Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
Signed in as:
filler@godaddy.com
DONATIONS AND DEMOCRACY
United Kingdom: The connection between UK-headquartered companies/firms 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
United Kingdom: The connection between UK-headquartered companies/firms and U.S. Congress members who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election – Democracy, human rights and rule of law concerns
Contents
1. UK-headquartered companies and firms connected with donations to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results
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 and firm donations to Congress members who voted against certification
6. Democracy, human rights and rule of law concerns
7. Details of 24 UK-headquartered companies and firms whose U.S. subsidiary's PAC (or member firm's PAC) has donated directly
8. Details of U.S. trade association donations mentioned in section 1.2 of this briefing
Footnotes
1. UK-headquartered companies and firms connected with donations to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results
According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, the following 24 large UK-headquartered international companies and firms have a U.S. subsidiary or member firm whose Political Action Committee (PAC) has donated directly to the campaigns (or in a few cases as noted to the PACs or joint fundraising committees) 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 at that time, 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.
- Aon (a multinational financial services firm with enterprises including insurance, reinsurance and pensions): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Aon Corporation (Aon USA) has donated directly to the campaigns of 2 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- AstraZeneca (a multinational pharmaceutical company): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP (PAC entitled Zeneca Inc. Political Action Committee) has donated directly to the campaigns of 19 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Bacardi (an international spirits and wine company headquartered in Bermuda, a UK overseas territory; its brands include Bacardi, Bombay Sapphire, Eristoff, Grey Goose, Martini & Rossi, Patrón Tequila): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Bacardi U.S.A. has donated directly to the campaigns/PACs of 12 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- BAE Systems (a multinational aerospace, defense and information security company): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary BAE Systems Inc. has donated directly to the campaigns of 46 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Barclays (a multinational bank): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Barclays US LLC has donated directly to the campaigns of 3 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- BP (a multinational oil and gas company): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary BP America Inc. has donated directly to the campaigns of 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- British American Tobacco (a multinational tobacco and nicotine product company whose cigarette brands include Dunhill, Kent, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall, Rothmans, Viceroy): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Reynolds American has donated directly to the campaigns/PACs of 55 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- CNH Industrial (a multinational company that designs, produces, and sells agricultural machinery and construction equipment; headquartered in the UK and incorporated in the Netherlands; its brands include New Holland Agriculture and Case IH): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary CNH Industrial America LLC has donated directly to the campaigns of 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Cobham (a multinational aerospace manufacturing company headquartered in the UK and owned by U.S. global private equity firm Advent International): The PAC of Cobham’s subsidiary Ultra Electronics, a British defense and security firm with a presence in the United States, has donated since 1 August 2022 (the date that Cobham’s acquisition of Ultra Electronics was completed) directly to the campaigns of 3 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results. (See also the listing for Ultra Electronics below, covering donations it made before it was acquired by Cobham.)
- Deloitte (one of the Big Four international accounting firms; Deloitte is made up of independent Deloitte firms that are members of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, also referred to as “Deloitte Global”, which is based in London): The PAC of Deloitte's U.S. member firm, Deloitte LLP, has donated directly to the campaigns of 52 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Diageo (a multinational alcoholic beverage company whose brands include Baileys, Bell's, Guinness, Johnnie Walker, Smirnoff, Tanqueray): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Diageo North America Inc. has donated directly to the campaigns of 2 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Ernst & Young (EY) (one of the Big Four international accounting firms; EY is made up of a network of member firms, with a Global Executive based in London): The PAC of its U.S. member firm Ernst & Young LLP has donated directly to the campaigns of 45 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Grant Thornton (an international network of member accounting and consulting firms; Grant Thornton International Ltd, based in London, is the international body of the firm): The PAC of its U.S. member firm Grant Thornton Advisors LLC has donated directly to the campaigns of 12 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) (a multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary GlaxoSmithKline US has donated directly to the campaigns of 25 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- HSBC Holdings (a British bank and financial services group with an international presence): The two PACs of its U.S. subsidiary HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. have donated directly to the campaigns of 6 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Imperial Brands (a multinational tobacco and nicotine product company whose cigarette brands include Davidoff, Embassy, and in the U.S. Kool, Salem and Winston): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary ITG Holdings USA has donated directly to the campaigns of 7 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG) (a multinational hotels company whose brands include Candlewood Suites, Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn, Hotel Indigo, InterContinental, Kimpton, Staybridge Suites): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary InterContinental Hotels Group has donated directly to the campaigns of 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- National Grid (a multinational electricity and gas utility company): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary National Grid USA has donated directly to the campaigns of 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers) (one of the Big Four international accounting firms; PwC is made up of a network of independent member firms which are separate legal entities; PwC's international body, PricewaterhouseCoopers International, is based in London): The PAC of its U.S. member firm PwC LLP has donated directly to the campaigns of 60 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- RELX (previously known as Reed Elsevier, a multinational information and analytics company; its subsidiaries include Elsevier, LexisNexis and RX Global): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary RELX Inc. has donated directly to the campaigns of 15 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Rio Tinto (a multinational metals and mining corporation with joint head offices in UK and Australia): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Rio Tinto America Inc. has donated directly to the campaigns/PACs of 4 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Rolls-Royce Holdings (a multinational aerospace and defense company; not to be confused with Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited company): The PAC of its U.S. subsidiary Rolls-Royce North America Holdings Inc. has donated directly to the campaigns of 29 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
- Ultra Electronics (a British defense and security firm acquired by Cobham on 1 August 2022): Before the acquisition by Cobham, the PAC of the Ultra Electronics division in the U.S. had donated directly to the campaigns of 7 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results. As noted in the entry on Cobham above, and below in section 7, after 1 August 2022 the Ultra Electronics PAC made further donations to 3 (of those same 7) U.S. Congress members.
- WPP (a multinational holding company with subsidiaries in fields including communications, advertising, public relations and lobbying; its subsidiaries include Burson, Hill & Knowlton, Hogarth Worldwide, Mindshare, Ogilvy, Prime Policy Group, VML): The PAC of two U.S. subsidiaries of WPP, a PAC entitled on the FEC website Prime Policy Group LLC/Burson Cohn & Wolfe Political Action Committee, has donated directly to the campaigns of 18 U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results.
In addition to the direct donations listed above in section 1.1, many UK-headquartered companies and firms reportedly are connected (usually through their U.S. subsidiaries or U.S. member firms) with U.S. trade associations whose PACs have donated to the campaigns of U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results. Trade associations are industry lobby groups that represent companies/firms and are funded by companies and firms, or in some cases such as American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, funded by the trade association’s individual members many of whom are senior professionals at firms. The section of this website entitled "Companies' indirect connections to donations via trade associations" explains various forms of connection between companies/firms and trade associations, most of which involve providing funding to the associations.
For example, the following UK-headquartered companies and firms, or their subsidiaries or member firms, reportedly have a connection with the U.S. trade associations cited. According to the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, the PACs of all of the trade associations below have donated to the campaigns (or in a few cases to the PACs or joint fundraising committees) of U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results. As indicated, the PACs of some of the trade associations below have donated to a very large number of those Congress members.
- Aon: Aon reportedly is a “Gold Partner” of Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, and an Aon executive reportedly is currently a member of the Council’s Board of Directors.
- Ardonagh Group: Ardonagh Group reportedly is a member firm of Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers, and the Chairman of International at Ardonagh reportedly is currently a member of the Council’s Board of Directors.
- Arup: Arup USA reportedly is a member of a number of the state member organizations of American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC).
- Aventum Group: Aventum Group reportedly is a member firm of Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.
- Beazley: Beazley reportedly is a “Gold Partner” of Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.
- BP: BP America reportedly is a member of American Petroleum Institute (API).
- Deloitte: A number of Deloitte LLP partners reportedly are members of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); Deloitte partners reportedly serve currently on the following AICPA committees: Assurance Services Executive Committee; Employee Benefit Plans Expert Panel; Financial Reporting Executive Committee; Health Care Entities Expert Panel; Insurance Entities Expert Panel.
- Deloitte: A Lead Client Service Principal with Deloitte Consulting LLP reportedly is currently a member of the Board of Directors of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
- Divine Chocolate: Divine Chocolate reportedly is a “Manufacturer Member” of National Confectioners Association (NCA).
- Ernst & Young (EY): A number of Ernst & Young LLP partners reportedly are members of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); Ernst & Young partners reportedly are currently members of the following AICPA committees: Assurance Services Executive Committee; Employee Benefit Plans Expert Panel; Financial Reporting Executive Committee; Health Care Entities Expert Panel; Insurance Entities Expert Panel.
- Ernst & Young (EY): An Ernst & Young LLP partner reportedly is currently a member of the Board of Directors of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
- Froneri (subsidiary in USA: Häagen-Dazs): The Häagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Froneri, reportedly is a member of International Franchise Association (IFA).
- Grant Thornton: A number of Grant Thornton LLP partners reportedly are members of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); a Grant Thornton managing director reportedly currently chairs the AICPA Employee Benefit Plans Expert Panel; a Grant Thornton partner reportedly currently chairs the AICPA Financial Reporting Executive Committee; a Grant Thornton partner reportedly is currently a member of the AICPA Assurance Services Executive Committee.
- Grant Thornton: A Grant Thornton LLP partner reportedly is currently a member of the Board of Directors of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
- HSBC Holdings: HSBC reportedly is a member of American Bankers Association (ABA).
- Intertek Group: Intertek Group reportedly is a member of American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA).
- Lloyd’s of London: Lloyd’s of London reportedly is a “Gold Partner” of Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers.
- PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers): A number of PwC LLP partners reportedly are members of American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA); PwC’s Global Assurance Leader reportedly is currently a member of AICPA’s board of directors; a PwC partner reportedly currently is chair of AICPA's Assurance Services Executive Committee; other PwC partners reportedly are currently members of the following AICPA committees: Employee Benefit Plans Expert Panel; Financial Reporting Executive Committee; Health Care Entities Expert Panel; Insurance Entities Expert Panel.
- PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers): A PwC LLP partner reportedly is currently a member of the Board of Directors of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).
- Shell: Shell USA reportedly is a member of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and an Executive Vice President of Shell USA reportedly is currently a member of NAM’s Board of Directors.
- Shell: Shell reportedly is a member of U.S. Chamber of Commerce; The President of Shell USA reportedly is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- Unilever: Unilever reportedly is a member of Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN).
- Unilever (subsidiary: Ben & Jerry's): Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc, a subsidiary of Unilever, reportedly is a member of International Franchise Association (IFA).
We communicated with each of the companies, firms 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, we have received the following reply from one company that asked that we include its response in the briefing; we indicated to that company that we would publish our following comments about their response alongside; they then confirmed that they would like their response published.
UNILEVER RESPONSE, FOLLOWED BY COMMENTS BY DONATIONS AND DEMOCRACY
"As a global policy, Unilever does not contribute to political parties or candidates. In the U.S., corporations are prohibited from contributing to political action committees (PACs), and we can confirm that Unilever employees did not make personal contributions to those two PACs."
Unilever and its subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s are included in our briefing for four reasons:
1. Unilever's subsidiary Ben & Jerry’s belongs to and is represented by International Franchise Association; Unilever belongs to and is represented by Council for Responsible Nutrition. The Political Action Committees (PACs) of those trade associations have donated to the campaigns of Congress members who had voted against certifying the results of a democratic election, after the courts had ruled the election was fair.
2. Members of trade associations typically fund their trade associations, including by paying dues. We invited Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s to notify us if they are not helping to fund the two named trade associations — as of the date of this briefing, we have not received a response from Unilever or Ben & Jerry's on this point.
3. If Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s disapprove of donations by their trade associations’ PACs to Congress members who voted against certifying the results of a democratic election, they could terminate their membership of those trade associations, or they could speak out about their disapproval of those donations. As far as we know, Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s continue to be members of those trade associations. We have not seen any public statement by Unilever or Ben & Jerry’s criticizing donations made by their trade associations' PACs to those Congress members. We invited Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s to send us any such public statements they have issued — as of the date of this briefing, we have not received such public statements from Unilever or Ben & Jerry’s.
4. Unilever has adopted a human rights policy which pledges respect for international human rights standards, and states: "This Human Rights Policy Statement contains our overarching commitment to respect human rights, which is also echoed in other company statements. We take steps to actively embed this commitment and its overarching principles into the polices and processes throughout our business….We expect all our partners and third parties to adhere to business principles consistent with our own, including respecting all internationally recognised human rights." Section 6 of our briefing explains that when company or trade association PACs 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.
If a company or firm tries to disclaim responsibility for which candidates receive donations from its PAC (Political Action Committee), that would be misleading.
Here are the facts:
For further information, see the following page of this website: “The facts about PACs (Political Action Committees)."
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 in other ways, 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.”[16]
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.[17] Some of the rioters assaulted Capitol Police officers and reporters, and attempted to capture and harm lawmakers.[18] More than 2000 rioters reportedly entered the building after security was breached and windows were broken.[19] 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.[20] 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.[21] A Capitol Police officer died the following day of two strokes.[22] 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.”[23] Four officers who responded to the attack reportedly died by suicide within seven months after the assault.[24] The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) considered the attack on the Capitol that day to be an act of domestic terrorism.[25] The Department of Justice launched the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.[26] As of 1 March 2024, 1309 people reportedly had been charged with federal crimes relating to the attack.[27] 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 affected 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.”[28] On 20 January 2025, the first day of his second term, President Trump issued a proclamation granting clemency (pardons or commutation of sentences), and dismissal of pending cases, to all of the nearly 1600 people who had been charged in connection with the 6 January 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.[29] Included in those covered by the clemency were those who had been found guilty of assaulting police, and members of the far-right militant organizations Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who had been found guilty of seditious conspiracy.[30]
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 2021, 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"[31] 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.[32] 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.[33] 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 Majority Leader at the time of the certification votes, 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.”[34]
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. …”[35]
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...."[36] 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.”[37]
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:
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.[38]
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. …”[39] 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.”[40] 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. …"[41]
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.”[42]
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 and firm donations to Congress members who voted against certification
Strong concerns have been raised about companies and firms that have 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.”[43]
The Lincoln Project, a U.S. political action committee "dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of democracy,"[44] 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”[45] 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.”[46]
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 donations by companies and firms.
6. Democracy, human rights and rule of law concerns
When companies, firms or 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.”[47] The United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights require all companies to respect human rights.[48] The United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights,[49] 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.”[50] 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 24 UK-headquartered companies and firms whose U.S. subsidiary's PAC (or member firm's PAC) has donated directly
Below is detailed information, drawn from the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, about 24 UK-headquartered international companies and firms whose U.S. subsidiary's Political Action Committee (PAC), or member firm's PAC, has donated directly to the campaigns/PACs 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 4 June 2025.
Aon:
AstraZeneca:
Bacardi:
BAE Systems:
Barclays:
BP:
British American Tobacco:
CNH Industrial:
Cobham:
Deloitte:
Diageo
Ernst & Young (EY)
Grant Thornton
GSK (GlaxoSmithKline)
HSBC Holdings
Imperial Brands
InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG)
National Grid
PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers)
RELX
Rio Tinto
Rolls-Royce Holdings
Ultra Electronics
WPP
8. Details of U.S. trade association donations mentioned in section 1.2 of this briefing
Below is detailed information, drawn from the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, about donations by the PACs of the U.S. trade associations mentioned in section 1.2 of this briefing: donations to U.S. Congress members after they voted against certifying the 2020 election results. As noted in section 1.2 and below, these are examples of U.S. trade associations to which UK-headquartered companies/firms (or their subsidiaries or member firms) reportedly have connections. The list below reflects donations made by PACs of these trade associations after the relevant congressional votes on 6 and 7 January 2021, and covers donations recorded on the FEC website as of 4 June 2025. These are a small number of examples; many other UK-headquartered companies and firms, or their subsidiaries or member firms, have connections with U.S. trade associations whose PACs have made such donations; we aim to report on them in the future.
American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA)
American Bankers Association (ABA)
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA)
American Petroleum Institute (API)
Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN)
Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers
International Franchise Association (IFA)
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
National Confectioners Association (NCA)
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
[1] “Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,” Campaign Legal Center, accessed 4 June 2025; “Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” Wikipedia, accessed 4 June 2025.
[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] "Human rights,” Deloitte website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[4] "Deloitte’s Human Rights Statement [PDF],” September 2023, accessed 4 June 2025.
[5] "Deloitte organizational structure," Deloitte website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[6] “EY Global Human Rights Statement," EY website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[7] “Ernst & Young," Wikipedia, accessed 4 June 2025.
[8] “Our locations," EY website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[9] “Locations – Did you know?," Grant Thornton International website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[10] “Leadership, governance and quality," Grant Thornton International website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[11] “Building trust: PwC’s Global Human Rights Statement [PDF]," PwC website, August 2017, accessed 4 June 2025.
[12] “How we are structured,” PwC website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[13] “What Is a PAC?” OpenSecrets, accessed 4 June 2025.
[14] “Forming a Corporate Political Action Committee," Venable LLP law firm, accessed 4 June 2025.
[15] “The new U.S. office politics: funding your boss's political causes,” Michelle Conlin and Lucas Iberico Lozada, Reuters, 11 May 2015.
[16] “Outside spending - Summary," OpenSecrets, accessed 4 June 2025; “Corporate Contributions to Outside Groups," OpenSecrets, accessed 4 June 2025; “Super PACs," OpenSecrets, accessed 4 June 2025; "Citizens United Explained: The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations,” Daniel I. Weiner and Tim Lau, Brennan Center for Justice, published 12 December 2019, last updated 29 January 2025.
[17] “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 4 June 2025; “2021 United States Electoral College vote count”, Wikipedia, accessed 4 June 2025.
[18] “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.
[19] “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.
[20] “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.
[21] “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 4 June 2025.
[22] “Sicknick had two strokes, died of natural causes after Capitol riot,” Mychael Schnell, The Hill, 19 April 2021.
[23] “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.
[24] “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.
[25] The Jan. 6 attack: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history,” NPR, updated 14 March 2025.
[26] The Jan. 6 attack: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history,” NPR, updated 14 March 2025.
[27] “The Jan. 6 attack: The cases behind the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history,” NPR, updated 14 March 2025.
[28] “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.
[29] "Trump gave broad clemency to all Jan. 6 rioters. See their cases in 3 charts," Annette Choi, Alex Leeds Matthews and Marshall Cohen, CNN, 26 January 2025; "What to Know About Trump’s Broad Grant of Clemency to Jan. 6 Rioters: He issued formal pardons to more than 1,550 rioters charged with a wide range of crimes and commuted the sentences of 14 members of far-right groups," Alan Feuer, New York Times, 20 January 2025, updated 23 January 2025.
[30] "Trump gave broad clemency to all Jan. 6 rioters. See their cases in 3 charts," Annette Choi, Alex Leeds Matthews and Marshall Cohen, CNN, 26 January 2025; "What to Know About Trump’s Broad Grant of Clemency to Jan. 6 Rioters: He issued formal pardons to more than 1,550 rioters charged with a wide range of crimes and commuted the sentences of 14 members of far-right groups," Alan Feuer, New York Times, 20 January 2025, updated 23 January 2025.
[31] “The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results,” Karen Yourish, Larry Buchanan and Denise Lu, New York Times, 7 January 2021.
[32] “Results of Lawsuits Regarding the 2020 Elections,” Campaign Legal Center, accessed 4 June 2025; “Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” Wikipedia, accessed 4 June 2025.
[33] “The 147 Republicans Who Voted to Overturn Election Results,” Karen Yourish, Larry Buchanan and Denise Lu, New York Times, 7 January 2021.
[34] “McConnell Remarks on the Electoral College Count,” Office of Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader website, 6 January 2021.
[35] "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.
[36] Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw), Twitter/X, 6 January 2021.
https://twitter.com/tribelaw/status/1346969439573602310
[37] “January 6, 2021: Harvard Law experts reflect a year later,” Jeff Neal, Harvard Law Today, 4 January 2022.
[38] “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 party in a dispute: “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, 12 October 2022 updated 13 October 2022.
- 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.
[39] “U.S. Chamber CEO on Electoral College Vote Counting," U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 4 January 2021.
[40] "Manufacturers to Congress: Respect Democracy, Elections," National Association of Manufacturers, 4 January 2021.
[41] "Business Roundtable Statement on January 6 Joint Session of Congress to Count Electoral Votes," Business Roundtable, 4 January 2021.
[42] “Historians’ statement on congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election,” 4 January 2021.
[43] “Corporate donors, the lifeblood of the GOP, need to stand up for democracy,” Editorial Board, Boston Globe, 14 May 2021.
[44] Homepage, Lincoln Project website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[45] “Lincoln Project shifting focus to corporations that have donated to ‘Sedition Caucus’,” Joseph Choi, The Hill, 8 July 2021.
[46] “Lincoln Project shifting focus to corporations that have donated to ‘Sedition Caucus’,” Joseph Choi, The Hill, 8 July 2021.
[47] Article 21, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by United Nations General Assembly in 1948.
[48] Principle 11, United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights [PDF], unanimously endorsed by United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011.
[49] 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."
[50] 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.
[51] U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[52] U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, accessed 4 June 2025.
[53] "McCarthy Victory Fund Fundraising Notice," accessed 4 June 2025.
[54] "McCarthy Victory Fund Fundraising Notice," accessed 4 June 2025.
[55] U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, accessed 4 June 2025. "Team Marshall II PAC Expenditures," Open Secrets, accessed 4 June 2025.
[56] Donation page of Scalise Leadership Fund website, accessed 4 June 2025.
Copyright © 2025 Donations and Democracy LLC - All Rights Reserved
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.