You are hereHome >
First-of-its-kind “Refrain From Political Spending” Resolution to Be Voted on at Bank of America Shareholder Meeting
For Immediate Release, May 7, 2012
First-of-its-kind “Refrain From Political Spending” Resolution to Be Voted on at Bank of America Shareholder Meeting Wednesday
Resolution would ask the corporation to opt out of the unlimited, often secret spending ability afforded to it by the Supreme Court in Citizens United
On Wednesday, May 9, shareholders at Bank of America will vote “yea” or “nay” on a first-of-its-kind “refrain from political spending” resolution. Resolutions addressing political spending are among the most popular in the 2012 shareholder season, many dealing with disclosure of such spending. This is the first shareholder season for this groundbreaking resolution which was introduced by socially responsible investment firms Trillium Asset Management at Bank of America and 3M Corporation and by Green Century Capital Management at Target Corporation.
“This resolution strikes at the heart of the corporate and special interest erosion of our democracy. Bank of America is the archetype of the reckless corporation that we do not want having unlimited power in our democracy,” said Blair Bowie, Democracy Advocate at Georgia PIRG, a good government group which in conjunction with the Corporate Reform Coalition, has been organizing citizens and shareholder groups in support of the resolution.
The resolution would request that the board of directors refrain from using corporate treasury funds to influence the political process. This would include contributions to Super PACs, political non-profits, such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) -- of which Bank of America is a known member--, and trade associations, such as the Chamber of Commerce. The resolution would not affect lobbying expenditures, separate segregated fund (PAC) spending, or the ability of employees to participate in the political process.
In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United vs. the FEC that corporations have the right to contribute unlimited sums of money to influence an election, opening the floodgates for the type of corporate political spending which the “refrain” resolution seeks to address. Since that decision, outside spending in elections increased from $3.4 million in 2006 to $58.4 million in 2010 and from $25 million in 2008 to $121.1 million so far in 2012.
“With its reputation and stock price at historic lows, any mucking around in politics only creates more risks for the Bank’s shareholders. Corporate political spending is dangerous for shareholders and dangerous for democracy and if our courts and elected officials will not do it then we will rein in the corporations we own ourselves, starting at Bank of America,” concluded Bowie.
Recent studies have shown that political spending can have a negative impact on a corporation’s bottom line. An April 25 study from the University of Kansas and the University of Minnesota found a decline of 7.4 basis points in risk-adjusted stock return for every $10,000 in political donations and found a relationship between high political spending and poor corporate governance.
In addition, political contributions by Target Corporation and 3M became the subject of outrage and boycotts in 2010, leading to brand and reputation damage that many shareholder groups view as a threat to their investment.
 Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/index.php
 “Corporate political donations do not boost stock performance, KU professor says.” April 25, 2012. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-corporate-political-donations-boost-stock.html
 “Protestors to target 3M political contributions.” May 4, 2012. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-3m-meeting-idUSBRE8431FM20120504
Defend the CFPB
Tell your senators to oppose the “Financial CHOICE Act,” which would gut Wall Street reforms and destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as we know it.
Your donation supports Georgia PIRG’s work to stand up for consumers on the issues that matter, especially when powerful interests are blocking progress.