6 months after assault on Capitol, corporate pledges fall flat

Published July 5, 2021
When it comes to seeking political influence through corporate giving, business as usual is back, if it ever left. — AP
When it comes to seeking political influence through corporate giving, business as usual is back, if it ever left. — AP

PROVIDENCE: As shockwaves spread across the country from the Jan 6 insurrection at the US Capitol, corporate America took a stand against the lies that powered the mob. Or so it seemed.

Dozens of big companies, citing their commitment to democracy, pledged to avoid donating money to the 147 lawmakers who objected to Congress’ certification of Joe Biden’s victory on the false grounds that voting fraud stole the election from then-president Donald Trump.

It was a striking gesture by some of the most familiar names in business but, as it turns out, it was largely an empty one. Six months later, many of those companies have resumed funneling cash to political action committees that benefit the election efforts of lawmakers whether they objected to the election certification or not. When it comes to seeking political influence through corporate giving, business as usual is back, if it ever left.

Walmart, Pfizer, Intel, General Electric and AT&T are among companies that announced their pledges on behalf of democracy in the days after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in a violent bid to disrupt the transfer of power.

Businesses resume providing funds to lawmakers who objected to certification of Biden’s election victory

The companies contend that donating directly to a candidate is not the same as giving to a PAC that supports them. Given America’s porous campaign finance laws, that’s a distinction without a difference to campaign finance experts.

The companies’ argument also glosses over the fact that, in large measure, they did their giving through PACs before their pledge, rather than to individuals, so in many cases nothing changed.

“Pledging not to give to a certain person doesn’t mean that much when there are so many other ways that corporate money reaches elected officials,” said Daniel Weiner, a former senior counsel at the Federal Election Commission who now works at the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University’s law school. “These pledges are largely symbolic.”

Walmart’s moral stand lasted three months. In January, the retail giant said it would suspend all donations to the 147 lawmakers who objected to the election results. But in April, the company gave $30,000 to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the party organisation that supports House Republicans in elections.

Two-thirds of those House members voted against certifying Biden’s win.

Walmart gave an additional $30,000 to the House committee’s counterpart for Senate Republicans, the National Republican Senatorial Committee. That group is led by an objector to the election’s certification, Sen Rick Scott of Florida, who stands to benefit from the contribution along with seven other GOP senators who also sought to overturn the will of voters. Messages left with both committees by The Associated Press were not returned.

In January, after the attack, General Electric said it would halt donations to lawmakers who voted against certification “because we believe it is important to ensure that our future contributions continue to reflect our company’s values and commitment to democracy”. But that’s not exactly what happened.

In April, General Electric gave $15,000 each to the House and Senate GOP election groups.

Likewise, Pfizer pledged to suspend contributions to Republican objectors for six months. But after only three months, it gave $20,000 to the GOP’s Senate group. Pfizer spokeswoman Sharon Castillo said the company drew a distinction between giving money to individual lawmakers and to groups created to help those same lawmakers. “We just don’t think it is an accurate connection,” she said.

Yet she said Pfizer had no commitment from the Senate election committee that the company’s donation would not be used to benefit the eight senators who voted against certification.

AT&T also pledged not to give money to lawmakers who objected, but the company sent $5,000 in February to the House Conservatives Fund. Company spokeswoman Margaret Boles said AT&T received assurances the money would not flow to lawmakers who objected to election results, though the PAC is led by a lawmaker who did.

Campaign finance experts say there’s no way to know whether the money given to Republican PACs will end up directly in the campaign accounts of incumbents who objected to the election results. These Republican committees, like the ones for Democrats, help incumbents in a variety of ways, whether through direct contributions or technical and professional help with voter data, advertising and get-out-the-vote assistance.

Moreover, corporate donations to the party committees do not include so-called dark money contributions given to groups that are not required to disclose details publicly. Dark money is a favored vehicle for corporate giving.

“It’s completely frustrating from an accountability point of view,” said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a Stetson University Law School professor who studies corporate campaign finance.

Many of the lawmakers who objected to the certification leaned heavily on the GOP House and Senate election committees in the past and can be expected to want substantial help from them again.

For the 2020 election, the NRCC passed along contributions to 39 Republican lawmakers who later objected to the election result, compared with 11 who did not. Altogether, the objectors of Jan. 6 got five times more money in total last year than did those who later voted to certify the states’ electoral tallies.

Pfizer, GE, Walmart and other companies contacted by the AP said their criticism of lawmakers who objected to the election results stands.

For other companies, the pledges may just be a cynical attempt to look good in the eyes of the public. Few of the companies that made pledges tended to give big donations to individual lawmakers anyway, preferring the big party PACs or dark money groups.

Weiner said that if companies were serious about using their clout to support democracy, they would fund efforts to defeat Republican measures that would make it harder to vote in many states.

Published in Dawn, July 5th, 2021

Opinion

Justice for judges
Updated 30 Jul 2021

Justice for judges

It beggars belief that a senior high court judge is incompetent to serve in the Supreme Court.
Follow the child
30 Jul 2021

Follow the child

Observe the child and give her space to explore her own instincts.
Cost of neoliberalism
30 Jul 2021

Cost of neoliberalism

Our mental health crisis must be seen in the larger sociopolitical context.

Editorial

30 Jul 2021

Judge’s elevation

A CONTROVERSY roiling the legal fraternity for a few weeks has come to a head. It was precipitated by the Judicial...
PTI’s Sialkot win
30 Jul 2021

PTI’s Sialkot win

The PML-N’s internal duality is a particularly acute factor that is dragging down the party in electoral contests.
30 Jul 2021

Attack on Chinese

AN attack targeting two Chinese nationals in Karachi on Wednesday should put the security apparatus on alert in ...
29 Jul 2021

Saudi FM’s visit

THE Saudi-Pakistan relationship is decades old and has weathered a number of geopolitical storms. Of late, ties came...
29 Jul 2021

SBP’s high hopes

THE June spike in the current account deficit notwithstanding, the State Bank doesn’t look too worried about the...
Joy and sadness on K2
Updated 29 Jul 2021

Joy and sadness on K2

Pakistan’s mountains have a commercial value that remains untapped.