News

Investors Blast Pfizer, Bank of America for Supporting Left’s Agenda

During this week’s annual meetings, shareholder activists grilled Pfizer and Bank of America executives over support for left-wing causes and advocacy.

Citing 2ndVote’s research, representatives from the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Free Enterprise Project (FEP) asked Pfizer CEO Ian Read if his company’s partnership with UnidosUS, formerly known as La Raza, and other immigrant advocacy groups indicated support for unlawful sanctuary city policies. The FEP also asked Read if Pfizer supported the attacks on religious liberty carried out by the LGBT activists at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC).

Pfizer is one of the top donors to the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is perhaps the nation’s leading opponent of religious liberty. HRC also works to dictate corporate philanthropy away from conservative and Christian organizations. I highly doubt that when someone invests their hard-earned money with Pfizer that they anticipate those funds will be used to try and root out Christianity and oppose religious liberty.

Pfizer also contributes to UnidosUS, formerly known as La Raza, and partners with the League of Latin American Citizens, or LULAC.  Both groups have openly lobbied for sanctuary city policies and essentially support amnesty for illegal aliens.

If these groups do not represent Pfizer’s position on immigration, then why would you fund them and what exactly is the company’s stance on immigration reform?

Can you explain to us investors why Pfizer is funding anti-religious bigotry and the promotion of sanctuary cities?

FEP representatives also called on Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan to answer for the recent decision to sever ties with gun manufacturers:

The company is joining a list of corporations following the liberal whim of the moment and not looking out for the best interests of long-term shareholders. The company is also lending its voice to those who want to abolish the Second Amendment.

Let’s take a look at how another famous investor addressed this issue. CNBC asked Warren Buffett about corporations distancing themselves from the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers and how Berkshire Hathaway would respond. Buffett replied: “I don’t believe in imposing my views on [our] employees and a million shareholders. I’m not their nanny on that… I don’t think that Berkshire should say we’re not going to do business with [gun folks]. I think that would be ridiculous.”

Follow these links to read more about FEP’s exchange with Pfizer here and Bank of America here.

Earlier this year, Walgreens executives committed to reviewing their support for UnidosUS and LULAC due to pressure from these same shareholder activists. FEP’s work was also instrumental in prompting Joy Behar’s apology for likening Christianity to mental illness after raising the issue at Disney’s annual investor meeting.

You can help these companies understand why their support the left’s agenda is troubling to conservatives and people of faith. Just like investors, conservative consumers would rather do business with companies that remain neutral on the issues and focus on providing a good product or service.

Help us support FEP’s efforts by using these links to email Pfizer and Bank of America and let them know where you stand:

Send Pfizer an Email!

Send Bank of America an Email!

You can see where these companies stand on all the issues by checking out their scorepages in our database here.

Help us continue developing the content and research that conservatives are using to hold corporations for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

  • Paul Raymond

    I will say that, in the case of Pfizer, it might be more clear cut, but in others, support of a group could be mixed.

    For instance, groups supporting Catholic Charities could be supporting them for their pro-marriage and pro-life stance while also not quite approving of their pro-open borders and pro-UN “climate change” positions.

    Also, 2nd Vote needs to stop calling Business Roundtable “neutral”. Their “school choice” is really federally and government mandated control of education, even if you can choose schools, what difference does it make if the type of “education” that Business Roundtable supports is being pushed upon all public schools and even private, charter, and home schools?

    If you look up their former CEO John Engler, you’d realize that he’s BAD NEWS and is an Aspen Institute committee for Social Emotional Learning ( a very bad thing that the Family Research Council lately did a report about.) Engler also is tied to DeVos, which means that she is bad news too (well, that and she opposed Michigan Common Core repeals. and also is tied to a Jeb Bush pro-Common Core group.)

    Also, like the US Chamber of Commerce (pro-Common Core and perhaps pro-“school choice” too), Business Roundtable is also pro-Amnesty. They might not be supporting LULAC or La Raza, but they certainly don’t mind what those two groups are doing as long as it gets them cheap labor for their businesses.

  • Paul Raymond

    “The company is joining a list of corporations following the liberal whim of the moment and not looking out for the best interests of long-term shareholders. ”

    That might not be true. It might be profitable to the shareholders (who get rich from open borders and the huge profits they get from bringing down wages via open borders) but it’s detrimental to the country, which is a much more important factor than what it may or may not be doing to the shareholders.

  • Big money – big deception.

  • Rand Foreman

    We appreciate all the work you do exposing the companies supporting Leftist causes. We must hit them where it hurts and share to expose their filthy immoral Anti-American business practices.