Whereas: The Company’s policy positions, advocacy, partnerships and charitable giving on significant social policy and
political matters should not alienate consumers, decrease sales, or diminish shareholder value.
The Company takes public and politically divisive positions over issues of significant social policy concern, including
discriminating in service provision against mainstream viewpoints with which its executives differ.1 Likewise, it opposed
common-sense voting-integrity provisions that most Americans of all surface-characteristic categories support.2
According to 1792 Exchange’s Corporate Bias Ratings, the Company contributed tens of millions of shareholder dollars to
organizations it portrayed as “combating systemic racism.”3 These donations, and that portrayal, was incautious. Since those
donations the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, for instance, has opposed cash bail and other sensible publicsafety measures that put urban minority groups at particular risk and is itself an act of systemic discrimination.4
Millions more flowed to BLM, which, so far from being an organization that fights systemic racism, has shown itself to
embody the evil, calling for the destruction of Israel and boosting antisemitism.5 This leaves to one side what actually
happened to those shareholder assets, given the systemic misappropriation of donations that has characterized BLM.6
The Company is a platinum partner of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and partners with allied organizations,7 which
seeks to sow gender confusion in primary school children while destroying girls’ and women’s sports, threatening the safety
of the most vulnerable, and demolishing long-standing religious freedoms. It has a 100 percent rating on the HRC’s Corporate
Equality Index, which requires spending shareholder assets to embrace highly partisan positions on hot-button issues.