Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Don Owens, Deputy Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7767

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779

David Rosen, Press Officer, Regulatory Affairs
w. (202) 588-7742

Nicholas Florko, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch
w. (202) 454-5108

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog

Follow us on Twitter


July 13, 2011 

Shareholder Protection Act Would Give Company Owners a Voice in Corporate Campaign Spending and Require Increased Disclosure

Rep. Capuano and Sens. Menendez and Blumenthal Propose Improving Corporate Governance in Response to Citizens United Decision

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Shareholder Protection Act, introduced today, is a necessary response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that let corporations spend as much money as they want to influence elections, Public Citizen said today.

The Shareholder Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) and Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would prohibit corporate campaign spending without the knowledge and consent of a company’s shareholders. The measure is designed to mitigate the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

“Corporations cannot vote, but they have access to massive accumulated wealth, which now can be targeted like a laser to influence the election of candidates,” said Lisa Gilbert, deputy director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch division. “Decisions to use this wealth for political influence are made by CEOs, often without the knowledge or consent of their shareholders.”

For nearly a century, America prohibited direct campaign contributions and spending of corporate funds in federal elections. As a result, the problems posed by a CEO dipping into the corporate treasury without telling shareholders or investors and freely spending that money to promote or attack candidates have never been the subject of responsible corporate governance – until now. But in January 2010, the Supreme Court opened the floodgate of unlimited corporate spending in elections without providing shareholders and investors any safeguards over how their money is spent. Shareholders, investors and the public today rarely are told when a CEO is spending company funds on candidate elections.

The Shareholder Protection Act would require CEOs to receive annual shareholder approval of an overall political expenditure budget and mandate board ratification of specific campaign expenditures in excess of $50,000. Shareholders and investors would be notified of these campaign spending decisions, which also would be posted on the Internet for the public to see.

“The Shareholder Protection Act is a reasoned response to help offset some of the damage caused by the Citizens United decision, and we applaud the lawmakers who introduced it,” said Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist for Public Citizen. “Responsible corporate governance requires that shareholders and investors are aware of, and participate in, decisions to spend their money on candidates, ensuring that political spending decisions are made transparently and for sound business purposes.”

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2016 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.

Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation


Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.


To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.