More

Five Biggest Recipients Of Corporate Tax Breaks Spent $8 Million In 2010 Elections (UPDATED)


First Posted: 05/03/11 04:30 PM ET Updated: 07/03/11 06:12 AM ET

This story has been updated.

WASHINGTON -- The top five recipients of large federal corporate tax breaks in 2009 are also among the biggest spenders in the U.S. political system -- they shelled out a combined $7.86 million in campaign contributions during the 2010 elections (in political action committee and individual employee contributions), according to analysis from the New York City Public Advocate's office. Bill de Blasio, the public advocate, is now calling on these companies to verify that no taxpayer dollars will be used in future election spending, warning such a move could "carry financial risk to the [companies'] bottom line."

De Blasio, a Democrat, has aggressively gone after campaign finance accountability and successfully used his bully pulpit to convince several Wall Street firms not to spend any corporate dollars on political advertising.

According to the analysis by de Blasio's office, ExxonMobil, Bank of America, General Electric (GE), Chevron and Boeing had combined profits of $77.16 billion in 2010 but paid $0 in current federal income taxes in 2009. [ExxonMobil's spokesman contacted The Huffington Post and disputed this figure. See below.] It should be noted, however, a Chevron spokesman said the company paid current taxes of $1.5 billion and deferred taxes of $162 million for 2010.

At the same time, these companies gave a combined $7.86 million in political contributions during the 2010 election cycle -- a 7 percent jump over their 2008 political spending.

Charts via the Office the Public Advocate:

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, all five of these companies ranked among the top 100 biggest political spenders between 1989 and 2010, with Chevron and ExxonMobil giving more heavily to Republicans, and the other three corporations generally balancing donations between the two parties.

In 2010 alone, Boeing ranked 28th in political giving ("on the fence" in political leanings), GE ranked 30th ("leans Democratic"), Bank of America ranked 37th ("leans Republican") and ExxonMobil ranked 93rd ("strongly Republican"). Chevron was not in the top 100 overall donors for the year.

"[Corporate] tax breaks were put in place to promote growth and create jobs, not bankroll the political causes of corporate executives," said de Blasio in a statement. "The unencumbered and anonymous spending in elections let loose by the Citizens United ruling has opened the door for a gross misuse of taxpayer dollars. No company that can afford to spend millions of dollars to influence our elections should be pleading poverty come tax time."

The Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Citizens United cleared the way for a federal court's decision in Speechnow.org v. FEC, which opened the floodgates for unlimited election spending by certain independent political groups, as long as they do not coordinate their activities with political candidates or party committees. These groups can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations and unions. Thanks to the ruling, the five companies could have contributed even more than the $7.86 million than was disclosed in 2010.

De Blasio sent letters to the heads of each of the corporations, expressing concern over the use of their federal tax credits. He urged each company to "ensure full disclosure of its political spending to demonstrate that these funds and other corporate treasury dollars are not being used for political spending and electioneering." He also asked all of them except GE to adopt policies that prohibit their trade association dues from being used for political contributions and electioneering.

His office is also launching a campaign to ask the public to email ExxonMobil and urge the company to "adopt the proposed shareholder resolution on disclosure of political spending," which will be considered at the company's May 25 shareholders meeting.

In response to de Blasio's statement, ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers told The Huffington Post in an email that the company complies with all tax laws and disclosure requirements. He also addressed some criticism of ExxonMobil's federal taxes.

"Recent media reports have highlighted efforts by lawmakers to end economy-wide tax deductions for U.S. oil companies that were established to support manufacturing jobs in the United States and prevent U.S. companies from paying double taxation on income earned outside the country," Jeffers wrote. "ExxonMobil is one of the largest taxpayers in the United States," he added. "During the first quarter of this year, on earnings of $2.6 billion in the United States, we incurred U.S. tax expenses of $3.1 billion."

Boeing held its shareholders meeting on Monday and according to a spokesman, 67 percent of shareholders voted with the management against publishing amounts contributed to trade associations. The company already publishes its other political contributions online.

"Like most of its competitors, Boeing does not publish amounts contributed to trade associations or otherwise mandate disclosure of funds spent for non-political purposes that are later used by the third parties to support political activity," reads the Board of Directors' statement in opposition. It cites problems with potentially revealing corporate strategy to competitors through this information and problems in compelling third parties to reveal whether they used Boeing-contributed funds for political purposes.

GE spokesman Andrew Williams sent a statement that, like Exxon's, did not address the issue of political contributions and also took exception to media reports on the company's tax liability.

"We will file our 2010 tax returns by September," he wrote to The Huffington Post. "We expect to have a small federal income tax liability. In 2010, GE paid significant federal income taxes for prior years. We also paid about $1 billion in 2010 in other state, local and federal taxes in the U.S." Williams said the company's federal tax rate was low in 2010 because the company "lost billions of dollars in GE Capital, our financial arm, as a result of the global financial crisis. Similarly, in 2009 GE Capital's losses were so large that the total company lost money on its U.S. operations." He added that GE expects its tax rate will be higher in 2011 as GE Capital recovers.

In March, however, GE told shareholders that the company expected to get back a $3.2 billion tax benefit from the federal government.

Last year, Bank of America agreed to begin publishing a summary of its political donations online.

"We comply with all state and federal campaign regulations," said Bank of America spokesman Jerry Dubrowski. "Our policy is not to make corporate contributions to candidates for public office."

In a statement, Chevron wrote, "Chevron is committed to adhering to the highest standards of ethics and transparency in engaging in any political contributions. We have strict policies and internal approval processes so that decision making and reporting on political contributions comply with the letter and spirit of all applicable laws. A list of corporate contributions made during 2010 is available on Chevron.com." It also defended its taxes, stating, "Between 1998 and 2008, the oil and gas industry paid $1 trillion in total income taxes. ... In 2010, Chevron, as an example, paid $12.9 billion in taxes on pretax income of $32.1 billion, or an effective tax rate of 40 percent."

Large corporations that won't be paying any federal income taxes have faced fierce bipartisan criticism in recent weeks.

Former Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold, who now runs the Progressives United political action committee, launched a campaign pressuring GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt on the issue. And in April, there were massive protests in Washington state over the Democratic-controlled legislature proposing cuts to public programs over closing corporate tax loopholes.

For the past month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has been publicly shaming what he calls the "worst corporate income tax avoiders" in an effort to share the burden of deficit reduction more equally, rather than letting it fall more on programs that assist low-income and middle-class individuals. The top five federal corporate tax break recipients have been particular targets of Sanders' campaign.

UPDATE: 10:41 p.m. -- ExxonMobil spokesman Alan Jeffers disputes the $156 million 2009 federal tax benefits figure, arguing the company paid $500 million in US income taxes in 2009. De Blasio's office based its number on ExxonMobil's publicly available SEC filing documents (form 10-K filed in 2010). Politifact has a longer analysis of ExxonMobil's taxes here.

This article has also been updated to include a statement from Chevron.

The chart originally provided by de Blasio's office incorrectly identified 2009 federal income taxes as being from 2010. Federal 2009 taxes are the most recent taxes paid by all corporations listed. The 2010 profits are the most recent profits reported. De Blasio's original chart can be viewed here.

The story was also changed to include Chevron's 2010 tax filings.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
This story has been updated. WASHINGTON -- The top five recipients of large federal corporate tax breaks in 2009 are also among the biggest spenders in the U.S. political system -- they shelled out...
This story has been updated. WASHINGTON -- The top five recipients of large federal corporate tax breaks in 2009 are also among the biggest spenders in the U.S. political system -- they shelled out...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 843
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (19 total)
  1 of 1  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS

photo
murphthesurf3 04:18 PM on 05/03/2011
Government that's corrupt from the roots up

Until we get corporate (whether business, union, public interest, special interest) funding out of the political process  (to individual campaigns, to parties, and to causes related to those campaigns),

until we limit the total amount any individual may give to a campaign,

until we place a policy which requires the  Read More...

THEN OUR SYSTEM WILL REMAIN THE WORST GOVERNMENT MONEY CAN BUY!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
builderman55
Featherless Biped
10:38 AM on 05/09/2011
But, as politicians tell us, money does NOT buy influence in government. This is all just a coincidence...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Azlegit
02:17 PM on 05/05/2011
So this begs the question which politicians reaped the most benefit from this money????
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Judy Rauch
01:17 PM on 05/05/2011
Every thing needs to be changed I wish America could recall all these idiots elected to our Congress but nothing will change cause The Supreme Court under the conserative judges made it clear that big money can buy elections. Simple as that and yes we must vote to show big business we still have a couple rights. I love it when business cries that their business is slow cause people are not spending gee can they get any stupider then that No jobs no spend . Guess when you have Congress throwing money your way you do not have that problem.
08:42 PM on 05/04/2011
If we can't regulate the Corporations, it's time we regulate the election process. We can start by limiting campaign time to 10 weeks.
12:37 PM on 05/04/2011
There is a simple way that would forever eliminate corporate lobbying for tax breaks, Implement the Fair-Tax. FairTax.org
photo
Thumbody
just for the halibut!
12:05 PM on 05/04/2011
The rules of the game.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nypapajoe
11:00 AM on 05/04/2011
The argument should be based on the fact is that we the people can not compite with the ultra rich and corporate money machine that funnels cash to the certain political parties and individuals that protect a particular interest! Throughout the history of business there has always been a pay as you go relationship with government this will never change! However, the degree of corruption and greed has gone above a beyond the relms of decency and social injustice! Everyone is entitled to make a dollar but to deny the middle class that same right borders on criminal! We should expect fair wages, health care, education and a pension plan! We pay our taxes unlike Billion dollar corporations and the ultra rich! We should also have equal representation in both congress and the senate even though we can't afford to buy our politicians!
10:20 AM on 05/04/2011
We should enact an amendment ending corporate funding in elections or electioneering communications, i.e. ads. I am a huge believer in the corporate form- it's a wonderful evolution in modern business enterprise, but it should be barred from attempting to influence politics. That's the only way we can stop it- otherwise Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito rule the day as they do currently.

p.s. People should know, however, that corporations and unions are barred from direct contributions. That alone is not sufficient. To think it is, is to pretend that masses of people are not influenced by what the information they are inundated with. Why prevent the dissemination of information? Because it is made by a corporation whose purpose is to gain profit- and is entirely separate from an organization of people who intend to organize themselves to get their opinion out. Perhaps non-profit corporations should be able to advertise, but the decision goes beyond that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seanparnell
10:54 AM on 05/04/2011
I'm pretty sure the First Amendment would have something to say about this:

"Why prevent the disseminat­ion of informatio­n? Because it is made by a corporatio­n whose purpose is to gain profit..."

I don't think the government should be in the business of deciding which perspectives and motives should be allowed to be heard by the public.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitiv­e Politics
http://www­.campaignf­reedom.org
http://www­.twitter.c­om/seanpar­nellccp
01:44 PM on 05/04/2011
You are not alone in that opinion, I just respectfully disagree. Electioneering communications should not be given by organizations who are organized STRICTLY ON A FOR-PROFIT BASIS. It gives the candidates who are backed by the most money an unfair advantage over others. I would like to think someone who is interested in having the most competitive elections possible would agree... :-) This is not a case where people are regulating the speech itself, it is advertisements by particular speakers who are, to reiterate, entirely organized for profit. I believe that we should ban advertisements paid by corporations on our elections. I don't think this infringes on the values of the First Amendment, and the dissenting justices and our President would agree with me on that.
01:52 PM on 05/04/2011
Another thing to note is that this is not to say that wealthy individuals cannot organize themselves in non-profit organizations to attempt to influence elections through advertising. It is saying that corporations - which are not human beings, btw - should not be permitted to engage in advertising that is intended to influence elections. If you still disagree, that is fine- you seem like someone who has already thought this all through and have settled on your opinion. Still, there is no denying that there is a huge amount of merit in what I say. It is not as simple as the government deciding perspectives; it is saying that a particular form of an organization should not be allowed to advertise, which to my mind is not infringing on any particular INDIVIDUAL from exercising their speech. This is why Con Law scholars like Pres. Obama and Tribe agree with me.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
seanparnell
09:57 AM on 05/04/2011
This article is highly misleading.

For starters, the contributions discussed are not from the corporations themselves, they are from individuals at those corporations, either directly or through their PACs.

Second, DeBlasio's demand that no "taxpayer dollars" will be use for politics is nonsense. Once the government pays one of these companies, or refunds tax overpayments, it is not the taxpayer's money, it is the corporation's money, just like the tax refund I used to pay off credit card bills was my money, not the government's or taxpayers'.

Third, and probably most important, the claim and insinuation that these companies don't pay taxes because they get some sort of special deals in return for their campaign contributions is false and shows just how little the people making these claims know about taxation. They are paying taxes, and for example the claim that ExxonMobil did not has been thoroughly debunked: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/dec/10/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-filibuster-exxon-mobil/. Second, corporate taxes are based on profits, and all businesses are allowed to deduct from current year profits the losses of past years. GE took a bath in 2008 and 2009 - no profits = no tax liability.

This whole article should be removed.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
07:29 AM on 05/05/2011
Sean- are you defending this? Help me understand.

This actually makes it worse: "For starters, the contributi­ons discussed are not from the corporatio­ns themselves­, they are from individual­s at those corporatio­ns, either directly or through their PACs. "

And uhm. "Once the government pays one of these companies, or refunds tax overpaymen­ts, it is not the taxpayer's money, it is the corporatio­n's money." Why is the government paying this company in the first place?

And lol @ "GE took a bath in 2008"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
07:51 AM on 05/04/2011
good short read....Capitalism is d.e.a.d, but we still dance with the Corpse, 6 min

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/07/waltzing.html#more
06:27 AM on 05/04/2011
Ms Terkel:

Why are we worried about the $8MM that these companies paid, supposedly with their own money that was given back to them? Shouldn’t we be more worried about the public unions which have been the biggest spenders in American politics, buying candidates to sit against them when they renew their bid-rigged contracts? After all, that money is collected through forced dues and, indirectly, come from the poor taxpayer that has indignity to pay to have their own conflicted elected officials work against them.

$8MM…yawn…Public unions are in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.

Kai
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mummblemouth
07:51 AM on 05/04/2011
Union dues cannot be used for most political purposes, though they can be spent on issue campaigns.
.

Under union shop agreements, labor unions must establish strict safeguards and
procedures for ensuring that non-members’ dues are not used to support certain
political and ideological activities that are outside the scope of normal collective
bargaining activities. The “union shop” or “agency shop” agreement essentially
provides that employees do not have to join the union, but must support the union in
order to retain employment by paying dues to defray the costs of collective
bargaining, contract administration, and grievance matters.
In a line of decisions, the Supreme Court has addressed this issue and has
concluded that compulsory union dues of non-members may not be used for political
and ideological activities that are outside the scope of the unions’ collective
bargaining and labor-management duties when non-members object to such use.
Seven Supreme Court decisions have held that union dues exacted from dissenting
non-members may not to be used for political and ideological purposes and must be
expeditiously refunded to dissenting non-members according to proper procedural
safeguards.

http://congressionalresearch.com/97-618/document.php?study=The+Use+of+Labor+Union+Dues+for+Political+Purposes+A+Legal+Analysis
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
07:56 AM on 05/04/2011
excellent post F&F
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Butterflyknwlge
09:25 AM on 05/04/2011
nice post!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverstreet
All you need is love
12:55 PM on 05/04/2011
Are you kidding? The contributions from public unions are minuscule compared with billions paid by corporate lobbyists -- not only through direct campaign contributions but through PACs and other agencies. Unions don't have the kind of money corporations have.
Besides, why shouldn't the American worker be represented -- as well as Big Business, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil?
10:07 PM on 05/04/2011
Open secrets say they do, being the biggest donors in the last decade. The only company that makes it into teh top 20 that isn't a union or ActBlue (the Dem secret donor front) is AT&T.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A

Kai
04:05 AM on 05/04/2011
Bank of America gets a $2.3 billion one-year tax benefit for $11 million in contributions over ten years? Great return on investment - but this system of corporate taxing is broken.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
07:54 AM on 05/04/2011
Neil agreed F&F...and here is where it all starts: The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy
Noam Chomsky
chomsky.info, January 24, 2010
(abridged version published in In These Times, February 2, 2010)

January 21, 2010 will go down as a dark day in the history of American democracy, and its decline. The editors of the New York Times did not exaggerate when they wrote that the Supreme Court decision that day "strikes at the heart of democracy" by having "paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding" -- more explicitly, for permitting corporate managers to do so, since current laws permit them to spend shareholder money without consent.
Nor does Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law, exaggerate when he writes that this exercise of the radical judicial activism that the rightwing claims to deplore "matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court. In that case, the court reached into the political process to hand the election to one candidate. Today it reached into the political process to hand unprecedented power to corporations."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm
03:51 AM on 05/04/2011
At least when people pay union dues, they know that some of that money will go toward funding which election campaign. When people buy products or services, they have no way of knowing whose campaign they are funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mummblemouth
07:52 AM on 05/04/2011
The right's claim that union dues pay for political activity is wrong. There are seven SC decisions saying as much in one form or another.
photo
herkyc130
telling the truth and pulling the blinders off
03:34 AM on 05/04/2011
The corporate GOP politicians want all Americans to bend over and take it smiling, while they reward the rich
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
08:02 AM on 05/04/2011
herkyc F&F: It's no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year.

In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably.

Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent [earned 1/4 of the income] and [top 1 % controlled] 33 percent.

One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats.

That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.

For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous--12 percent in the last quarter-century alone.
balance of all telling article
http://www.henrymakow.com/stiglitz.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dan1902
United we bargain,divided we beg!
01:01 AM on 05/04/2011
Sewing the Seeds of CORPOFASCISM!