NETHERLANDS BRIEFING

Netherlands: The connection between Netherlands-headquartered companies and U.S. Congress members who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election – Democracy, human rights and rule of law concerns

Donations and Democracy

30 September 2024

sources are cited in the footnotes

Contents

1. Netherlands-headquartered companies connected with donations to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results 

• 1.1 Eight companies whose U.S. subsidiaries’ PACs have donated directly: Aegon (Transamerica), Ahold Delhaize, Airbus, CNH Industrial, KPMG, Louis Dreyfus, LyondellBasell, Philips
• 1.2 The connection between Netherlands-headquartered companies and U.S. trade associations whose PACs have donated
• 1.3 Our communications with the companies and trade associations 
• 1.4 Why it would be misleading for a company to disclaim responsibility for which candidates receive donations from its PAC
• 1.5 Other types of company and trade association donations not covered in this briefing

2. Storming of U.S. Capitol halts certification proceedings

3. Congressional votes to certify presidential election results

4. Concerns about the attempt to deny certification of the election results

5. Concerns about company donations to Congress members who voted against certification

6. Democracy, human rights and rule of law concerns

7. Details of Netherlands-headquartered companies whose U.S. subsidiaries’/companies' PACs have donated directly

Footnotes

1. Netherlands-headquartered companies connected with donations to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results

• 1.1  Eight companies whose U.S. subsidiaries’ PACs have donated directly: Aegon (Transamerica), Ahold Delhaize, Airbus, CNH Industrial, KPMG, Louis Dreyfus, LyondellBasell, Philips

According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, the following eight of the largest Netherlands-headquartered multinationals have U.S. subsidiaries whose Political Action Committees (PACs) have donated directly to the campaigns of U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Those certification votes were held after the courts had ruled the election was fair,[1] and after William Barr, Attorney General in the Trump administration, stated that the Justice Department had not uncovered evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the election.[2] Those Congress members have been strongly criticized for attempting to undermine democracy by voting against certification. 

•  See section 7 of this briefing for a list of Congress members who received donations from each of these companies' subsidiary after they voted against certifying the election results.
• The list below reflects donations made after the relevant congressional votes on 6 and 7 January 2021, and covers donations recorded on the FEC website as of 26 September 2024. We plan to track and report on future donations linked to these and other Netherlands-headquartered companies. 

- Aegon (Transamerica) (Aegon is a multinational focused on life insurance, pensions and asset management): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Transamerica has donated directly to the campaigns of 27 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- Ahold Delhaize (a multinational whose supermarket chains include Albert Heijn and Delhaize in Europe; Food Lion, Hannaford and Stop & Shop in USA): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the campaigns of 9 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- Airbus (a multinational aerospace corporation with its legal headquarters in Netherlands and its operational headquarters in France): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the campaigns of 28 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- CNH Industrial (a multinational which designs, produces, and sells agricultural machinery and construction equipment; incorporated in the Netherlands; seat of the company is in Amsterdam and principal office in London): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the campaigns of 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- KPMG (one of the Big Four multinational accounting firms; KPMG is a global network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International; all KPMG member firms are affiliated with KPMG International): KPMG's U.S. PAC has donated directly to the campaigns of 24 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- Louis Dreyfus Company (a multinational involved in agriculture, food processing, international shipping, telecommunications, real estate and finance): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the campaigns of at least 4  U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- LyondellBasell Industries (a multinational chemical company incorporated in Netherlands, with legal headquarters in Rotterdam, Netherlands, and operational headquarters in Houston, Texas): Its U.S. PAC has donated directly to the campaigns of 16 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- Philips (a multinational that was once one of the largest consumer electronics companies in the world, but later has focused on health technology): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the campaigns of 18 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

There may be other Netherlands-headquartered companies whose subsidiaries’ PACs have donated directly to the campaigns of U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the election results – for this briefing, with regard to such direct donations, Donations and Democracy researched 20 of the largest companies headquartered in the Netherlands. 

• 1.2  The connection between Netherlands-headquartered companies and U.S. trade associations whose PACs have donated

In addition to the direct donations listed above in section 1.1, many Netherlands-headquartered companies are connected through their U.S. subsidiaries with U.S. trade associations that have donated to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results. Trade associations are industry lobby groups that represent companies and are funded by companies. The page of this website entitled "Companies' indirect connections to donations via trade associations" explains various forms of connection between companies and trade associations, most of which involve providing funding to the associations.

For example, the following Netherlands-headquartered companies or their subsidiaries have a connection with the U.S. trade associations cited. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, all of the trade associations below have donated to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.

- CNH Industrial: Subsidiary Case IH is an Allied Industry Partner of National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA); subsidiary New Holland is a Gold Level Member of NCBA. Also, Case IH is a member of Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA); a Case IH executive is a member of the ARA Executive Committee. 

- Corbion: Corbion is a Sponsor and Partner of the Meat Institute (former name: North American Meat Institute). 

- Fagron: Fagron is a Corporate Patron of Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding (APC).

- KPMG: Many KPMG partners are members of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) and KPMG is a diamond sponsor of the 2024 AICPA & CIMA Conference; KPMG is an Associate Member of Edison Electric Institute (EEI).

- Louis Dreyfus Company: Louis Dreyfus Company is a member of National Cotton Council of America (NCC); a Louis Dreyfus executive was elected NCC Chairman for 2024. Louis Dreyfus Company is also a Merchant Member of American Cotton Shippers Association (ACSA); several Louis Dreyfus executives are listed as Officers/Directors of ACSA. Louis Dreyfus Company Juices is an Allied Member of Florida Citrus Mutual.

- Rabobank Group: Rabobank is an Allied Leader of National Chicken Council (NCC). The Group’s subsidiary Rabo AgriFinance is connected with (as a member, sponsor, or other affiliation) National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), Florida Citrus Mutual, Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association (FFVA), and Texas Cattle Feeders Association (TCFA).

- Royal Barenbrug Group: Barenbrug USA is an Allied Industry Partner of National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA).

• 1.3  Our communications with the companies and trade associations

We communicated with each of the companies and trade associations listed above in sections 1.1 and 1.2 in advance of this briefing, inviting them to respond to the publicly-available information about donations to the campaigns of Congress members who had voted against certifying the 2020 election results. As of the date of this briefing, none of the companies or trade associations had responded to us. If any of them respond in the future, we will update this briefing as appropriate. 

• 1.4  Why it would be misleading for a company to disclaim responsibility for which candidates receive donations from its PAC 

If a company tries to disclaim responsibility for which candidates receive donations from its PAC (Political Action Committee), that would be misleading.  

Here are the facts:

• A PAC is a political committee in the United States "organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates."[3] Each company PAC and trade association PAC decides to which candidates it will donate.

• “A PAC is somewhat different from other entities associated with a corporation. It is a separate entity, but still managed by, and part of, the corporation.... Establishing the PAC: ...First, a corporation’s Board should approve the creation of the PAC...As part of this step, the corporation should select PAC officers and adopt bylaws for the PAC’s administration.”[4] 

• In the case of a foreign-headquartered company, the firm’s U.S. subsidiary selects the PAC’s members/board, who are usually senior executives of the subsidiary; often the subsidiary’s lobbyists and/or government affairs staff also serve on the PAC. The PAC members/board decide which candidates the company PAC will donate to. 

• By law, a company cannot donate to its PAC from the company's central funds.  Most of the larger donations to the PAC tend to be made by the subsidiary’s executives and their families; donations can also be made by other employees and their families, and by shareholders. Donations by the PAC are made only to candidates selected/approved by the company-appointed members/board of the PAC.

• As stated in the Reuters article entitled "The new U.S. office politics: funding your boss's political causes,” some companies reportedly pressure and/or induce their employees to contribute to their PAC.[5] 

For further information, see the following page of this website: “The facts about PACs.”

• 1.5 Other types of company and trade association donations not covered in this briefing

As stated in section 9 on our homepage: “Unfortunately we are only able to cover direct donations by company and trade association PACs to the campaigns of those members of Congress who voted against certifying the 2020 presidential election results. It is important to recognize that some companies and trade associations have assisted these same politicians indirectly, including by making donations to other PACs and committees that turn around and fund these politicians' campaigns, and by making donations to Super PACs which advocate for these politicians or against their opponents.”

2. Storming of U.S. Capitol halts certification proceedings

When a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol building on 6 January 2021, they forced an emergency recess in the congressional proceedings to officially certify the results of the 3 November 2020 presidential election, which is usually a routine process. The proceedings were halted and the Capitol was locked down.[6] Some of the rioters assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters, and attempted to capture and harm lawmakers.[7] More than 2000 rioters reportedly entered the building after security was breached and windows were broken.[8] Among those attacking the Capitol were leaders of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers militia groups, who conspired to use violence and block the peaceful transfer of power.[9] Four people died on the day of the attack on the Capitol; one shot by Capitol Police, one of a drug overdose, and two of heart attacks.[10] A Capitol Police officer died the following day of two strokes.[11] 140 police officers reported being injured that day; Matthew Graves, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, said that number undercounts how many officers were physically injured and said the attack was likely “the largest single-day, mass assault of law enforcement officers in our nation’s history.”[12] Four officers who responded to the attack reportedly died by suicide within seven months after the assault.[13] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) considers the attack on the Capitol that day to be an act of domestic terrorism.[14] The Department of Justice launched the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.[15] As of 1 March 2024, 1309 people reportedly had been charged with federal crimes relating to the attack.[16] On 28 June 2024 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. That decision will affect some cases of people charged or convicted in relation to the attack on the Capitol, but as noted in an Associated Press article about the decision, the “overwhelming majority…who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to Capitol riot-related federal crimes were not charged with obstruction and will not be affected by the outcome.”[17]

3. Congressional votes to certify presidential election results

The Senate and House of Representatives (the two bodies comprising the U.S. Congress) reconvened on the evening of 6 January, after the Capitol building had been secured, and there were eventually votes on what the New York Times called “highly unusual objections, based on spurious allegations of widespread voter fraud"[18] in Arizona and Pennsylvania (states that Biden had won) – allegations that had been soundly rejected by courts during the weeks between the election and the certification votes.[19] Eight senators (out of 100 total Senate members) and 139 House members (out of 435 total House members) voted against certifying the results from one or both of those states; those 147 members of Congress are listed here.[20] The page of this website entitled "Explanation of the certification votes in Congress, 6-7 January 2021" provides further information about those votes, including a link to the official record of the full congressional proceedings and debates on 6 and 7 January.

4. Concerns about the attempt to deny certification of the election results

Leaders from across the political spectrum expressed grave concern about the attempt to deny certification of the election results. For example, Republican Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, said before voting started: "The voters, the courts and the states have all spoken. If we overrule them all, it would damage our republic forever.”[21]

On 12 November 2020, a joint statement had been issued by the U.S. Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council and the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees, saying: “The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history. …”[22]

Prominent constitutional law experts spoke out strongly. Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School, remarked in a tweet while the attack on the Capitol building was taking place: "Any halfway decent member of the House or Senate who was planning to object to the Electoral Vote count must now desist. They’ve had not just their day in court but months in court …. This has crossed the line past sedition...."[23] Constitutional law expert and Harvard Law School Professor Richard H. Fallon Jr., commenting on the 147 Congress members who voted against certification of the election results, said: “None cited any plausible evidence of substantial inaccuracy in the vote counts …. [I]f the events of that day teach anything, it is that our institutions cannot be more reliable than the men and women who populate them.”[24]

Professor Tribe, and Professor of Constitutional Law Michael Klarman (also of Harvard Law School), were among the thousands of lawyers, law professors and law students who signed a petition calling for the disbarment of Senators (and lawyers) Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz. The petition said it was calling for their right to practice law to be revoked for reasons including:

·  “In leading the efforts to undermine the peaceful transition of power after a free and fair election, Senators Hawley and Cruz attacked the foundations of our democracy.”

·  By announcing their intentions to object to certification of the election results, “Senators Hawley and Cruz directly incited the January 6th insurrection, repeating dangerous and unsubstantiated statements regarding the election.”

Both Hawley and Cruz condemned the violence and denied any role in inciting it. The footnote provides further details about the petition, endeavors to disbar the senators, calls for their resignations, and each senator’s defense of his conduct.[25]

Key United States business organizations and business leaders issued statements calling for the election results to be certified by Congress. On 4 January 2021, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO issued a statement that said: “… Efforts by some members of Congress to disregard ... election results in an effort to change the election outcome or to try a make a long-term political point undermines our democracy and the rule of law and will only result in further division across our nation. …”[26] The National Association of Manufacturers issued a statement the same day, declaring: “… Manufacturers fight vigorously for the four pillars that have made America exceptional: Free Enterprise, Competitiveness, Individual Liberty and Equal Opportunity. But holding all of this together is the basic form of government, which has enabled us to protect those pillars: Democracy. Manufacturers stand with members of Congress who intend to uphold their constitutional responsibility and vote to certify the Electoral College tallies that resulted from free, fair and legal elections in the states. Election officials in both parties, as well as state and federal courts in more than 60 cases, have determined that the outcome is not in doubt. Joe Biden is our next President, and Congress must heed the voice of the American people.”[27] Business Roundtable’s 4 January statement said: "… [T]he integrity of the 2020 presidential election is not in doubt. There is no authority for Congress to reject or overturn electoral votes lawfully certified by the states and affirmed by the Electoral College. The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our democracy and should proceed unimpeded. …"[28]

On 4 January 2021, 22 leading U.S. historians and constitutional scholars issued a joint statement that said: “Never before in our history has a president who lost re-election tried to stay in office by subverting the democratic process set down by the Constitution. That is what President Trump has been doing since November 3 …. The People have spoken. The State Legislatures have spoken. The Supreme Court has spoken. The Electoral College has spoken. Yet now, some members of Congress are disrupting the orderly acceptance of the election result, which is the single most important principle of democratic government.”[29]

The page of this website entitled "Statements about the attempt by some members of Congress to deny certification of election results" also provides comments by others about the votes, including a bipartisan group of senators; all 10 living former defense secretaries; and the League of Women Voters.

5. Concerns about company donations to Congress members who voted against certification

Strong concerns have been raised about companies that donated to members of Congress after they voted against certification. The Boston Globe Editorial Board wrote after the votes that 147 Congress members had voted to overturn the election, “opting to reject democracy simply because their candidate lost.”  The editorial said that as long as members of Congress “are not punished for their assaults on voting rights and democracy, they will continue to promote conspiracy theories with abandon and could very well redo their attempt to overturn a legitimate election come 2022 or 2024. And if, or when, they do, every company that has decided to donate to their campaigns will be just as guilty in destroying the fabric of American democracy.”[30]  

The Lincoln Project, a U.S. political action committee "dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy,"[31] founded by moderate conservatives and former Republican Party members who oppose Trumpism, in July 2021 reportedly announced a new strategy to confront “the Sedition Caucus and its enablers”[32] by calling attention to corporations that donate to the campaigns of lawmakers who voted against certifying the presidential election results. As reported by The Hill, Lincoln Project co-founder Reed Galen said that the Lincoln Project would be informing employees, shareholders and customers about those companies’ “egregious anti-American behavior.” He continued: “The Lincoln Project will not sit by and watch as companies like Toyota — companies that have benefited from America’s economic strength and freedom — give money to politicians who are working to overthrow that same system. This is no longer a fight between two political parties or entrenched interests. It is no less than a fight to preserve American democracy.”[33]

The page of this website entitled "Comments about companies that donate to members of Congress after they voted against certification" also includes statements of concern by others about company donations.

6. Democracy, human rights and rule of law concerns

When companies and trade associations fund the campaigns of candidates after they voted to overturn results of an election which the courts had ruled was fair, this raises concerns about respect for internationally-recognized standards on free and fair elections, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The United Nations has emphasized the inextricable links between democracy and human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”[34] The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights require all companies to respect human rights.[35] The United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights,[36] in a 2022 report, stated that corporate financial political contributions can have an adverse impact on human rights, and said: “When businesses make contributions to individual politicians, political parties or political causes, they should assess the potential adverse human rights impacts linked to those decisions and also consider stances taken by politicians or political organizations that may run counter to respect for human rights.”[37] Relevant international standards are explained on the page of this website entitled "Human rights, democracy and rule of law concerns based on internationally-recognized standards."

7. Details of Netherlands-headquartered companies whose U.S. subsidiaries’/companies' PACs have donated directly

Below is detailed information, drawn from the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, about eight Netherlands-headquartered multinationals with U.S. subsidiaries whose Political Action Committees (PACs) have donated directly to the campaigns of U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the results of the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The list below reflects donations made after the relevant congressional votes on 6 and 7 January 2021, and covers donations recorded on the FEC website as of 26 September 2024.

-  Aegon (Transamerica):

• The PAC of Aegon’s U.S. subsidiary Transamerica Corporation has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 27 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: Senators: Cynthia Lummis House of Representatives members: Rick Allen, Jodey Arrington, Ron Estes, Virginia Foxx, Diana Harshbarger, Richard Hudson, Mike Johnson, Mike Kelly, David Kustoff, Frank Lucas, Blaine Luetkemeyer, Nicole Malliotakis, Kevin McCarthy, Daniel Meuser, Carol Miller, Alex Mooney, August Pfluger, Tom Rice, Steve Scalise, Adrian Smith, Jason Smith, Lloyd Smucker, Greg Steube, William Timmons, Tim Walberg, Jackie Walorski.

- Ahold Delhaize:

• Delhaize America PAC has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 9 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: House of Representatives members: Ben Cline, Virginia Foxx, Mike Johnson, John Joyce, Daniel Meuser, David Rouzer, Lloyd Smucker, Glenn Thompson, Jeff Van Drew.

- Airbus:

• The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary, Airbus Americas, has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 28 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: Senators: Cindy Hyde-Smith, Tommy Tuberville House of Representatives members: Robert Aderholt, Stephanie Bice, Ted Budd (for his Senate race), Ken Calvert, Jerry Carl, Tom Cole, Mario Diaz-Balart, Ron Estes, Chuck Fleischmann, Carlos Gimenez, Garret Graves, Sam Graves, Michael Guest, Trent Kelly, Doug Lamborn, Tracey Mann, Kevin McCarthy, Steven Palazzo, Guy Reschenthaler, Hal Rogers, Mike Rogers, John Rutherford, Steve Scalise, Elise Stefanik, Joe Wilson, Rob Wittman.

- CNH Industrial:

• The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: House of Representatives members: Ron Estes, Vicky Hartzler (donated to her unsuccessful primary campaign for U.S. Senate), Adrian Smith, Lloyd Smucker.

- KPMG:

• KPMG's U.S. PAC has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 24 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: House of Representatives members: Jodey Arrington, Stephanie Bice, Ken Calvert, Ron Estes, Michelle Fischbach, Scott Fitzgerald, Diana Harshbarger, Kevin Hern, Richard Hudson, Mike Johnson, Mike Kelly, David Kustoff, Nicole Malliotakis, Lisa McClain, Gregory Murphy, Mike Rogers, Steve Scalise, Pete Sessions, Adrian Smith, Jason Smith, Lloyd Smucker, William Timmons, Beth Van Duyne, Roger Williams.

- Louis Dreyfus Company:

• The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: House of Representatives members: Rick Crawford, Garret Graves, David Kustoff, Glenn Thompson. The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary also donated to Conservatives Harvesting Success PAC, and designated that donation: "Contribution to Cindy Hyde-Smith" (Senator Cindy Hyde Smith).

- LyondellBasell Industries:

• The PAC of its U.S. company has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 16 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: Senators: John Kennedy, Cynthia Lummis  House of Representatives members: Brian Babin, Michael Burgess, Buddy Carter, Michael Cloud, Ron Estes, Michelle Fischbach, Sam Graves, David Kustoff, Markwayne Mullin, Troy Nehls, Steve Scalise, Jason Smith, Beth Van Duyne, Randy Weber.

- Philips:

• The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary, Philips North America, has donated directly to the political campaigns of the following 18 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results: Senators: Roger Marshall  House of Representatives members: Jim Banks, Mike Bost, Michael Burgess, Ken Calvert, Kat Cammack, Buddy Carter, John Carter, Neal Dunn, John Joyce, Mike Kelly, Doug Lamborn, Jay Obernolte, Guy Reschenthaler, Steve Scalise, Adrian Smith, Jason Smith, Elise Stefanik.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[1] “Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,” Campaign Legal Center; “Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” Wikipedia, accessed 26 September 2024.

[2] “Barr says Justice Department has no evidence of widespread fraud in election,” CBS News, 1 December 2020; “William Barr says there is no evidence of widespread fraud in presidential election,” Evan Perez and Devan Cole, CNN, 1 December 2020.

[3] “What Is a PAC?” OpenSecrets, accessed 26 September 2024.

[4] “Forming a Corporate Political Action Committee," Venable LLP law firm, accessed 26 September 2024.

[5] “The new U.S. office politics: funding your boss's political causes,” Michelle Conlin and Lucas Iberico Lozada, Reuters, 11 May 2015.

[6] “Massive Protests Halt Congress Certification With U.S. Capitol Evacuated,” Lisa Hagen, U.S. News & World Report, 6 January 2021; “January 6 United States Capitol attack,” Wikipedia, accessed 26 September 2024; “2021 United States Electoral College vote count”, Wikipedia, accessed 26 September 2024.

[7] “Officers’ Injuries, Including Concussions, Show Scope of Violence at Capitol Riot,” Michael S. Schmidt and Luke Broadwater, New York Times, 11 February 2021 updated 12 July 2021; “‘Murder the media’: What the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol meant for US journalists,” Committee to Protect Journalists, 6 January 2023; “US Capitol riot mob wanted to kill Mike Pence, run Pelosi over with a car,” Alex Turner-Cohen, news.com.au, 11 January 2021.

[8] “41 minutes of fear: A video timeline from inside the Capitol siege,” Dalton Bennett, Emma Brown, Atthar Mirza, Sarah Cahlan, Joyce Sohyun Lee, Meg Kelly, Elyse Samuels and Jon Swaine, Washington Post, 16 January 2021; “Where the Jan. 6 insurrection investigation stands, one year later,” Ryan Lucas, NPR, 6 January 2022.

[9] “Oath Keepers, Proud Boys subpoenaed by Jan. 6 House panel,” Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press, on PBS NewsHour website, 23 November 2021; “What seditious conspiracy means in Proud Boys’ Jan. 6 case,” Alanna Durkin Richer and Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press, 4 May 2023.

[10] “These Are the People Who Died in Connection With the Capitol Riot,” Chris Cameron, New York Times, 5 January 2022 updated 13 October 2022; “January 6 United States Capitol attack,” Wikipedia, accessed 26 September 2024.

[11] “Sicknick had two strokes, died of natural causes after Capitol riot,” Mychael Schnell, The Hill, 19 April 2021.

[12] “Jan. 6 'likely the largest single-day mass assault' on law enforcement in US history: DC US attorney,” Alexander Mallin, ABC News, 4 January 2024; “Prosecutor says many more police officers likely injured on Jan. 6 than reported,” Lauren Irwin, The Hill, 5 January 2024.

[13] “Four officers who responded to U.S. Capitol attack have died by suicide,” Jan Wolfe, Reuters, 2 August 2021; “DOJ finds police officer’s suicide after Jan. 6 attack was a death in the line of duty,” Ryan J. Reilly, NBC News, 18 August 2023.

[14] The Jan. 6 attack: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history,” NPR, 1 March 2024.

[15] The Jan. 6 attack: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history,” NPR, 1 March 2024.

[16] “The Jan. 6 attack: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history,” NPR, 1 March 2024.

[17] “Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces,” Mark Sherman, Associated Press, 28 June 2024. See also “Supreme Court says prosecutors improperly charged some Jan. 6 defendants,” Nina Totenberg, NPR, 28 June 2024; "Justice Department drops some January 6 obstruction charges and retools plea deals after Supreme Court ruling," Hannah Rabinowitz, CNN, 18 July 2024.

[18] “The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results,” Karen Yourish, Larry Buchanan and Denise Lu, New York Times, 7 January 2021.

[19] “Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,” Campaign Legal Center; “Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” Wikipedia, accessed 26 September 2024.

[20] “The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results,” Karen Yourish, Larry Buchanan and Denise Lu, New York Times, 7 January 2021.

[21] “McConnell Remarks on the Electoral College Count,” Office of Senator Mitch McConnell, 6 January 2021.

[22] "Joint statement from Elections Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council & the Election Infrastructure Sector Coordinating Executive Committees," U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, 12 November 2020.

[23]  Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw), Twitter/X, 6 January 2021. https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1346969439573602310

[24] “January 6, 2021: Harvard Law experts reflect a year later,” Jeff Neal, Harvard Law Today, 4 January 2022.

[25] “Thousands of law school alumni and students push for disbarment of Sens. Hawley and Cruz,” Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, 10 January 2021; “Thousands of lawyers and law students petition to disbar US Senators Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz,” Angela Mauroni, in Jurist, 14 January 2021. 

-  Neither Senator Hawley nor Senator Cruz have been disbarred by their bar associations, and neither has resigned. 

-  A legal watchdog organization filed a complaint against Senator Cruz with the Texas Bar Association, seeking his disbarment for aiding what it called an “anti-democratic” plot to keep President Trump in power despite his election defeat. The Texas Bar Association dismissed the complaint on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction. The Bar Association’s Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel wrote that the allegations against Cruz showed no misconduct within the scope of professional rules that apply to Texas lawyers “in the discharge of any responsibilities owed to a client, a court, or the legal profession.” Renee Knake Jefferson, a legal ethics expert at University of Houston Law Center who also advises the organization that lodged the complaint against Cruz, said ethics rules should apply even when an attorney is not representing a client: “Lawyer lies designed to sabotage valid election results should not be considered protected political speech,” reflecting commentary she published in Yale Law Review. “Group that tried to disbar Ted Cruz over 2020 wants ban on election lies by lawyers”, Todd J. Gillman, Dallas Morning News, 27 August 2019 updated 29 June 2021. 

-  See also the following articles about calls for Senator Cruz to resign, and Senator Cruz’s defense of his conduct: “Texas newspapers call for resignation of state’s senator Ted Cruz after Capitol riots,” Danielle Zoellner, Independent, 9 January 2021; “Calls Grow For Sens. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz To Resign For Subverting Democracy,” Arthur Delaney and Igor Bobic, HuffPost, 8 January 2021; “Ted Cruz urges critics of presidential election challenge to calm down,” David Cohen, Politico, 3 January 2021; “Sen. Ted Cruz responds after video showed Capitol rioter saying senator 'would want us to do this'”, ABC 13 News, 17 January 2021; “Ted Cruz called the Jan. 6 riot a “terrorist attack.” Now he says he misspoke.” Karen Brooks Harper, The Texas Tribune, 6 January 2022.

-  For reports about Senator Hawley’s refusal to certify the election results, complaints brought in Missouri seeking his disbarment, calls for his resignation, and Hawley’s defense of his conduct, see: “Attorneys urge Missouri Supreme Court to probe Hawley’s actions before Capitol riot,” Celine Castronuovo, The Hill, 19 January 2021; “Missouri paper urges disbarment proceedings against Josh Hawley: 'He must answer for his treasonous misdeeds',” Tom Boggioni, Raw Story, 19 January 2021; “Could Sen. Josh Hawley’s ‘reckless disregard for truth’ cost him Missouri law license?,” Editorial Board, Kansas City Star, 19 January 2021; “‘Poster Boy Of The Radical Right’: Missouri’s Two Biggest Newspapers Call For Sen. Josh Hawley’s Resignation,” Siladitya Ray, Forbes, 8 January 2021; “Calls Grow For Sens. Josh Hawley, Ted Cruz To Resign For Subverting Democracy,” Arthur Delaney and Igor Bobic, HuffPost, 8 January 2021; “Hawley Defends Decision To Object To Electoral Votes”, Barbara Sprunt, NPR, 13 January 2021; Sen. Josh Hawley: “Why I objected to the electoral vote,” Senator Josh Hawley, in Columbia Daily Tribune, 13 January 2021.

-  In February, 2021, a group in Missouri (including lawyers) filed a complaint against Senator Hawley with Alan Pratzel, chief disciplinary counsel of the Missouri Supreme Court, who is responsible for investigating alleged legal misconduct. The complaint said that Hawley’s statements seeking to overturn the presidential election results “were false and known by Senator Hawley to be false at the time made or were made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity,” thereby violating the oaths Hawley took as a Senator to uphold the U.S. and Missouri Constitutions and to practice law in Missouri. In August 2022 Pratzel informed the group that he had found "insufficient probable cause to believe that Senator Hawley was guilty of professional misconduct that would justify discipline", and that Hawley's public statements "were constitutionally protected." The group appealed to the Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri, saying that Pratzel had not offered sufficient reasons for his decision and had failed to provide “analysis of the facts or applicable law … to support these conclusions.” The Advisory Committee held that it agreed with the decision to close the case file, without giving specifics explaining its reasoning. The complainant group’s leader said: “The system for enforcing the ethical rules governing Missouri lawyers appears to be opaque, arbitrary, and lacking in meaningful oversight and accountability. That’s a disservice to the citizens of this State. It would seem that reform is needed.” “Effort to discipline Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley ends in failure; critic says ethics process is ‘opaque, arbitrary’,” Paul Wagman, Gateway Journalism Review, 17 November 2022.

-  See also: “Senate Democrats file ethics complaint against Republicans Hawley, Cruz over roles in Capitol riot,” Dareh Gregorian, Julie Tsirkin and Frank Thorp V, NBC News, 21 January 2021; “Democratic Senators File Ethics Complaint Against Cruz, Hawley After Capitol Riot,” Susan Davis, NPR, 22 January 2021.

[26] “U.S. Chamber CEO on Electoral College Vote Counting," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 4 January 2021.

[27] "Manufacturers to Congress: Respect Democracy, Elections," National Association of Manufacturers, 4 January 2021.

[28] "Business Roundtable Statement on January 6 Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes," Business Roundtable, 4 January 2021.

[29] “Historians’ statement on congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election,” 4 January 2021.

[30] “Corporate donors, the lifeblood of the GOP, need to stand up for democracy,” Editorial Board, Boston Globe, 14 May 2021.

[31] Homepage, Lincoln Project website, accessed 26 September 2024.

[32] “Lincoln Project shifting focus to corporations that have donated to ‘Sedition Caucus’,” Joseph Choi, The Hill, 8 July 2021.

[33] “Lincoln Project shifting focus to corporations that have donated to ‘Sedition Caucus’,” Joseph Choi, The Hill, 8 July 2021.

[34] Article 21, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

[35] Principle 11, United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [PDF], unanimously endorsed by United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011. 

[36] This United Nations body is usually referred to as the Working Group on Business and Human Rights. Its full formal title is the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Further information can be found on the following page of the United Nations website: "Working Group on Business and Human Rights."

[37] Paragraph 50, “Corporate influence in the political and regulatory sphere: ensuring business practice in line with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,” Report of the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights to the United Nations General Assembly, United Nations document A/77/201, 20 July 2022.