Politicians who Incited Capitol Insurrection Feel Financial Consequences
Bank of America, building pictured here in Charlotte, NC, is one of several large North Carolina-based companies which has suspended political donations to actors who played a role in inciting the Capitol riot of January 6th, 2021. Source.
The insurrection attempt & attack on the Capitol by right-wing extremists on January 6th had wide-reaching political impact, such as the (second) impeachment of Donald Trump and widening the divide between our political parties. A longer term consequence in North Carolina, especially for the GOP, is the trend of local corporations and businesspeople reconsidering their donations to politicians who may be perceived as encouraging the violence on January 6th or obstructing democracy by voting against the results of the 2020 election.
Businesses in North Carolina are aiming to use money to hold accountable the seven Congressmen who voted to support the objection of the presidential election results. Charlotte-based Bank of America sent a memo to its employees stating, “For upcoming elections, we will take into account the appalling events of Jan. 6 before making any PAC decisions regarding those members. We also will halt all PAC funding decisions for the immediate future while the new Congress and incoming administration establish their priorities and help the country unite and move forward from the lows we all experienced on Jan. 6.” Other companies such as Truist, Lowe’s, and Duke Energy each put out similar statements regarding their donation practices with the seven lawmakers.
Money in American politics, especially that coming from large corporations, has been a point of contentious debate for centuries, yet corporations continue to donate for two main reasons: influence, especially over matters of market deregulation and tax cuts, and to uphold positive public perception, both profit-oriented objectives. The Capitol attacks have produced a situation that puts these causes at odds with each other, as Sheila Krumholz with the Center for Responsive Politics points out: “Right now, the companies who sponsor these PACs,” or the Political Action Committees associated with varying causes and representatives, “are simply trying to balance the need to on the one hand curry favor with elected officials and avoid public wrath and boycott.” However, the recent announcements by corporations on halting their political donations to those considered involved in obstructing democracy may not be of great impact if they are not accompanied by a larger trend of increased socially and politically informed donations by companies. This is because, “many of the freezes on political donations to candidates being announced by companies don’t include political action committees not associated with specific candidates ... it is also an opportune time to freeze political spending with consequences as a major election cycle just ended.”
Firms around the country and every sector, from Marriott to Facebook, have taken this event to serve as a time to, at the least, reexamine their political donation process. This could serve as an inflection point on the future of money in politics, but some analysts view these corporations’ actions more optimistically than others. Some suggest that this is a great first step but further action may be required; Rory Cooper, who is a managing director at Purple Strategies, a corporate reputation consulting firm, says, “I’d caution reading too much into it right now but it will continue to snowball as the companies doing this continue to be applauded for it.” Danielle Brian, director of the Project on Government Oversight, goes much further and says, “This is adding a counterargument to that calculation,” in response to Republicans who voted against the election certification to remain in line with their party. She highlights the potential power and signaling that these companies are taking with their public rejection of political actions, and the real impact that the donation loss could have on the representatives in question.
North Carolina’s politicians have often been key players in the scandals and infamous moments of the Trump presidency and the contention of the presidential election. It seems as if the businesses of the state are taking notice now, as well as those at a national level, and it will be crucial to maintain this momentum moving forward if businesses want to hold politicians (and the money donated to them) accountable. The private and public sectors are undoubtedly entangled and this rebuke of certain politicians by Fortune 500 companies is an interesting and exciting way that businesses can, if they take advantage of the current momentum, listen to the public opinion and close their substantial coffers to hold government officials accountable.