For purposes of this proposal, “political activities” are (i) influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to a public office; or (ii) supporting a party, committee, association, fund, or other organization organized and operated primarily for the purpose of directly or indirectly accepting contributions or making expenditures to engage in the activities described in (i). This proposal does not encompass lobbying spending.
SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Our company must act on its fiduciary responsibility to monitor its political spending and the accompanying risks more closely. Too often corporate leaders fail to fully assess and scrutinize the ultimate beneficiaries of political contributions from corporate treasury funds. This oversight constitutes a lapse in corporate officers’ duty of care to protect and advance the interests of a company and its shareholders.
This duty is ever more crucial as corporate political engagement is increasingly scrutinized by the media, employees, investors, regulators, and consumers. This new reality has exponentially increased the financial risks companies face when their political spending directly or indirectly associates their brand with controversial political issues and outcomes and claims of corruption.  Further, when companies donate to third-party groups, they typically lose the ability to control or to know how their money is eventually spent.
Companies can no longer give to politically active groups without paying close attention to the consequences or to what their political spending might enable. 
Public records show Elevance has contributed at least $12.75 million in corporate funds to third-party groups dating to the 2010 election cycle. Beneficiaries of this spending have been tied to attacks on voting rights, efforts to deny climate change, efforts to impose extreme restrictions on abortion, and even the attempted insurrection at the U.S. Capitol – associations many companies wish to avoid.
It is unclear whether Elevance and its board received sufficient information from these groups to assess (a) the potential risks for the Company and stockholders, and (b) whether the groups’ expenditures aligned with Elevance’s core values, business objectives, and policy positions. 
Our company must look behind the curtain and demand to know how our money is spent and what risks our company is assuming. Mandating reports from third-party groups receiving political money from Elevance would demonstrate the Company’s commitment to robust risk management and responsible civic engagement.
We urge a vote FOR the commonsense risk management measures in this proposal.

Filed by John Chevedden