Related Companies
Latest Content
The Cost of “Choice”: Corporate Funding Behind Assisted-Suicide Advocacy
August 28, 2026Six Fortune 500 companies, through their affiliated charitable vehicles, have facilitated significant donations to Compassion & Choices, a U.S. nonprofit advocating for expanded access to physician-assisted suicide and other end-of-life practices. Compassion & Choices promotes medical aid in dying (MAID) through voluntarily stopping eating and drinking (VSED), palliative sedation that “advances the time of death,” and dementia directives that allow patients to refuse food and fluids. Companies may consider support for “choice,” “autonomy,” and “death with dignity” consistent with socially progressive philanthropic programs. However, physician-assisted suicide is a violation of the patient-doctor trust and a red line that is being crossed by providers. This represents yet another example of corporations using company resources to support and fund social causes that bear no connection to their core business operations or fiduciary interests. The American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics states that physician-assisted suicide is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer” and warns that it could pose serious societal risks. Corporate involvement raises another uncomfortable question: What happens when death becomes the least expensive healthcare option? Healthcare systems respond to financial incentives. This is particularly relevant to large corporations operating self-funded employee health plans. Unlike employers purchasing traditional insurance, self-insured employers generally pay covered medical expenses directly as claims occur. The Department of Labor confirms that these employers therefore bear the financial cost of covered healthcare themselves. For a terminally ill patient, …
Benevity’s Open Use of the SPLC’s “Hate List”
August 28, 2026Benevity uses the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) discredited “Hate List” and “Hate Map” as a filter to determine which nonprofits are eligible for employee donations and corporate matching funds. This effectively blacklists mainstream conservative, religious, pro-family, and parental-rights organizations while allowing partisan groups like the SPLC itself to remain eligible. Below are two publications released by Benevity pointing to their reliance on the SPLC for vetting nonprofits. Presentation from Benevity’s CEO Kelly Schmitt: Benevity Global Cause Vetting Document:
Allen Mendenhall raises an important question this week: Whose interest is the RSA voting?
August 27, 2026Mendenhall 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 …
High Risk Government Contractors
August 27, 2026Companies rated High Risk in the 1792 Exchange Government Contractors database, with total federal dollars committed to each. What “High Risk” means: 1792 Exchange rates a company High Risk when it finds the company yields to DEI activism and/or ESG when shaping its corporate governance, in ways that potentially alienate consumers, divide employees, and harm shareholders. 32 High Risk Companies $239,128,473,433.45 Total Dollars Committed to Them # Company Sector Dollars Committed 1 Lockheed Martin Defense $52,479,365,101.92 2 RTX Defense $25,433,238,417.40 3 Boeing Defense $24,758,962,470.98 4 Northrop Grumman Defense $19,669,506,853.35 5 UnitedHealth Group Healthcare $18,783,399,941.99 6 Leidos Defense $11,789,258,066.34 7 McKesson Healthcare $9,050,183,507.18 8 Booz Allen Hamilton Consulting $8,547,722,731.23 9 BAE Systems Defense $8,333,110,321.96 10 Honeywell International Industrial $7,633,213,844.45 11 Cencora Healthcare $6,091,697,826.62 12 SAIC Defense $5,445,175,403.27 13 Battelle Memorial Institute DBA Battelle Research $4,304,630,074.74 14 Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (DTTL) Consulting $3,983,960,278.41 15 Dell Technologies Technology $3,428,343,073.05 16 Optum Healthcare $3,309,894,581.24 17 General Electric Industrial $2,997,604,742.81 18 Merck Pharma $2,893,140,940.16 19 Jacobs Solutions Engineering $2,592,607,376.35 20 Parsons Engineering $2,533,637,222.80 21 Sanofi Pharma $1,635,380,052.05 22 United Launch Alliance Aerospace $1,629,701,239.01 23 FedEx Logistics $1,548,586,594.63 24 Oshkosh Corporation Defense $1,467,782,961.82 25 Pfizer Pharma $1,345,771,301.30 26 CGI Technology $1,220,705,109.58 27 GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Pharma …
The EEOC’s mission is opportunity for all, not demographic bean-counting
August 24, 2026In the Superman comics, Bizarro World is a place where everything is exactly backward. It is a cube-shaped planet where ugliness is admired, failure is celebrated, lies are preferred to truth, and the normal rules of logic are turned upside down. What is obviously true on Earth becomes false, and what is plainly false is treated as a self-evident fact. Donna Brazile recently accused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of abandoning its purpose by proposing to end mandatory annual race-and-sex workforce reporting. Her argument reads like a dispatch from Bizarro World. In truth, the commission’s July 21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind the EEO-1 and related demographic reports is a long-overdue course correction that reorients the agency to the actual text and original intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII forbids discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It does not authorize the government to compel every covered employer, regardless of whether a single discrimination charge has been filed, to annually sort its workforce into racial and sex categories and submit the tallies to Washington. That regime, in place for decades, imposed nearly $275 million in annual compliance costs on employers and roughly …