At its annual summit on the state of American business last January, officials from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce expressed disgust at the siege of the Capitol that had unfolded days earlier, and declared that lawmakers who discredited the 2020 election would no longer receive the organization's financial backing.
Some members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will lose their support for the organization. Period. Neil Bradley is the executive vice president and chief policy officer for the chamber.
The nation's biggest lobbying group reversed course less than two months later. The chamber does not believe that it is appropriate to judge members of Congress solely on their votes in the election.
In the year since the Capitol riot, many corporations and trade groups have moved from making stern statements about the sanctity of democracy to reopening the financial spigot for lawmakers who undermined the election. Millions of dollars in donations continue to flow to what watchdog groups deride as the "Sedition Caucus," highlighting how quickly political realities shift in Washington.
A report published this week by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington shows how corporate money continued to support most of the lawmakers who voted to overturn the election results.
In the last year, 717 companies and industry groups gave more than $18 million to 142 lawmakers. Since businesses pledged to stop or pause their donations to lawmakers, they have given nearly $2.4 million to their campaigns or leadership political action committees.
Many of the corporations that have donated are household names. The Chamber of Commerce has given $7.67 million to political groups associated with lawmakers who voted to overturn the election or to political action committees that support them.
Many companies have kept their word and have paused donations. According to Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor of leadership at the Yale School of Management, a majority of corporations that pledged to slow or cease their donations to election certification objectors did so.
More than half of the companies that said they would evaluate their political giving after the attack have not made a donation to the lawmakers who tried to stop the certification of the election. Hewlett-Packard decided to shut down its political action committee after January 6 because of Microsoft's pledge to cease donations to those lawmakers.
Many companies are restarting their campaign donations, with some saying they are doing so in the spirit of nonpartisanship.
Trent Perrotto, a spokesman for the defense contractor Lockheed Martin, said that their employee political action committee continues to observe longstanding principles of nonpartisan political engagement in support of their business interests.
Sharon J. Castillo said in a statement that Pfizer paused political giving to the members of Congress who voted against certifying the election for six months. Monitoring elected officials conduct and statements is a part of our governance process, and we will continue to do so as we consider future Pfizer disbursement PACs.
Some lawmakers who downplayed the riot or sought to sow doubts about what happened have continued to be magnets for corporate money. The National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisors and the Farmers' Rice Cooperative Fund gave $2,000 to Representative Madison Cawthorn, a North Carolina Republican who has blamed Democrats for instigating the violence and has called those taken into custody in connection with the riot "political hostages."
The National Association of Insurance & Financial Advisors gave $1,000 to Representative Gohmert, who has said there is no evidence that an armed insurrection took place.
Many companies saw the riot as a political liability because of the lawmakers who appeared to abet it. In many cases, those concerns did not last.
The initial shock of the attack made corporate donors risk-averse, but their thinking changed after the congressional inquiry, according to Charles Spies, a Republican campaign finance lawyer. Republicans have accused Democrats of using the investigation to hurt the G.O.P.
It is harder for companies to pick one side now that it is more politicized.
The image is.
Many Republicans argue that the investigation into the January 6 riot is politically motivated.
Ford gave money because they wanted to help, not because of a single issue, as explained by a Ford spokeswoman.
Our employee PAC makes bipartisan contributions based on a variety of considerations important to customers, our team and our company. Ms. Miller said they span things like manufacturing, mobility, innovation and trade. After refining our process, we resumed contributions in April.
After the riot, the country's largest bank by assets promised not to use funds from its corporate PAC to support lawmakers who objected to certifying the election results. It has given money to groups that support Republicans for both the Senate and the House, which is likely to be used by objectors.
The political action committee of the bank told employees in a note in June that a political action committee is an important tool for them to engage in the political process in the United States.
Citigroup reopened the doors to its political action committee contributions to lawmakers around the same time it paused its giving after the riot, saying it would evaluate candidates to which it donated on a case-by-case basis.
The experts said that the return of donations was not surprising given the weak poll numbers of President Biden and the possibility that Republicans might take control of Congress in 2022.
Eric Dezenhall, a Washington expert in corporate damage control, said that companies will need to do business with Republicans in order to give them money. Heavily regulated companies need to defend themselves from threats.
Lawmakers are a more influential constituency for companies than consumers.
Gene Grabowski, who specializes in crisis communications for the public relations firm Kglobal, said consumers have short memories and lawmakers have long memories. It is a political reality for many companies to do business with the 'Sedition Caucus'.
There is an economic logic behind not donating to those who have demonstrated a willingness to undermine elections, and that is why companies have continued to halt donations to some Republicans.
The president of the Center for Political Accountability argued that firms that resumed donations were being shortsighted and that there was a strong business case that the health of America's democracy should take precedence over political access.
Mr. Freed said that companies need a healthy democracy to thrive. They still look at political spending as a matter of access. They are not looking at the broader interests.
