CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. | Lobbying Expenditures Disclosure at CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

Status
31.86% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
5
Resolution details
Company ticker
CHTR
Lead filer
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Telecom
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
RESOLVED, stockholders request the preparation of a report, updated annually, disclosing:
- Company policy and procedures governing lobbying, both direct and indirect, and grassroots lobbying communications.
- Payments by Charter used for (a) direct or indirect lobbying or (b) grassroots lobbying communications, in each case including the amount of the payment and the recipient.
- Charter’s membership in and payments to any tax-exempt organization that writes and endorses model legislation.
- Description of management’s decision-making process and the Board’s oversight for making payments described in sections 2 and 3 above.
For purposes of this proposal, a “grassroots lobbying communication” is a communication directed to the general public that (a) refers to specific legislation or regulation, (b) reflects a view on the legislation or regulation and (c) encourages the recipient of the communication to take action with respect to the legislation or regulation. “Indirect lobbying” is lobbying engaged in by a trade association or other organization of which Charter is a member.
Both “direct and indirect lobbying” and “grassroots lobbying communications” include efforts at the local, state and federal levels.
The report shall be presented to the Audit Committee or other relevant oversight committees and posted on Charter’s website.
Supporting statement
SUPPORTING STATEMENT
Charter spent $80,765,000 from 2010 – 2021 on federal lobbying. This does not include state lobbying expenditures, where Charter lobbied in at least 31 states in 2021 and spent $2.9 million million on lobbying in California from 2015 – 2021.
Charter fails to disclose its payments to trade associations and social welfare groups, or the amounts used for lobbying, to stockholders. Companies can give unlimited amounts to third party groups that spend millions on lobbying and undisclosed grassroots activity. These groups may be spending “at least double what’s publicly reported.”1 Charter serves on the board of NCTA - The Internet & Television Association, which spent $189,720,000 on lobbying from 2010 – 2021, and belonged to Broadband for America, a social welfare group which spent $4.2 million to submit 8.5 million fake comments to the FCC opposing net neutrality.2 And Charter does not disclose its contributions to groups which write and endorse model legislation, like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
We believe Charter’s lack of disclosure presents reputational risks when its lobbying contradicts company public positions. For example, Charter states that it is committed to an open internet, yet NCTA and Broadband for America lobbied against net neutrality. While Charter is committed to diversity and inclusion, groups have asked Charter to leave ALEC because of its voter restriction efforts.3 And Charter has attracted negative scrutiny for “running a fake consumer group in Maine that’s killing community broadband.”4
In the last two years, this proposal received majority support of outside stockholders. We urge Charter to expand its lobbying disclosure.
1 https://theintercept.com/2019/08/06/business-group-spending-on-lobbying-in-washington-is-at-least-double-whats-publicly- reported/.
2 https://www.wired.com/story/isps-funded-85-million-fake-comments-opposing-net-neutrality/.
3 https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/alec-corporations-democracy/.
4 https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/12/charters-running-a-fake-consumer-group-in-maine-thats-killing-community-broadband-with- the-help-of-a-democratic-advisor/.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
Rothschild & co Asset Management For

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.