Uncovering Corporate Support for Voter Suppression
A striking observation by Popular Information founder Judd Legum: “Several large corporations that have recently issued public statements supporting voting rights — including Google, Deloitte, and Citigroup — are also funding and collaborating with a top Republican group advocating for new voter suppression laws.” Legum also reports that the Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC), a far right political advocacy group that sends boilerplate legislation to intellectually lightweight state legislators, pulled the companies into its “policy working group” on “election integrity.” This working group, however, was established with the expectation that its work product would be voter suppression bills or, more succinctly, bills that would codify voter ID requirements, restricted voting days, closure of polling places and other policies deliberately designed to limit voter participation.
At a time when the federal-level John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act is on the table, these state legislators accept sample legislation produced by the RSLC and make it their own, thus providing a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist (voter fraud) and attempting, transparently and cynically, to limit the voting efforts of poor and minority citizens. The policy working group (which Google attends) meets in secret. The purpose of this buy-in by tech companies isn’t completely clear, but given the high price of getting to the table, we can realistically assume companies are attempting to maximize their benefit and minimize the impacts of an oncoming wave of regulations on campaign finance.
Judd Legum also does amazing work foregrounding political corruption and money in politics, and among his particularly strong areas of research is the tech sector and its support of regressive politics under a veneer of progressivism. Since founding his investigative news website, Popular Information, Legum has exposed unethical practices at big tech companies, hypocrisy and lies from politicians, and corporate support for boilerplate conservative legislation.
Legum’s investigations have turned up policy work like the deliberately unconstitutional abortion bills in several state legislatures. Legum’s most recent abortion rights story tracks the role of groups like Alliance Defending Freedom to distribute model legislation to states — legislation that is deliberately unconstitutional in order that it get passed, challenged, and taken to the Supreme Court. Abortion politics is corporate politics too. Ever wonder why there’s big money in fighting abortion? Corporate America wins even if it loses, because these religious issues take time and attention from workers and the earth asserting their rights against corporate capitalism. And if Roe is repealed, anti-abortion laws will help keep working women subjegated and scared.
Will Popular Information have an effect on fighting these anti-choice laws and getting companies to stop funding extremist candidates? Well, PI’s work does seem to be having an effect on the struggle over voter suppression, so there may be hope.
The voter suppression tactics that have appeared in individual state legislatures for several years now are in the midst of a post-2020 election supercharge. They’ve already passed in many late 2020 and early 2021 state legislative sessions. One big battle in the present moment is taking place in Texas. Two bills there, SB7 and HB6, will in effect disenfranchise voters in areas of the state with large Black populations. Beginning in March, Popular Information reported on corporate sponsorship of these bills. In early May, Judd updated that story. This included news that American Airlines and Dell (the computer company) had begun pushing back against the voter suppression efforts. Then just a couple of weeks ago, those two companies were joined by Unilever, HP, Patagonia, Levis, Salesforce, Microsoft, “and other prominent companies” in opposing voter restriction laws categorically.
It’s really important to understand that these “voter integrity” events, working groups, meetings, and outreach efforts are being conducted by leaders embracing (or co-constructing?) Trump’s lies about election fraud. For example, Legum writes that the April 6 working group hosted by RSLC “was led by Alabama Secretary of State John Merrell (R), who has embraced Trump’s lies and conspiracies about election fraud.” This suggests that the underlying concern is not election “integrity” but instead promotion of the election theft lie. This makes corporate involvement in these endeavors especially concerning because it means there’s no guarantee that the execs of Google and other companies would oppose an illegal usurpation of power by a far right executive.
Legum doesn’t just amalgamate this news. He goes deeper. He discusses the role of local business alliances like the Greater Houston Partnership, faced with an internal struggle on whether to oppose the bills in Texas. Heidi Cruz is on the board of that group and undoubtedly pushed back against GHP taking a position. Learning that there are family members of prominent disenfranchisement advocates is valuable information.
Once political advocacy groups and even individual candidates have this information, communicating it to constituents and voters is very important. Utilizing data services like Accurate Append, candidates and advocacy groups can contact constituents and tell them to point out those family connections when they do their personal advocacy work. Political and civic leaders like hearing specific arguments from their constituents.
It’s also important to know which companies are staying silent while donating money to voter suppression sponsors (*cough cough* Farmers Insurance and Charter Communications). And, of course, Republican leaders are literally threatening companies who speak out — -a fascinating dynamic whereby the politician who is dependent on money attacks the sources of possible funding thus dividing and intimidating their corporate funding sources. A bizarre game.
Legum has had a lot of success sort of pushing these issues through his investigative writing and the publicity it produces. Companies back down in the face of negative publicity because companies are risk averse. That risk aversion may have been behind Google’s recent decision, in the wake of Popular Information’s May 17 story, to announce it was “reevaluating” its relationship with the RSLC.
At a time when traditional news sources are on life support, it is good to see nontraditional and new methods of sustaining investigative reporting.
