Insurer Chubb Demands Energy Producers Cut Methane Emissions for Coverage

EXCLUSIVE: 14 state AGs confront insurance giant for prioritizing climate activism

Investors Suing to Vote on ESG Proposals Meet Corporate Pushback

Insurance Giant Removes DEI Pages From Website, Commits To ‘Meritocracy’

‘Woke’ Insurance CEO Said Bill Barring Men From Women’s Bathrooms Was A ‘Threat To Democracy’

JASON ISAAC: Wall Street Clings To Green Coercion As Trump Unleashes American Energy

Allen Mendenhall raises an important question this week: Whose interest is the RSA voting?

Mendenhall argues that the Retirement Systems of Alabama should commission an independent audit of its proxy votes to confirm they serve beneficiaries’ financial interests. He notes that public pensions often delegate voting to asset managers and proxy advisers such as ISS and Glass Lewis with little public verification of how shares are actually cast. The question is especially timely in Alabama, home to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which was recently indicted by a federal grand jury in the state. Mendenhall asks whether RSA opposed shareholder proposals urging companies to stop using the SPLC’s discredited “hate map” in charitable-matching programs that discriminates against mainstream advocacy organizations, including Focus on the Family and Moms for Liberty. Alabamians have a right to know how their retirement funds voted on those and similar resolutions. RSA is uniquely opaque. It does not publish proxy records, does not use outside investment managers to vote its shares, and, in response to a public-records request, said it does not possess proxy voting data, past or present. 1792 Exchange has identified Alabama as the only state that discloses none of this information. This is not the first time RSA’s voting has drawn scrutiny. In 2023, a 1792 Exchange review of 2022 shareholder resolutions raised questions about how Alabama pension capital was being voted …