JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. | Report analysing congruence of electioneering expenditures at JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

32.14% votes in favour
AGM date
Previous AGM date
Proposal number
Resolution details
Company ticker
Lead filer
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Governance
ESG sub-theme
  • Corporate purpose
  • Lobbying / political engagement
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Company sector
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Shareholders request the Board publish a report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruence of Chase’s political and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against Chase’s publicly stated company values and policies; listing and explaining any instances of incongruent expenditures; and stating whether the company has made, or plans to make, changes in contributions or communications to candidates as a result of identified incongruencies.
Whereas clause
JPMorgan Chase (“Chase”) states that it “believes that responsible corporate citizenship demands a strong commitment to a healthy and informed democracy through civic and community involvement,” and that it, therefore, engages in lobbying and other public policy advocacy. The issues that Chase identifies as particularly important to its business include:
• Inclusive economic growth;
• Diversity, equity, and inclusion, including racial, gender, and gay and transgender (“LGBTQ+”) rights; and
• Environmental, social, and corporate governance (“ESG”).[1]
However, Chase’s political expenditures appear to be misaligned with its public statements on company values, views, and operational practices.
For example, Chase states that its employee Political Action Committee (PAC) “support(s) candidates, parties and committees whose views on specific issues are consistent with the Firm’s priorities,”[2] but it has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to state and federal lawmakers with extreme anti-LGBTQ+ voting records.[3] Likewise, Chase has extensively contributed to sponsors of legislation that restricts access to reproductive healthcare.[4] Chase’s support for these lawmakers come despite its warning that “candidates who advance positions or exhibit behaviors that are in conflict with the Firm’s ethos may be ineligible for PAC donations.”[5]
Chase also trumpets its commitment to “supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy,”[6] yet funds industry associations like the Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable that oppose meaningful climate action.[7] Similarly, while Chase claims that supporting ESG is a core tenet of its political engagement, Chase sponsors the State Financial Officers Foundation (“SFOF”), an organization that works to prevent investor consideration of climate risk and other ESG factors, despite a recent pledge to end its sponsorship of this controversial group. [8] SFOF has, in turn, promoted anti-ESG investigations directly targeting Chase and its ability to conduct business with certain states
Supporting statement
Resolution has been filed by James McRitchie. Shareholders recommend, at Board and management discretion, that the report include an analysis of risks to the Company brand, reputation, or shareholder value associated with expenditures in conflict with its publicly stated values.
As used in this resolution, “political and electioneering expenditures” means spending, from corporate treasury and from any associated PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year, which are either direct lobbying expenditures or which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as being in support of or in opposition to a specific candidate, piece of legislation, or regulation, including payments made pursuant to membership in trade associations or politically active nonprofits.

How other organisations have declared their voting intentions

Organisation name Declared voting intentions Rationale
VidaCaixa 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.