JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. | Political spending misalignment at JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.

Status
Withdrawn
AGM date
Resolution details
Company ticker
JPM
Lead filer
The Educational Foundation of America
Resolution ask
Report on or disclose
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Corporate purpose
  • Lobbying / political engagement
  • Public health
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Financials
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Resolved: Shareholders request that JP Morgan publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, disclosing whether incongruencies between political and electioneering expenditures and company values were identified during the preceding year, and disclosing or summarizing any actions taken regarding pausing or terminating support for organizations or politicians, and the types of incongruent policy advocacy triggering those decisions.
Whereas clause
Whereas:
Regarding political contributions, JPMorgan & Chase (“Company”) has stated that “No single criterion or
policy determines a candidates’ eligibility for PAC contribution; however, candidates who advance
positions or exhibit behaviors that conflict with the Firm’s ethos may be ineligible for PAC donations.”
The Government Relations and Public Policy, which reports to the Head of Corporate
Responsibility, reassesses decisions to pause donations to specific candidates at the end of every
election cycle, and will review and refresh contribution criteria annually with inputs from additional
internal stakeholders.
Yet the internal workings of this process lack transparency as to whether and when donations will be
paused or terminated to specific candidates for organizations, and on what basis.
JPMorgan has released targets for its Paris-aligned financing commitment and for reducing its
operational greenhouse gas initiatives. It has implemented exemplary LGBTQ workplace policies and is a
recognized friend and ally to that community. JPMorgan’s Women on the Move initiative provides a
platform for networking and career development at all levels of the company and is expanding credit
and opportunity to female clients and customers as well. Management is working to expand supportive
policies to working parents and their families.
However, in contrast to these stated and implied values, JP Morgan has:
• Repeatedly contributed to a 527 organization that has led efforts to prevent enforcement of the
EPA’s Clean Power Plan;
• Consistently given to members of Congress who oppose LGBTQ equality, including over
$110,000 in 2020 alone, as well as over $185,000 in five recent election cycles (2010 – 2018) to
a 527 organization that funds politicians who have attacked LGBTQ equality and reproductive
rights;
• In the 2016 – 2020 election cycles, contributed at least $2.8 million to anti-choice candidates
and political committees from the corporate treasury and company-sponsored political action
committees, according to an analysis conducted by the Sustainable Investments Institute.
Supporting statement
Supporting Statement:
Proponents recommend that such report also contain management's analysis of risks to our company's brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with publicly stated company values. “Expenditures for electioneering communications" means spending, from the corporate treasury and from the PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year, on printed, internet or broadcast communications, which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as in support of or opposition to a specific candidate. Proponents believe that JPMorgan should incorporate this accountability mechanism into its political contributions policies and reporting systems to achieve greater alignment with policies and initiatives of importance to the firm. This discipline will help minimize risk to the firm's reputation and brand.

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.