by Claude Solnik
Published: October 3, 2011

It looks like a few firms have agreed to open the books on their political donations, a year after the Supreme Court unceremoniously closed the door on once strict limits to contributions.

A trio of Fortune 500 companies whose stock is held by the New York State Common Retirement Fund have agreed to disclose their political campaign contributions and procedures, after requests from New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

DiNapoli said Marriott International, Yum Brands (parent of Pizza Hut and Taco Bell) and Limited Brands(parent of Henri Bendel and Victoria’s Secret), whose stock is held by the state’s $146.9 billion retirement fund, agreed to disclose contributions to political campaigns and advocacy groups and outline their approval process for political contributions.

The comptroller and the Center for Political Accountability began a push last year for greater disclosure after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the doors to big corporate contributions.

“There’s cause for concern when corporations make it their business to finance campaigns,” DiNapoli said. “Now we’re asking corporations to do the responsible thing for their shareholders and for the public. These three companies have heeded the call.”

After finding that about 70 of the S&P 500 companies had public policies regarding disclosing political donations, the comptroller and the center sent out letters requesting information from the remaining firms.

“We engaged with these companies. Some came forward and said we’ll work with you,” said Eric Sumberg, a spokesman for the comptroller. “We proposed shareholder resolutions at some.”

The retirement fund filed nine shareholder resolutions, leading to agreements with these three firms during the proxy season.

The New York State Common Retirement Fund as of Sept. 16 owned nearly $150 million combined in these firms’ shares including 1.6 million shares of Yum Brands worth $86.2 million; 873,292 shares of Limited Brands worth $35.2 million and 938,109 shares of Marriott International worth $27.4 million.

DiNapoli said he’s continuing to push for disclosure of corporate contributions as a way of monitoring spending of firms whose shares are held by the state an their interaction with the political process.

“Proxy season is in the spring,” Sumberg said. “Over the next couple of months, we’ll look at which companies to engage with the next season. Hopefully, we’ll have more successful engagements.”

Aiming to spur greater corporate involvement in the reform of U.S. immigration policy, the Unitarian Universalist Association, along with more than 60 institutional investors, is urging the CEOs of leading American companies to speak out for immigration policy reform.

The group of investors, representing more than $145 billion, issued a letter on February 23 urging CEOs to speak out publicly in support of reform that includes a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants. The letter suggests that companies post their support on their websites and in other corporate publications.

The initiative was spearheaded by Tim Brennan, treasurer and chief financial officer of the UUA. He said the religious witness events in Phoenix, Ariz., in July 2010 prompted leaders of the UUA to think about how they could apply their shareholder advocacy to the immigration issue. During the July 2010 protests, more than 150 Unitarian Universalists gathered to protest Arizona’s strict anti-illegal immigration laws, and 29 people, including UUA President Peter Morales, were arrested for their civil disobedience.

Brennan convened the first meeting of the group’s original investors in September 2010. Among the original group that crafted the initiative were officials with Walden Asset Management, Mercy Investment Services, Boston Common Asset Management, and New York City Comptroller John C. Liu.

The letter, signed by representatives of labor unions, investment firms, and faith-based investors, calls immigration reform a “human rights and business imperative.” It urges companies to speak out “in favor of a comprehensive immigration policy, including a pathway for currently unauthorized immigrants to earn legal status. Recognizing the historic and ongoing importance of immigrants in creating a prosperous U.S. economy, we are deeply troubled by the contentious public debate that is stifling progress on an issue that should rise above partisanship. A successful outcome is much more likely if major corporations express publicly their strong support for immigration reform.”

The investor group was eager to use their leverage as shareholders to push reform. One option frequently employed by activist shareholders—the resolution presented at the annual general meeting—was determined to be inappropriate for this application because of SEC limitations. To address what is primarily a public policy issue, the investors believed that direct appeals to corporate CEOs would be more effective. “Getting companies to speak out on public policy can create a model for what public debate might look like,” Brennan said. “The debate has gotten irrational.”

The original working group was inspired by an effort by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, whose office spearheaded the creation of the Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan coalition of mayors and business leaders who are making the economic case for sensible immigration reform. “Humane, comprehensive immigration reform is necessary for New York City and the rest of our nation to remain competitive in the global marketplace,” said Liu, New York City comptroller.

In addition to being a business imperative, humane immigration policy is also a moral imperative, the signers urge. “Regardless of our faith, we share a moral responsibility to stop the suffering caused by the current immigration policy, especially to families,” said Brennan. “And as members of the investment community, we know the path to economic prosperity lies ultimately with the humane treatment of our workers.”

The letter calls effective and fair immigration reform a “shared responsibility of individuals, companies, and government.” It states that the major components of comprehensive reform should include: effective border control, employer accountability, improved processes for needed temporary and permanent workers, and a pathway to legal status for currently unauthorized residents. “We believe comprehensive reform must be developed and implemented consistent with the human rights of all concerned, value the integrity of families, and prevent immigrant workers—be they temporary or permanent—from being subjected to second-class employment standards,” the letter said.

The letter was sent to CEOs of major American companies, and it asked them to respond by March 16, to join the effort to advocate for humane immigration reform. “We call on corporate America to be a champion of sensible immigration reform,” said Heidi Soumerai, senior vice president for Walden Asset Management. “Reform is good for business, is rooted in a great source of America’s strength, and is simply the right thing to do.”

Read the original article here.

March 4, 2011

The Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) has spearheaded a group of more than sixty institutional investors who are demanding comprehensive reform of America's broken immigration system. These institutional investors, representing more than $145 billion in assets, are asking chief executive officers (CEOs) of leading companies in the United States to speak out for immigration policy reform and to say that repairing our current immigration system is an economic and human rights imperative.

This effort was proposed and initiated by UUA Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer Tim Brennan. Along with UUA, other leaders of the initiative include Heidi Soumerai of Walden Asset Management, Susan Makos of Mercy Investment Services, Inc., Dawn Wolfe of Boston Common Asset Management, and John Liu, Comptroller for the City of New York.

In a political climate marked by growing anti-immigrant rhetoric, the UUA and its fellow investors hope to interject a reasonable voice into the immigration debate. They cite the need for corporate leaders to support and protect the labor force on which they rely, and to speak out against exploitation and abuse of workers in industries that rely heavily on immigrants.

To achieve their goal, the group has contacted CEOs of major American corporations to advocate for a balanced approach to immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship and increased opportunities for immigrants to enter the US workforce. Signatories point out that this initiative is grounded in the desire for social justice and includes strong interfaith cooperation, while also focusing on their fiduciary responsibility.

"Regardless of our faith affiliation, we all share a moral responsibility to stop the suffering caused by the current immigration policy, especially to families," says Brennan, "and as members of the investment community, we know the path to economic prosperity lies ultimately with the humane treatment of our workers."

Despite their contributions to American society, all immigrants are at risk as a result of the current inflammatory rhetoric that engenders discrimination and incites violence. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights suggests that an alarming escalation of hate crimes against Hispanics through 2007 appears to correlate with the debate on immigration reform.

As of March 2009, there were an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who either were undocumented immigrants themselves or were born in the U.S. with at least one undocumented immigrant parent. These children are extremely vulnerable to policies that could permanently separate their families. Moreover, the fear of exposure keeps undocumented workers, who are disproportionately represented in low-wage occupations, especially vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who can violate wage, safety, and discrimination laws with impunity.

"We know achieving justice in immigration reform will be challenging," says Brennan. "But I am honored to represent the UUA in this effort, which is so clearly grounded in our principles and social justice work."

Daisy Kincaid, Public Relations Director for the UUA, coordinated the creation and distribution of the press release for this effort. Read the letter sent to CEOs.

The work of the UUA is made possible by the generosity of individual donors and gifts to the Annual Program Fund. Please consider making a donation today to continue this important work.

Walden Asset Management; Unitarian Universalist Association

BOSTON, March 2, 2011 -- 

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- More than 60 institutional investors are calling on CEOs of the leading companies in the United States to speak out for immigration policy reform. They say that fixing our broken immigration system is an economic and human rights imperative.

In a political climate marked by growing anti-immigrant rhetoric, these investment leaders are pushing for a national immigration policy that provides the basis for long-term economic growth while addressing a crucial human rights issue. Leaders of the initiative include John Liu, Comptroller for the City of New York, as well as senior management from Mercy Investment Services, Inc., Boston Common Asset Management, Walden Asset Management, and the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA).

The group aims to interject a reasonable voice into the immigration debate, citing the need for greater corporate involvement in the reform process. Immigration reform is imperative, they say, to ensure a competitive U.S. labor force and a cessation of exploitation and abuse in industries that rely heavily on immigrant workers.

To achieve its goal, the group is asking CEOs of major American corporations to advocate for a balanced approach to immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship and increased opportunities for immigrants to enter the United States workforce. Further, CEOs are urged to participate in meaningful immigration discussion that transcends partisan politics and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

They cite the recently created Partnership for a New American Economy (www.renewoureconomy.org) as an example of how companies can contribute to the policy debate in a positive way. This is a bipartisan coalition led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, with CEOs of Boeing, Marriot, Microsoft, News Corporation, and Walt Disney as co-chairs of the Partnership.

As of March 2009, there were an estimated 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants (down 8% from the 2007 peak), of whom 1.1 million are children. Four million more children were born in the U.S. and are living with at least one unauthorized immigrant parent. These children are vulnerable to policies that could undermine their ability to become contributing members of our society. Moreover, the fear of exposure keeps undocumented workers vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who violate wage, safety, and discrimination laws.

Read the original article here.

More Details: http://www.waldenassetmgmt.com/social/action/immigration_PR2011.pdf

By Jeff Cossette

Doling out corporate cash to support political campaigns is not winning any votes with shareholders.

The debacle at Target pointed to just how bad it could be. Despite a strong record in support of diversity, the Minnesota-based retailer embroiled itself in a stew of controversy and boycott last summer after revelations it gave a remarkably generous fraction of the corporate treasury to an organization that supported a politician some considered a bigot. Now the incident has reverberated into the shareowner relations realm with Target facing the uncomfortable prospect of a shareholder resolution on its corporate political activities.

Still, Target isn't alone. More than 45 companies could face proxy initiatives on disclosing and accounting for their political donations this year. Since such resolutions were first filed in 2004, shareholders are increasingly inclined to support them. Last year saw an average 30 percent vote in favor of 28 resolutions on contribution disclosure resolutions; votes above 40 percent were reached at Coventry Health Care, CVS Caremark and Sprint Nextel. Proxy advisers, public pension funds and mainstream mutual funds are getting on the bandwagon. Even business leaders oppose secretive political spending, according to a recent poll.

'There are real risks involved in political giving,' explains Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability (CPA), a Washington-based corporate governance advocate. Freed co-wrote a handbook on corporate political activity with the Conference Board that warned companies face heightened financial, legal and reputational risk following the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling, which effectively eliminated most legal restraints on corporate political spending. The widely distributed handbook also includes a model code of conduct developed by the CPA. 'Our request is straightforward,' says Freed. 'That companies disclose the political spending of all corporate funds and adopt and disclose policies for review and management.'

Just over half of S&P 100 companies now meet the CPA's basic guidelines, but investors remain engaged in about a dozen dialogues. 'A resolution is just a way to spur a dialogue,' says Freed. 'Our preference is to resolve this. But some companies, frankly, have not been moved.' He points to Goldman Sachs as one example. 'It has made some movement but the sticking point is its disclosure of money given to trade associations.' To add pressure on such companies, the CPA will soon introduce an index rating companies' political disclosure and accountability.

The Chamber

Indeed, corporate payments - often secret - to controversial trade associations have become a major issue for investors. A coalition of CPA members and other institutions filed resolutions in November at Accenture, IBM, PepsiCo and Pfizer (among the 120 or so members of the board of the US Chamber of Commerce) to disclose and review their oversight of trade association donations.

'The significant disconnect between some of the Chamber of Commerce's goals and many corporations' goals and stated CSR values troubles investors,' says Shelley Alpern, vice president at Trillium Asset Management. 'They are wondering why these companies associate with a trade association actively working against their interests.' The board, which has opposed measures aimed at climate change, reportedly poured $75 mn into the 2010 election campaigns largely to unseat pro-healthcare reform candidates. In recent years, Nike withdrew as a board member while Apple and energy utility PG&E resigned as members as a result of the chamber's climate change position.

'We are trying to have a thoughtful conversation with companies on this issue,' adds Tim Smith, senior vice president at Walden Asset Management. 'It's an uncomfortable issue to deal with. Few companies are stepping up and saying, Yes, we must reassess our role on the board. Still, many business leaders recognize it's not good for a major business organization to be so partisan.'

The Sticking Point

Companies have taken a broad variety of approaches to political participation risk. Some, like IBM and Avon, skirt the issue entirely by banning any sort of contribution. Microsoft, acknowledging the Citizens United case, has informed trade associations its contributions may not be used for independent expenditures. Merck posts its political contributions categorized by state candidate and amount on its website, and discloses the portion of dues major US trade associations report as being used for political advocacy.

Norfolk Southern recently agreed to beef up its political disclosure policy after receiving shareholder proposals on the issue from the New York City pension funds. The shipping and transportation company will not only disclose its political contributions, but will also state on its website when the company disagrees with political efforts supported by trade associations to which it belongs. The NYC Comptroller gushed that Norfolk Southern's new transparency stood 'in stark contrast to those corporations that make anonymous donations to trade associations to hide management's support for issues and political campaigns that may be publicly distasteful or even contrary to their company's publicly stated positions or best interests'.

This year, the New York City pension funds have renewed their call for transparency, filing proposals at six companies, including Charles Schwab, Coventry Health Care and Sprint Nextel, to provide detailed accounts of their direct and indirect political contributions and who decides to make them.

Meanwhile, another group of investors filed proposals at oil firms Valero Energy, Tesoro, and Occidental Petroleum seeking an independent board review of their political spending policies. The resolutions were inspired by the companies' support for a California ballot initiative to block the state's global warming law. At least one resolution has been withdrawn, however: Tesoro agreed in December to the disclosure and board oversight of all direct and indirect political spending.

'Working with Tesoro was a cooperative experience,' remarks Laura Campos, director of shareholder activities at the Nathan Cummings Foundation. 'In many of our dialogues over the years, the main sticking point has been disclosure of contributions to trade and other associations.'

The Argument

That's just where Bruce Herbert is stuck. As founder of Seattle-based Newground Social Investment he's been pursuing Boeing on political spending issues for several years. 'Boeing has made some disclosures,' he says. 'But it isn't willing to disclose what it pay to trade associations. That's the big one.'

While activist arguments are framed in terms of financial opportunity and risk and the materiality of superficially non-financial issues, the broader implications of a brave new post-Citizen's United world are lost to none. 'The court was astonishingly naïve or extremely cynical and manipulative,' Herbert says. ' is ludicrous and counter to democracy and the common good.' Pointing to the rising flow of direct and anonymous funding in US elections, he adds: 'Spending so much money won't benefit us as investors and it certainly can't benefit us as citizens.'

'The materiality argument holds the day,' confirms Laura Berry, executive director of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility (ICCR) whose members filed at least 25 shareholder resolutions aimed at corporate political spending. 'But broader issues come up when one human being talks with another. I've met some deeply engaged people at the highest corporate levels who desire the kinds of transparency we are talking about.'

As for rolling back Citizens United, Berry sees light in the longer term. 'We need to go through another presidential election cycle before people start to really see the money flows,' she says. 'There will undoubtedly be many examples demonstrating its flawed judgment.'

Spending Patterns

While nearly 80 percent of S&P 500 companies have disclosed political spending policies, they are often communicated with a short, imprecise statement buried deep in the company's website, according to a report released last October by the Investor Responsibility Research Center Institute and Sustainable Investments Institute. The study also finds less than one quarter of companies require boards to oversee political spending, with health boards most likely to be involved. Less than 14 percent have revealed policies on indirect spending. Financials are least likely to provide information on indirect spending. Less than 20 percent of America's largest companies provide any information on how much they spend. Utilities are most prone to political giving, technology companies least.

Read the full article here.