Per conversations here at DKos regarding donations to political causes by (among others) employees of large and powerful corporations, there are apparently still people in the world who don’t know about the phenomenon of corporations pressuring their employees—especially, but not only, their high-level employees —to donate to political causes and candidates that they see as favoring their respective industries. So, let’s take a look at some investigations into the phenomenon. Please go to the links to see more, as these are just excerpts from broader stories.
Reuters, 2015:
It wasn’t long ago that politics, like religious affiliation or sexual orientation, was a taboo topic in the American workplace. Political beliefs were considered a private affair - off limits to the boss.
But today employers are increasingly approaching workers to fundraise, lobby and campaign in ways they never have before, according to a Reuters analysis of FEC filings and data compiled by the Business Industry Political Action Committee. The Washington trade group, which has offices across the street from the White House, helps firms such as Wal-Mart, Halliburton and Lockheed Martin mobilize employees on policy issues important to the companies.
www.reuters.com/...
From the fossil-fuel industry specifically:
Earlier this month, the United States’ largest independent coal company was slapped with a lawsuit by a former employee, claiming she was illegally fired for refusing to give money to political candidates chosen by her boss. That boss, Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, allegedly sent letters to his employees asking them to support pro-coal candidates for political office, keeping track of who made the requested contributions and who didn’t. Employees of Murray Energy and its subsidiary companies were aware that failing to contribute could impact their jobs, the lawsuit claimed.
thinkprogress.org/...
CFO magazine, 2004:
That pressure apparently exists at higher levels, too. In CFO’s survey, 79 percent of respondents held the title of vice president or higher (among them, 45 percent were CFOs, 17 percent controllers, and 11 percent vice presidents of finance). Yet even at those levels, 24 percent said not giving to their corporate PAC could be detrimental to their careers, and another 16 percent said they were unsure.
[...]
Nonetheless, almost 40 percent of top finance executives don’t fully believe their careers are unaffected by their workplace political contributions. (For more, see our July article “Office Politics.”)
ww2.cfo.com/...
All the way back in 1989:
Donations to the political action committee for Barnett Banks' 34 banks in Florida and Georgia are voluntary. But employees are spurred on by the bank presidents who serve as ''team captains.'' Captains who encourage 90 percent of their senior staff to sign up are rewarded with free trips to Washington and other perks.
www.nytimes.com/...
And this happens, too:
Executives take note: Election insiders say it’s easier to run afoul of the FEC rules than is commonly realized. One obvious example: A corporate honcho agrees to raise, say, $100,000, only to discover afterward that friends and colleagues aren’t inclined to cough up the dough. So the executive gives the money to his friends and colleagues and requests that they contribute in their own names. Such conduit contributions are a clear no-no.
www.forbes.com/...
This guy got so sick of being pressured by his Bank of America bosses that he sued them:
A former Bank of America Corp. executive alleged in an arbitration filing that the bank used "creative accounting" in booking financial losses and that executives were inappropriately ordered to make charitable and political contributions at the behest of the bank.
The allegations are part of a claim filed Tuesday by former Bank of America executive Duncan Goldie-Morrison with the National Association of Securities Dealers, which hears employment claims and other disputes in the securities industry.
www.wsj.com/...
I could go on, but I’ll stop there.
P.S. Related.
Oh yeah: you can donate to Greenpeace here.
Update: Comment from thread below:
www.dailykos.com/…
I’ve worked for both Exxon and Schlumberger, Schlumberger right before the 1994 mid-terms and Exxon right before the 1996 presidential election… in both cases there was a very clear and very open policy of donating for the “chosen” slate of candidates. It never got to the point of illegal advocacy (I am sure that the companies had very good lawyers determining the extent to which the envelope could be pushed, and the exact location of the “line” that could not be crossed)… but it was blatant.
Employee “donations” to corporate-preferred causes were also strongly “encouraged” in meetings, in training seminars, in the morning round-up and in the end-of-day wrap up sessions as well. Usually right at the beginning of the meeting and at the very end of the meeting.
Everything was very well organized, and the various “cash buckets” either animate or inanimate were readily available, and the various legal forms required to show that this “donation” was “voluntary and personal” were properly vetted and prominently displayed.