 inauguration is so long that inaugural events are completely sold out—even $1 million donors are being told they won’t be provided with tickets, though of course their donations are still welcome.

I’ve drafted a number of corporate codes of conduct, so I find inauguration fundraising particularly hard to watch. Corporate codes are full of rules admonishing employees that there is zero tolerance for activity that might even create the appearance of impropriety when dealing with government officials.

Meta Platforms Inc.’s code of conduct, for example, states that employees should “never offer bribes or kickbacks, or anything of value, to an individual or government official to improperly influence—or if it could appear to improperly influence—a business or government decision.” Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google LLC, warns that “offering gifts, entertainment, or other business courtesies that could be perceived as bribes becomes especially problematic if you’re dealing with a government official.” Both Meta and Alphabet pledged $1 million donations after Trump’s election.

Microsoft Corp., which also pledged $1 million for the inauguration fund, prohibits “improperly giving, promising, offering, or authorizing payment of anything of value in order to obtain or keep business or to secure some other advantage for Microsoft.” We want to “hold ourself to the highest possible standards of ethical business conduct,” Alphabet proclaims in its code. Right after the inauguration.

I can hear the lawyers in the audience: Well, Rob, the money is technically going to a nonprofit inaugural committee, not directly to any government official, so these companies might be adhering to the letter of their own policy. But if you recognize—as most companies do—that providing entertainment to government officials is improper because it creates the impression that you’re currying favor and attempting to get a business benefit, the distinction between who collects the money and who gets the benefit is meaningless, particularly when there is so little transparency around how the funds are spent and where the leftover funds go.

The damage done by inauguration money grabs is more than just supporting public cynicism in government. It creates cynicism about ethics throughout the employee base of the companies that participate. As employees watch this inauguration, it has to be challenging for them to enthusiastically follow the mandates of their company’s code that preaches against even the appearance of impropriety in dealings with government, knowing that leadership takes advantage of any opportunity to use money to influence.

I’ll be glad when Trump puts his hand on the bible (perhaps the Trump-endorsed special Inauguration Day edition available for $69.95, embossed with his name on the cover) and is sworn into office, ending another chapter in what is an increasingly unseemly procession of inauguration seasons.

Let’s talk about meaningful reform that limits donation size, increases transparency around how the funds are spent, and regulates use of leftover donations. And corporations should end donations that run contrary to their own publicly promoted ethical standards.

Rob Chesnut consults on legal and ethical issues and was formerly general counsel and chief ethics officer at Airbnb. He spent more than a decade as a Justice Department prosecutor and he writes on in-house, corporate, and ethics issues.

Read More Good Counsel