Corporate participation in electoral politics carries significant regulatory, legal, and reputational risk that can be exacerbated by opacity. Two of Pilgrim’s Pride’s board members, who are also controlling shareholders of the Company’s parent, have been subject of various legal and regulatory investigations - many of them ongoing. They have been personally implicated in allegations of corruption, bribery, and illegal political campaign contributions to more than 1,800 Brazilian politicians. In 2020, these Board members settled SEC charges of FCPA violations arising “out of an extensive bribery scheme that took place over multiple years.” The SEC stated that, “Engaging in bribery to finance their expansion into the U.S. markets and then continuing to engage in bribery while occupying senior board positions at Pilgrim’s reflects a profound failure to exercise good corporate governance.” Pilgrim’s Pride was the largest single contributor to committee funding the January 2025 presidential inauguration, expending $5 million in corporate funds. Yet the company continues to face regulatory scrutiny, including President Trump directing the Department of Justice to “immediately begin an investigation” into meat packing companies citing “illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation” and singling out “Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers.” Without periodic and complete disclosures, investors lack knowledge of the full extent to which corporate funds are being expended without benefiting the company. The Company’s peers, including Conagra, Hormel, and Tyson, all provide disclosure of their election-related spending substantially consistent with this proposal. Pilgrim’s Pride, however, does not disclose its election-related spending in a comparable manner, making it a conspicuous outlier among its competitors and leaving its investors in the dark as to whether it’s effectively managing risks associated with political spending. As long-term shareholders of Pilgrim’s Pride, we support transparency in corporate electoral spending. This includes any activity considered intervention in a political campaign under the Internal Revenue Code, such as direct and indirect contributions to political candidates, parties, or organizations, and independent expenditures or electioneering communications on behalf of federal, state, or local candidates. We ask Pilgrim’s Pride to join its peers by disclosing its political spending, including payments to trade associations and other tax exempt organizations which may be used for electoral purposes. Without this transparency, we cannot sufficiently assess whether the Company’s political spending addresses regulatory, legal and reputational risks consistent with its business strategy, corporate priorities, or other areas of concern.