Study: Where do Minnesota companies rank in political disclosure?

A study released today ranked the top 100 S&P companies on how well they disclose their political activities, finding that many companies are moving towards adoption of disclosure policies, although others, such as 3M, are being left behind.

The ability for corporations to spend huge amounts of cash on elections without disclosure arose with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The first high-profile example of citizen discontent with corporate influence on the political system came when Target gave $150,000 to a business association backing the gubernatorial bid of Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage. The backlash provoked many companies to take a second look at their political disclosure and spending policies.

The study was done by the Wharton Center for Business Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and the Center for Political Accountability. It ranked the top 100 S&P companies based on their policies involving disclosure of contributions, independent expenditures, payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups and payments to ballot measure committees. I also took into account whether a company publicly archived spending reports and their level of board oversight over political involvement.

Fourteen national companies received a score of zero, meaning they offered little to no disclosure of their political activity. Those companies include Berkshire Hathaway, Walt Disney and Halliburton.

On the other side of the scale, Merck, IBM and Exelon all offered very good disclosure policies (the full ranking is at the bottom of this post).

Minnesota companies ranked for political transparency

For Minnesota companies, US Bancorp ranked at the top of the pack for transparency and disclosure. US Bancorp voluntarily reported dues paid to trade associations that fund lobbying in 2010 at more than $700,000, according to the Sunlight Foundation. There’s no legal requirement to disclose those sort of dues.

Statement on political involvement from the company’s website:

“U.S. Bancorp does not make contributions to other political actions organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code or to special interest lobbying groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, even when legally permissible.”

3M came in at the bottom of the ranking, offering little disclosure to the public or stockholders of the company’s political activities. 3M also consistently involved itself in state ballot measures, from attempts to limit people’s rights to sue companies to Minnesota’s transportation amendment, according to the Center for Political Accountability:

“In 2002, it contributed $10,000 to the committee Yes on 64 Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits, which was formed in support of a successful proposition to create certain limitations on an individual’s right to sue a company because of unfair business practices. In 2006, the company contributed $5000 to Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team, which supported an unsuccessful proposition to increase from two to five complete years the amount of time public school teachers must wait to become permanent employees.”

Neither shareholders nor the public has access to the full amount of money 3M pays to trade associations that then lobby on the company’s behalf.

Target, which served as an example for what could go wrong when corporations try to influence politics, is ranked in the middle of the study. Target has no policy on independent expenditures, but doesn’t allow dues for trade associations to be used for political purposes.

Source: Center for Political Accountability