Senior managers with authority over political spending
Does the company publicly disclose the company’s senior managers (by position/title of the individuals involved) who have final authority over the company’s political spending decisions?
The CPA-Zicklin Index is a leading benchmark that evaluates how publicly traded companies in the United States disclose and manage their political spending. Developed by the Center for Political Accountability (CPA) in collaboration with the Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the Index provides investors, stakeholders, and the public with a clear view of corporate transparency and accountability in political engagement.
The Index assesses companies across multiple dimensions, including whether they disclose direct and indirect political contributions, how they oversee such spending at the board and executive levels, and the extent to which they publicly communicate policies governing political activity. By tracking trends over time, the CPA-Zicklin Index highlights best practices, identifies risks, and encourages companies to adopt greater openness in their political expenditures.
The Index assesses companies across multiple dimensions, including whether they disclose direct and indirect political contributions, how they oversee such spending at the board and executive levels, and the extent to which they publicly communicate policies governing political activity. By tracking trends over time, the CPA-Zicklin Index highlights best practices, identifies risks, and encourages companies to adopt greater openness in their political expenditures.
Not Applicable: The company has a clear policy prohibiting election-related expenditures from corporate funds and restricts its payments to third-party groups to non-election related purposes.
Yes: The company discloses the positions and titles of senior managers with final authority over political spending decisions.
Partial: The company only discloses a department or unit with such responsibility, or the disclosure is otherwise ambiguous.
No: No such disclosure is made.
Scores are based on publicly available information, with companies receiving credit when disclosure or policy commitments are clearly documented.
The “Scoring Key” (see Appendix C) lists the 2024 indicators and the maximum points given for each. Numerical scores were assigned following a simple arithmetic system, described below.
• A response of “No” to an indicator resulted in a score of zero;
• A response of “Yes” or “Not Applicable (Not Applicable)” resulted in the maximum score; and
• A response of “Partial” resulted in half of the maximum score.
The indicators that are highlighted in the Scoring Key are considered “key performance indicators” (KPIs), which are scored more heavily than the rest.
Yes: The company discloses the positions and titles of senior managers with final authority over political spending decisions.
Partial: The company only discloses a department or unit with such responsibility, or the disclosure is otherwise ambiguous.
No: No such disclosure is made.
Scores are based on publicly available information, with companies receiving credit when disclosure or policy commitments are clearly documented.
The “Scoring Key” (see Appendix C) lists the 2024 indicators and the maximum points given for each. Numerical scores were assigned following a simple arithmetic system, described below.
• A response of “No” to an indicator resulted in a score of zero;
• A response of “Yes” or “Not Applicable (Not Applicable)” resulted in the maximum score; and
• A response of “Partial” resulted in half of the maximum score.
The indicators that are highlighted in the Scoring Key are considered “key performance indicators” (KPIs), which are scored more heavily than the rest.
Framework Mappings