Amid the seismic reverberations of the Supreme Court’s game-changing ruling, shattering the long-standing precedent of Roe v. Wade, corporate giants find themselves ensnared in a high-stakes showdown. Pressure mounts as voices from within their ranks clamor for a break with politicians who champion anti-abortion agendas.
In a resounding internal petition signed by legions of Amazon’s workforce on June 27, a call resounded through the corporate halls for “immediate and decisive action against the threat to our basic human rights with the overturning of Roe v. Wade.” The demand was clear: cease contributions to anti-abortion politicians. Amazon’s political largesse has flowed generously, amounting to a staggering $974,718 in donations to political committees opposing abortion since 2016, encompassing the Republican Attorneys General and the Republican State Leadership Committee.
Meanwhile, Google found itself under the scrutinizing spotlight as the union representing its workers castigated the tech behemoth for making similar contributions. A striking tweet served as a rallying cry, contrasting Google’s commitment to women’s health with its backing of anti-abortion elected officials.
But the conundrum deepens, as even companies like Disney and AT&T, eager to ensure employees retain access to abortion care post-Roe v. Wade, find themselves mired in contradictions. They continue to funnel donations towards politicians who played pivotal roles in ushering in this new era of uncertainty.
Sonja Spoo, the director of reproductive rights campaigns at UltraViolet, an organization that meticulously tracks corporate donations to anti-abortion politicians, condemns this paradoxical stance. According to Spoo, these firms “are still giving to the very politicians that led us to this moment.”
Yet, experts versed in the intricate world of corporate political spending caution against expecting an abrupt cessation of such contributions. Instead, they anticipate a shift towards more clandestine strategies, veiling political donations in shadows that obscure the prying eyes of employees and shareholders.
Jane Sumner, a political science professor at the University of Minnesota, sheds light on this enigma, explaining that corporations often donate to politicians irrespective of their positions on issues like abortion. These contributions serve as a form of insurance, ensuring a seat at the table when policymakers discuss regulations that can profoundly affect their operations.
Sumner cites examples of Amazon’s extensive donations ahead of Seattle’s city council elections in 2019 and AT&T’s financial support of conservative political funds that played a role in challenging the 2020 election results. Microsoft’s President, Brad Smith, provides further insight into the rationale, acknowledging the utility of donations made through Political Action Committees (PACs) in maintaining valuable relationships with lawmakers. Such alliances can prove pivotal when issues like national security, privacy, procurement reform, or taxation are on the line.
This symbiotic relationship is deeply ingrained in the U.S. political landscape. Corporations, thanks to the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, enjoy the freedom to spend liberally on elections. Although these businesses typically donate across the aisle, research indicates that Republicans tend to reap more significant benefits from corporate political spending. Over the decade following Citizens United, corporations funneled a whopping $282 million to Republican candidates compared to a mere $38 million for Democratic candidates.
The events surrounding the January 6 insurrection further tested corporate waters. Several companies momentarily halted donations to Republican politicians who contested President Joe Biden’s election victory but later resumed their contributions. This about-face underscores the depth of their reliance on political ties, implying that the upheaval over Roe v. Wade may not drastically alter their spending habits. In fact, public scrutiny might compel these companies to explore covert avenues for donations to anti-abortion politicians.
As Wendy Hansen, a political science professor at the University of New Mexico, observes, the public is likely to backlash against companies that wade into the pro- or anti-abortion fray through campaign donations. She believes there’s a compelling business case for halting such contributions and hopes that companies will weigh the consequences of their choices. The specter of potential legal consequences and corporate interests butting heads looms large, prompting a sobering question
