American Democracy Scorecard Methodology

In researching how corporations are either helping to uphold or undermine American democracy, Accountable.US identified 14 key criteria. These include seven criteria that involve making pro-democracy statements, being affiliated with pro-democracy organizations, and taking other pro-democracy actions and seven criteria that involve corporate contributions to elected officials who are undermining democracy and voting rights.

Using these criteria, we evaluated Fortune 100 companies on their commitment to America’s democracy. After weighting each criterion by its impact on upholding democratic ideals, we developed a 100-point scoring system, with each company starting at a baseline score of 80 points. Companies could then earn up to 20 points for pro-democracy statements and actions (for a maximum possible total score of 100), and lose up to 80 points for actions that undermine democracy (making the lowest possible score 0). This allowed us to grade companies using a standard letter-grade scale. Each criterion is valued between -15 to +10 points and the values vary based on that criterion’s respective impact on democracy.

Numerical Score  Letter Grade
90-100 A
80-89 B
70-79 C
60-69 D
59 and below F

Data Collection Period and Due Diligence

Our data collection period ran from March through August 2022. For political contributions, we used the Accountable.US Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to compile corporate contributions made during the 2022 election cycle. This database includes federal- and state-level campaign contributions. The FEC data included on this site was aggregated using candidates’ quarterly FEC reports. Contributions from corporations to candidates were pulled from each report’s Schedule A filings (Itemized Receipts). State-level campaign finance data was aggregated across 20 state campaign finance disclosure databases.

For statements and actions other than political contributions, we use accessed dates when relevant to indicate when the data was collected. For each criterion, we conducted a due diligence search of the company’s website, publicly available reports, statements to media outlets, and other appropriate sources when relevant to reflect a good-faith effort to include any qualifying information. 

Omissions and Errors

If you are a company representative and believe we have omitted information that would impact your company’s score or otherwise erred, we encourage you to reach out to us using this form, and we will be happy to review the information you provide and, if applicable, adjust your company’s score and any information we publish about your company accordingly.

The Accountable.US American Democracy Scorecard is a living website. It will be updated regularly as relevant information becomes available. 

Signup to receive email updates.

Individual Scoring Criteria Methodology

Baseline Score 

Each company starts with a baseline total of 80 points. 

80
Corporate Values on Democracy

Scores in this section are added to a company’s total for a possible maximum score of 100. 

Possible Points:
-15 to +20
  1. Has the company made an independent or key coalition statement in support of democracy or voting rights? 

Accountable.US reviewed the company’s website, its press releases, the company’s most recent corporate responsibility disclosures (Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Environmental Social Governance (ESG), and comparable reports), and its social media accounts (Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.). For each of these, when able, Accountable.US specifically searched for the key terms: democracy, democratic (not as it relates to party), vote, voting, civil rights, and human rights.

  • Accountable.US noted if the company was part of key coalitions that have released pro-democracy statements, such as the Business for Voting Rights coalition, the April 2021 NYT ad that stated “we stand for democracy,” and or the Civic Alliance.
  • Accountable.US conducted additional news searches using Nexis and Google to capture additional statements.
1
  1. Is the company’s CEO a member of the Business Roundtable, which has released pro-voting and pro-democracy statements in recent years?
  • Accountable.US reviewed the Business Roundtable’s membership website to determine which companies are members. 
1
  1. Did the company release a statement opposing the events of January 6th, 2021?
  • Accountable.US reviewed its Corporate Donations Tracker and public reporting for statements from companies reacting to the events of January 6th, 2021. 
2
  1. Does the company publish annual corporate responsibility disclosures (CSR, ESG, and comparable reports)?
  • Accountable.US reviewed each company’s website to determine if it publishes annual corporate responsibility disclosures (CSR, ESG, and comparable reports).
2
  1. Does the company publish a public political spending disclosure?
  • Accountable.US reviewed each company’s website to determine if it publishes a political spending disclosure, which are independently released disclosures provided by a company that outline its corporate PAC contributions to federal, state, and or local elected officials.
  • For instances in which a company lacked a political spending disclosure because they are legally restricted from making political contributions, or have a policy against making political contributions and have no PAC, Accountable.US awarded the company points for this criteria as to not arbitrarily reduce a company’s score.
4
  1. Has the company taken a major action related to voting rights or democracy?
  • Accountable.US reviewed the company’s website, its press releases, the company’s most recent corporate responsibility disclosures (CSR, ESG, and comparable reports), and its social media accounts (Twitter, LinkedIn, etc.). For each of these, when able, Accountable.US specifically searched for the key terms: democracy, democratic (not as it relates to party), vote, voting, civil rights, and human rights. For the company’s corporate responsibility disclosures, we also searched for the key terms: donation, contribution, and expenditure.
  • Accountable.US noted if the company is a member of Time to Vote, a coalition of companies that have committed to giving employees time off to vote.
  • Accountable.US conducted additional news searches using Nexis and Google to capture additional major actions taken by the company related to voting rights. (ex. gave voting time off to employees, allowed its facilities to be used as a polling place, gave a major donation to a voting group, or made available information regarding voting resources).
10
  1. Has the company enabled the sharing of electoral misinformation/disinformation or allowed its platform to be used to share electoral misinformation/disinformation since the 2020 election cycle?
  • Accountable.US searched Nexis and Google using each company’s name combined with the terms “disinformation” and each of the following: “election,” “2020,” “ballot,” “vote,” and “voting.” We ran the same searches for each company with the term “misinformation.”
-15
Corporate Political Spending

Scores in this section are subtracted from a company’s score. 

Possible Points:
0 to -65
  1. Did the company make contributions to members of Congress who opposed federal voting rights legislation during the 2022 election cycle?
  • Accountable.US considered opposition to the Freedom to Vote Act, John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and or the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to determine which members of Congress opposed federal voting rights legislation during the 2022 election cycle.
  • Accountable.US used its Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to identify how much each company has contributed to members of Congress who opposed federal voting rights legislation during the 2022 election cycle. The database uses FEC data to calculate how much each corporate PAC has given to this group of lawmakers.
-10
  1. During the 2022 election cycle, did the company donate to members of Congress who objected to certifying the 2020 presidential election?
  • Accountable.US considered support for the objections to certifying the electoral college votes from Arizona and or Pennsylvania to determine which members of Congress voted to decertify the 2020 presidential election.
  • Accountable.US used its Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to identify how much each company has contributed to members of Congress who objected to certifying the electoral college votes from Arizona and or Pennsylvania in the 2020 presidential election. The database uses FEC data to calculate how much each corporate PAC has given to this group of lawmakers.
-12
  1. Did the company make contributions to members of Congress who opposed the formation of a January 6th Commission or the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol?
  • Accountable.US considered opposition to the National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex and or the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol to determine which members of the House of Representatives or Senate opposed the formation of a congressional January 6th investigatory body.
  • Accountable.US used its Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to identify how much each company has contributed to members of Congress who opposed the formation of a January 6th Commission and or the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. The database uses FEC data to calculate how much each corporate PAC has given to this group of lawmakers.
-10
  1. Did the company make contributions to state officials who voted for anti-voter legislation during the 2022 election cycle?
  • Accountable.US considered supporters of 32 different laws restricting access to voting from 17 states passed in 2021, as identified by the Brennan Center, to determine which state legislators voted for anti-voter legislation during the 2022 election cycle.
  • Accountable.US used its Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to identify how much each company has contributed to state legislators who voted for anti-voter legislation during the 2022 election cycle. The database uses state-level campaign finance data collected from the individual states to calculate how much each corporate PAC has given to this group of lawmakers.
-10
  1. Did the company make contributions to elected officials who continue to peddle the “Big Lie” via election audits since the 2020 election?
  • Accountable.US considered supporters of six state audit efforts—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin—to determine which state legislators peddled the “Big Lie” via election audits since the 2020 election.
  • Accountable.US used its Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to identify how much each company has contributed to state legislators who peddle the “Big Lie” via election audits since the 2020 election. The database uses state-level campaign finance data collected from the individual states to calculate how much each corporate PAC has given to this group of lawmakers.
-15
  1. Did key company staff make large contributions to anti-democracy federal legislators?
  • Accountable.US considered individuals who self-identified as an employee of each company in the FEC database to determine which employees made contributions of $1,000 or more to anti-democracy federal legislators. We defined anti-democracy federal legislators as those who, during the 117th Congress, opposed federal voting rights protections, objected to certifying the 2020 election results, and or opposed the formation of a January 6th investigatory body.
  • Accountable.US used its Corporate Anti-Democracy Donations Database to identify how much employees from each company gave in contributions $1000 or more to anti-democracy federal legislators. The database uses FEC data to identify employees that made contributions of $1,000 or more to this group of lawmakers.
-3
  1. Is the company a member of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which made opposition to the For the People Act one of its key votes for members of Congress? 
  • Accountable.US reviewed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s website, searched for trade association membership disclosures from each company, and performed news searches using Nexis and Google to identify if a company was publicly tied to the Chamber.
  • If Accountable.US could not identify a company as a member of the Chamber as of 2020 or more recently, then we did not count them as a member. We did, however, note if there is evidence of earlier membership so that it is still noted in a company’s profile while not counting towards the company’s score.  
  • The Chamber does not publicly disclose its membership, so Accountable.US largely relied on company disclosures and public reporting to identify members of the trade group. Due to this, Accountable.US acknowledges that it is likely significantly under counting how many companies from the Fortune 100 are part of the U.S. Chamber.
-5

Noteworthy Information

In the company profiles, information included in the noteworthy section has not impacted a company’s score. This information is related to trends or other significant information that Accountable.US identified across the data after the research was conducted or additional publicly available donor information about formal and informal company leadership.

Send Me Updates

Be the first to know when corporations take actions that affect their scores, and get other newsworthy updates.