As Barbara F. Walter outlines in her book “How Civil Wars Start and How to Stop Them,” there are two statistically reliable indicators for whether any given country around the world is likely to fall into civil war: 1) the country is an “anocracy,” meaning a government containing a mix of democratic and autocratic features, and 2) at least one of the major political parties in a country begins to organize itself around identity rather than policy/ideology. Given that the United States’ scores on political stability have fluctuated greatly over the past decade, it is impossible to underestimate the importance of these dynamics at this critical juncture. While the reports above paint a haunting picture of a potential authoritarian future, that future is not assured. We can paint a different picture, write a different story, and bend the arc of history toward justice – but we must be honest about who is contributing to anti-democracy efforts and what it will take to reverse course.

 

As Faith in Public Life Action has weighed the most strategic efforts that our multifaith, multiracial national coalition and state cohorts of grasstops faith leaders could make, we came to the conclusion that one of the most important interventions we could make is a moral call to the business community to end support for anti-democratic efforts that fuel authoritarian energy and support. Our multifaith work is tied to sound economic stewardship of resources that contributes to a more just and equitable society in which every person can live into their full identities.

 

Following the January 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, many businesses across the country immediately issued statements condemning efforts to overturn election results, reiterating support for democratic principles, and ending political donations that could directly or indirectly contribute to bad actors. While those statements were welcome additions to the pro-democracy landscape, unfortunately, many of those corporations resumed those donations within weeks or months. With no clear policies or guardrails in place to prevent this backsliding of democratic commitments, many businesses simply went back to what they know and resumed their material and financial support for the very lawmakers who had just refused to certify a free and fair election.

 

Some companies have sought to implement transparency policies as a substitute for values-based policies. While transparency about where and how a company is spending political money is necessary, it is not sufficient—corporations that value democracy must establish clear and consistent policies to govern corporate spending.

 

FPLA’s mission is to use the moral imperative for justice, inclusion, and equity to advocate for policy change that inscribes each of us with full humanity. Fulfilling our mission comes through multiple areas of our lived humanity; the democratic process is also impacted through multiple areas. This report highlights the impact of economic manipulations on the democratic process in the U.S. These manipulations have deep, theological implications. When businesses support anti-democratic efforts, their economic stewardship points towards financial gain rather than the greater good brought through democratic processes. 

 

Corporations and lawmakers working toward anti-democratic practices put U.S. democracy in serious danger. When power and resources are hoarded, the work to empower the greater good is diminished. Faithful economic practices and the power that aligns with such practices is a deeply theological matter. 

 

We realize that there is some level of interaction between corporations and lawmakers that is appropriate – attending paid, ticketed events in order to build relationships and bring new factories into a state, for example, is an understandable political expense. Our scorecard reflects that there is a level of appropriate interaction between business and government that can be a positive force in society – but our scorecard also reflects that there is a point at which corporations can no longer plead ignorance about their political spending. So we have tried to establish a generous view on the data, while also being clear about the threats to democracy of greed and bad stewardship.

 

We have scored 18 publicly-recognizable corporations on four data points:

 

1. Money donated to lawmakers who voted against certifying the 2020 election

2. Number of months that corporations suspended donations to lawmakers who voted against certifying the 2020 election

3. Number of lawmakers who voted against certifying the 2020 election to whom corporations donated $10,000 or more

4. Number of positive and proactive statements corporations have made in support of protecting/expanding voting rights

 

We also realize that corporations do not exist in silos – and that this scorecard is not reflective of additional and intersectional data points such as a company’s labor protections, climate policies, friendliness to marginalized/underrepresented communities, etc. It is a scorecard on democratic hypocrisy – and should be understood as both serious and incomplete.

 

Our scorecard also does not reflect “dark money” spending that is difficult if not impossible to track. We have scored donations to lawmakers both directly and through their very powerful leadership PACs – but money moves between business and government in many additional ways. We wanted to use data that was consistent, reliable, and publicly available in order to create a generous approach/interpretation as a good-faith effort to invite the companies on our scorecard to make different and more pro-democracy decisions about their spending.