Companies spend indirectly on politics

Companies spend indirectly on politics

WASHINGTON — Some of the nation's largest publicly traded companies said they will not channel corporate funds directly into political advertising that targets candidates, even though it is legal for them to do so. But most of the companies surveyed by the non-partisan Center for Political Accountability said they have no plans to impose conditions on political spending by their trade associations, which are non-profits that can collect and spend unlimited amounts on campaign ads without publicly revealing their donors. One of the biggest is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has promised to spend a record $75 million in this year's elections.

"Companies might be pumping in many millions of dollars into elections that could be undisclosed," said Bruce Freed, president of the center, which encourages companies to disclose their political activity. "More and more trade associations are the vehicles for company political spending and activity."

Forty companies through Sept. 1 answered the survey, which went to 500 publicly traded companies.

None of the companies that responded said it would use corporate money to run independent ads that call for the election or defeat of candidates, a practice allowed after the Supreme Court in January struck down a decades-old ban on spending for those types of ads. Three —Coca-Cola, IBM and Hartford Financial Services Group — said they impose conditions on trade-group spending.

A fourth, Norfolk Southern, said it would raise concerns if a trade association engaged in political advertising with which it disagreed, but the corporation said it doesn't have procedures to track such spending.

James Hixon, executive vice president for law and corporate relations, said Norfolk Southern's political activity centers on contributions by its employee political action committee.

"We don't see the need to change the process we have had in place," he said. "We've supported our friends from both parties, and those who are not our friends, we just haven't supported."

Retail giant Target recently issued a public apology after it donated $150,000 to a pro-business group that supported Tom Emmer, a GOP candidate for Minnesota governor and a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage. The company, which prides itself on liberal personnel practices such as benefits for domestic partners, has been criticized by gay-rights and liberal groups, such as MoveOn.org.

The donation became public because Minnesota's campaign laws required the group, MN Forward, to reveal its donors. But campaign-finance watchdogs, such as Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21, noted that similar disclosure requirements for non-profit groups, such as trade associations, are missing at the federal level. A bill that would require non-profits and others engaged in political advertising to include the names of their top donors on their TV commercials stalled in the Senate.

Companies "have a sweet deal now," said Wertheimer, who supports the federal proposal. "Corporations can claim they are not going to make these expenditures while secretly giving money to other groups to make the expenditures. That must be changed."

Trade associations are powerful players in Washington and state government, allowing businesses to pool their resources to lobby lawmakers and regulators. Three such trade groups — the Chamber of Commerce, the American Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America — each spent more than $10 million on lobbying during the first six months of this year, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics.

The chamber, which represents more than 3 million businesses, recently spent nearly $1 million in a single day on a TV ad to influence the New Hampshire race for the U.S. Senate, federal records show.

Read full article