Corporate donations

Last updated

The term corporate donation refers to any financial contribution made by a corporation to another organization that furthers the contributor's own objectives. Two major kinds of such donations deserve specific consideration, charitable as well as political donations.

Contents

According to a 2020 study of large United States-based corporations, "6.3 percent of corporate charitable giving may be politically motivated, an amount 2.5 times larger than annual PAC contributions and 35 percent of federal lobbying. Absent of disclosure requirements, charitable giving may be a form of corporate political influence undetected by voters and subsidized by taxpayers." [1]

Charitable donations

Corporations give to charitable causes, either because of the personal convictions of influential leaders within the corporation, or more commonly to help establish the public perception that the corporation is a good corporate citizen.

Types

Corporate charitable giving can be divided into direct cash and non-cash contributions. Direct cash giving comes from corporate headquarters, regional offices, or company sponsored foundations. Examples of direct cash contributions include:

Non-cash contributions are contributions of equipment, supplies or time, and do not include cash contributions. Examples of non-cash contributions include:

Non-cash contributions can also be interpreted through an organization's policy to allow employees paid time off when performing volunteer work.

Annual charitable giving figures

Total corporate cash donations in 2010 are estimated to be $15.29 billion in the United States. [2] Of that, ~80%-85% came from corporate grants and sponsorship of fundraising events while ~15%-20% or $2–$3 billion came from corporate matching gifts and volunteer grants. [4]

Political donations

There is a wide range of models of political finance in democracies; political donations by individuals and organizations are one of many sources of funding.

United States

In the US, corporations are prohibited from making expenditures to influence federal elections. [5] [6] Similar restrictions exist in many state elections and have been upheld by the US Supreme Court. [7]

Corporations may make donations to Political Action Committees (PACs); PACs generally have strict limits on their ability to advocate on behalf of specific parties or candidates, or even to coordinate their activities with political campaigns. PACs are subject to disclosure requirements at the federal and state levels. The ability of corporations to engage in such independent expenditures has been subject to intense debate after the US Supreme Court struck down, on free-speech grounds, limits in Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving the creation of a film critical of Hillary Clinton by a nonprofit corporation.

Donations are closely tracked by several organizations including OpenSecrets. Such organizations often group donations under specific corporations, but such donations refer to contributions from individuals and PACs associated with the corporation, not "corporate donations".

Corporate donations to PACs and Super PACs are a First Amendment issue and subject to intense political debate in the US. Proponents of tighter regulations of political donations by corporations argue [8] that corporate donations corrupt democracy. Other research suggests that post-election lobbying and access to politicians, rather than campaign contributions, shapes and reinforces policy decision by politicians. [9]

Germany

In Germany, both individuals and corporations may make unlimited contributions to political parties. These contributions are partially tax exempt and partially matched by government funds; contributions of more than 10000 Euros are reportable.

During the 2013 election cycle in Germany, corporations and other organizations made direct contributions to German political parties in the amount of at least 24.2 million Euros. [10] Due to public subsidies of political parties and membership dues, such donations in Germany generally represent about 15% of the total revenue of major political parties; see Party finance in Germany.

Other countries

Australia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey have no limits on either contributions for parliamentary elections or on spending on such elections.

In Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Poland, and Slovenia, there are limits on both contributions and spending

Austria, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand, Slovakia, the United Kingdom have no limits on contributions but do have limits on spending.

Finland and the United States have limits on contributions but not on spending. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

Campaign finance laws in the United States have been a contentious political issue since the early days of the union. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold", is the most recent major federal law affecting campaign finance, the key provisions of which prohibited unregulated contributions to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money to fund ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election, until BCRA's provisions limiting corporate and union expenditures for issue advertising were overturned in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.

In the United States, a political action committee (PAC) is a 527 organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaigns for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. The legal term PAC has been created in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. This term is quite specific to all activities of campaign finance in the United States. Democracies of other countries use different terms for the units of campaign spending or spending on political competition. At the U.S. federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $1,000 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, and registers with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), according to the Federal Election Campaign Act as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state's election laws.

A 527 organization or 527 group is a type of U.S. tax-exempt organization organized under Section 527 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. A 527 group is created primarily to influence the selection, nomination, election, appointment or defeat of candidates to federal, state or local public office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Federal Election Campaign Act</span>

The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 is the primary United States federal law regulating political campaign fundraising and spending. The law originally focused on creating limits for campaign spending on communication media, adding additional penalties to the criminal code for election law violations, and imposing disclosure requirements for federal political campaigns. The Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon on February 7, 1972.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fundraising</span> Process of gathering voluntary contributions of money or other resources

Fundraising or fund-raising is the process of seeking and gathering voluntary financial contributions by engaging individuals, businesses, charitable foundations, or governmental agencies. Although fundraising typically refers to efforts to gather money for non-profit organizations, it is sometimes used to refer to the identification and solicitation of investors or other sources of capital for for-profit enterprises.

An independent expenditure, in elections in the United States, is a political campaign communication that expressly advocates for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate that is not made in cooperation, consultation or concert with; or at the request or suggestion of a candidate, candidate's authorized committee or political party. If a candidate, his/her agent, his/her authorized committee, his/her party, or an "agent" for one of these groups becomes "materially involved", the expenditure is not independent.

A publicly funded election is an election funded with money collected through income tax donations or taxes as opposed to private or corporate funded campaigns. It is a policy initially instituted after Nixon for candidates to opt into publicly funded presidential campaigns via optional donations from tax returns. It is an attempt to move toward a one voice, one vote democracy, and remove undue corporate and private entity dominance.

Matching funds are funds that are set to be paid in proportion to funds available from other sources. Matching fund payments usually arise in situations of charity or public good. The terms cost sharing, in-kind, and matching can be used interchangeably but refer to different types of donations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign finance in the United States</span> Contributions to American election campaign funds

Campaign finance in the United States is the financing of electoral campaigns at the federal, state, and local levels. At the federal level, campaign finance law is enacted by Congress and enforced by the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an independent federal agency. Although most campaign spending is privately financed, public financing is available for qualifying candidates for President of the United States during both the primaries and the general election. Eligibility requirements must be fulfilled to qualify for a government subsidy, and those that do accept government funding are usually subject to spending limits on money.

Electoral reform in the United States refers to efforts to change American elections and the electoral system used in the United States.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It was argued in 2009 and decided in 2010. The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Colbert Super PAC</span>

Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow was a United States political action committee (PAC) established by Stephen Colbert, who portrayed Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, a mock-conservative political pundit on Comedy Central's satirical television series The Colbert Report. As a super PAC the organization could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions and other groups, as well as wealthy individuals. Speaking in character, Colbert said the money would be raised not only for political ads, but also "normal administrative expenses, including but not limited to, luxury hotel stays, private jet travel, and PAC mementos from Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Campaign Legal Center</span> American nonprofit organization

Campaign Legal Center (CLC) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) government watchdog group in the United States. CLC supports strong enforcement of United States campaign finance laws. Trevor Potter, former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission, is CLC's founding president.

Political finance covers all funds that are raised and spent for political purposes. Such purposes include all political contests for voting by citizens, especially the election campaigns for various public offices that are run by parties and candidates. Moreover, all modern democracies operate a variety of permanent party organizations, e.g. the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee in the United States or the Conservative Central Office and the Labour headquarters in the United Kingdom. The annual budgets of such organizations will have to be considered as costs of political competition as well. In Europe the allied term "party finance" is frequently used. It refers only to funds that are raised and spent in order to influence the outcome of some sort of party competition. Whether to include other political purposes, e.g. public relation campaigns by lobby groups, is still an unresolved issue. Even a limited range of political purposes indicates that the term "campaign funds" is too narrow to cover all funds that are deployed in the political process.

Party finance in Germany is the subject of statutory reports, which up to 35 parties file annually with the administration of the German parliament. Important questions pertaining to political party funding can be answered by analysing the data given in these financial reports: How much money is raised and spent by each party operating in Germany? What assets are at the disposal, which debts are on the books of German parties? For which purposes did parties spend their funds? From which itemized sources did a specific party collect its revenue? Who are the donors of major contributions and how much did each donor give during a specific calendar year?

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dark money</span> American political term for unlimited political contributions of 501(c) organizations

In the politics of the United States, dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations—for example, 501(c)(4) 501(c)(5) (unions) and 501(c)(6) groups—that are not required to disclose their donors. Such organizations can receive unlimited donations from corporations, individuals and unions. In this way, their donors can spend funds to influence elections without voters knowing where the money came from. Dark money first entered politics with Buckley v. Valeo (1976), when the United States Supreme Court laid out Eight Magic Words that define the difference between electioneering and issue advocacy.

Jonathan Zucker is a political technology entrepreneur and campaign finance attorney best known as the founder of Democracy Engine, the first COO and second CEO of ActBlue and the founder of It Starts Today.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Anti-Corruption Act</span> American model legislation

The American Anti-Corruption Act (AACA), sometimes shortened to Anti-Corruption Act, is a piece of model legislation designed to limit the influence of money in American politics by overhauling lobbying, transparency, and campaign finance laws. It was crafted in 2011 "by former Federal Election Commission chairman Trevor Potter in consultation with dozens of strategists, democracy reform leaders and constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum," and is supported by reform organizations such as Represent.Us, which advocate for the passage of local, state, and federal laws modeled after the AACA. It is designed to limit or outlaw practices perceived to be major contributors to political corruption.

Issue One is an American nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that seeks to reduce the role of money in politics. It aims to increase public awareness of what it views as problems within the present campaign finance system, and to reduce the influence of money in politics through enactment of campaign finance reform.

A campaign finance reform amendment refers to any proposed amendment to the United States Constitution to authorize greater restrictions on spending related to political speech, and to overturn Supreme Court rulings which have narrowed such laws under the First Amendment. Several amendments have been filed since Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and the Occupy movement.

References

  1. ↑ Bertrand, Marianne; Bombardini, Matilde; Fisman, Raymond; Trebbi, Francesco (2020). "Tax-Exempt Lobbying: Corporate Philanthropy as a Tool for Political Influence". American Economic Review. 110 (7): 2065–2102. doi: 10.1257/aer.20180615 . ISSN   0002-8282.
  2. 1 2 "givingusareports.org" (PDF). www.givingusareports.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-08-12.
  3. 1 2 "Double the Donation Customer Support". www.doublethedonation.com.
  4. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-11-11. Retrieved 2012-04-05.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  5. ↑ "Home - FEC.gov". FEC.gov.
  6. ↑ "52 U.S. Code § 30118". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 28 November 2018.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court declines to hear Iowa campaign finance challenge". Reuters. 7 April 2014.
  8. ↑ Warwick Smith, Political donations corrupt democracy
  9. ↑ John R. Wright: Contributions, Lobbying, and Committee Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, American Political Science Review 84(2), 1990.
  10. ↑ Merz, Frederik (April 2015). "Parteispenden – Welche Unternehmen wem wie viel zahlen - WELT". DIE WELT.
  11. ↑ Waldman, Paul (4 April 2014). "How Our Campaign Finance System Compares to Other Countries". prospect.org.

Literature

The literature given here refers to political donations by corporate donors only:

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.