Many Corporations Have A Short-Term Memory When It Comes To The Trump Administration

Unfortunately, many companies’ commitments to democracy have proven weak or ephemeral compared to their desire for influence and power.
Close-up of sign with logo on building facade at the San Francisco regional headquarters of automotive company Toyota in the Bishop Ranch office park in San Ramon, California, October 20, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collec... Close-up of sign with logo on building facade at the San Francisco regional headquarters of automotive company Toyota in the Bishop Ranch office park in San Ramon, California, October 20, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis.

In the wake of the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, many companies vowed publicly to stop supporting members of Congress who voted to overturn the election and sowed doubt about the legitimacy of the results in the minds of millions of Americans without providing a shred of evidence. It was understood that undermining the peaceful transfer of power went too far, even if that meant companies lost some clout in Washington.

Unfortunately, many companies’ commitments to democracy have proven weak or ephemeral compared to their desire for influence and power. Some have discovered a loophole to offset their direct contributions by making donations to party organizations that effectively funnel money to members who voted to overturn the election. Others, like Toyota, Lockheed Martin and more, either never stopped giving, or have resumed giving recently. Backsliding on their pledges is wrong, and it sends a clear message that crossing the Rubicon of democracy will not cost members of Congress anything — so why not try again?

The reversal on insurrection funding pledges also serves as a warning that companies may violate other commitments to their core values. For example, companies like Microsoft and Apple issued strong statements against the Trump administration’s policy of separating families at the U.S.-Mexico border to deter immigrants coming to the United States, not wanting to be associated with the Trump administration’s cruel agenda. Companies declared that inflicting harm on families and children to achieve a policy goal crossed the line. To hire former Trump officials who implemented those cruel policies would make their previous statements meaningless.

Some companies made similar declarations following the attacks on American voting rights in state legislatures across the country that seek to target Black, brown, elderly, and disabled voters. Companies are engaged in expensive PR campaigns claiming they support the freedom to vote, all while funneling money to the political campaigns of state legislators and officials who are actively trying to undermine it.

These companies did the right thing during the Trump administration by speaking out — and they won positive public praise for doing so. But is anyone checking to see whether they are living up to their word in the post-Trump world? Are they hiring the architects of the policies they once criticized now that no one is watching?

In Washington, the revolving door between the private sector and government is continuously spinning, but corporations that hire former Trump officials responsible for some of the most cruel and undemocratic policies should be held accountable. It’s a question of values: Should a company who ardently opposed the family separation policy hire a senior official who helped design the policy? Should a law firm hire a former Trump official who used the Department of Justice as the president’s personal political arm of the White House?

Watchdog groups like ours, Accountable.US and American Oversight, are watching closely so the public can be aware if and when companies go back on their professed values by hiring people they previously condemned. We start from the companies’ own statements and then track whom they are hiring. If the companies are knowingly hiring architects of abhorrent policies, they will be exposed. We are hopeful that corporations will stand by their values rather than act as though the last four years were politics as usual — but if they don’t, we will hold them accountable.

Ultimately, the decision about whom to hire lies with individual companies. But when a hire conflicts with a corporation’s previously stated values, and if doing so would legitimize the four years of cruelty as policy, it should be made public. A company’s staff demonstrates its values and hiring former officials who crossed the line would send a message that a company does not value democracy, equality, and human decency.


Kyle Herrig is the president of Accountable.US.

Austin Evers is the executive director of American Oversight.

Latest Cafe

Notable Replies

  1. Follow the money…

  2. Toyota isn’t part of that group of donors. They were outed and reversed their course. This article by Judd was published n July.

    Among the recipients of Toyota’s cash was Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ), who tweeted on January 6 that he would “lead the charge” and “fight” to overturn the election results. The reversal came the same day The Lincoln Project released an ad that harshly criticized Toyota’s contributions to Biggs and other Republican objectors.

    Here’s another related article in June. by Judd Legum.

  3. Captain Renault Casablanca gambling.

  4. So long as corps don’t include all the costs of their operations into their bottom line.

    I had the misfortune to see an article about the No Labels bunch funding the stupid House 9 or 10 Dems, Mark Penn and Lieberman showed up, I was eating my breakfast and almost lost it.

    All they care about is not having to pay any more taxes. They’re no different than Giuliani slobbering over every deal and penny they can make with no regards to the consequences or impacts or harm of their greed. And they call themselves Christians (except for the Jews of course, they call themselves “Orthodox” yet where’s Lieberman’s payots?).

    They have too much money as it is. I’d like to take it all away from them.

Continue the discussion at

13 more replies


Avatar for discobot Avatar for jackson_frisell Avatar for fgs Avatar for sysprog Avatar for epicurus Avatar for theod Avatar for DuckmanGR Avatar for arrendis Avatar for gr Avatar for pquincy Avatar for riverstreet Avatar for benthere Avatar for tpr Avatar for maximus Avatar for euglena4056 Avatar for garrybee Avatar for timbomov Avatar for geographyjones

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: