Top British firms donated to Republicans who denied 2020 US election result
More than 20 of Britain's biggest companies have donated to over 100 Republican politicians in the US who refused to certify the 2020 presidential election, The Mirror can reveal.
BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Deloitte and British American Tobacco are among 24 UK headquartered-firms that have donated more than $1.7 million (£1.3m) to election-denying candidates since 2021 through in-house bodies which collect donations from staff. The donations come through the firms' Political Action Committees or PACs, which are often run by senior company execs and which channel staff donations to politicians. Under US law, companies are not allowed to donate directly and the companies contacted for comment stressed that their PACs operate independently and comply fully with US campaign finance rules.
Employees of companies donate money to a PAC, companies themselves are not allowed to do so, but they do often pay for office costs such as rent, staff and fundraising activities. Employees who contribute to their firm's PAC can specify if they want the money to go to Republicans or Democrats and the PAC generally goes on to bankroll politicians or candidates who are viewed as supportive of their industry.
These donations were made despite many of the largest corporations pledging not to donate to election denialists after the Jan 6 insurrection in which supporters of Donald Trump stormed the Capitol. Firms who have PACs supporting Republican candidates we established in our joint investigation with the Democracy for Sale Substack include:
Accountancy firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, who announced in January 2021 that it had 'suspended all political contributions to any member of Congress who voted to object to the certification of electoral votes' but its Political Action Committee has given $93k to a string of GOP candidates who refused to certify the election. PwC did not respond to a request for comment.
British American Tobacco's US subsidiary's PAC has donated to Andrew Clyde who claimed the Capitol Riots looked more like a 'normal tourist visit' and voted against giving medals to police officers who responded to the riots. A BAT spokesperson said: 'It is a well-established practice in the U.S. political system for individuals, not-for-profits and private sector companies to make financial contributions to major political parties. BAT believes that engaging in the political process is an important way for us to advocate for policies that support our industry and overall economic growth.'
The PACS of several firms including Deloitte, BAT, advertising giant WPP contributed to Steve Scalise, who spoke at a white nationalist conference with former KKK head David Duke.
The PACs of firms including Deloitte, Rolls Royce and BAE have funded house speaker Mike Johnson, who played a leading role in attempts to overturn the 2020 election result, according to the New York Times. He voted against the Respect for Marriage Act in 2022, which federally protects same-sex marriages and interracial couples, and has said that America can only be saved it it returns to "eighteenth-century values".
Defence firm BAE Systems announced in January 2021 that, 'In response to the deeply disturbing violence at the US Capitol on January 6th, our US political action committee has suspended all donations while we assess the path forward'. However, since then BAE Systems's PAC has donated $229,500 to Republicans who have refused to certify the 2020 elections, starting in April 2021. BAE Systems said: 'We do not make corporate contributions or donations to political parties. Eligible employees in the US can choose to contribute to the BAE Systems Political Action Committee, which must operate in full compliance with US federal laws and regulations.'
After his re-election, President Trump has pardoned or commuted sentences for every defendant convicted for their roles in January 6, including those convicted of violence against Capitol police and the leaders of extremist groups.
In the US, foreign companies are not allowed to donate to politicians but, if they have an American subsidiary, they can donate through so-called PACs. PACs are lobbying organizations that make campaign donations to political candidates. Big companies have PACs that are often headed by a company executive, or someone working for them.
The Treasurer of the Deloitte PAC is Patrick Givens, a Deloitte employee for the last 17 years. The Treasurer of the BAT's US subsidiary Reynolds' PAC, is Steve Kottak, a BAT/Reynolds employee for the last 21 years who is currently senior director in state and local government relations. The Treasurer of the PwC PAC is Roz Brooks, A PwC employee for the last 29 years.
The amounts that PACs can give to a candidate are limited to no more than $5000 for the primary and another $5000 for the election itself. Some British-listed companies have donated huge sums to Republican causes. British American Tobacco gave more than $25m to conservative causes in 2024, including $10m to Make America Great Again PAC, Open Secrets has previously revealed.
Christopher Avery, Director at the campaign group Donations and Democracy, said: "It is exceptionally disappointing that so many major UK companies have subsidiaries whose Political Action Committees have been directly funding the campaigns of politicians after they tried to overturn the results of a democratic election in the United States. Making donations to those politicians raises serious concerns about respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Donald Trump releases 230,000 FBI files on MLK's assassination - what's in them?
Donald Trump has released a huge batch of previously classified documents about Dr Martin Luther King's (MLK) assassination. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) is publishing 230,000 pages worth of documents relating to the death of the civil rights leader in 1968. The released files have been 'sat collecting dust in facilities across the federal government for decades' as they had never been digitized, the ODNI said. They include internal FBI memos about the investigation's process and prison testimony. US president Donald Trump ordered the release of the files surrounding the deaths of President John F Kennedy, attorney General Robert F Kennedy and MLK. He made similar promises to release the documents during his 2017 to 2021 term. But under pressure from the FBI, he kept a chunk of documents under wraps, citing national security concerns. Director of the ODNI Tulsi Gabbard said: 'The American people have waited nearly sixty years to see the full scope of the federal government's investigation into Dr King's assassination. 'Under President Trump's leadership, we are ensuring that no stone is left unturned in our mission to deliver complete transparency on this pivotal and tragic event in our nation's history.' Dr Alveda King, the niece of MLK, celebrated the release describing it as a 'historic step forward'. She said: 'I am grateful to President Trump and DNI Gabbard for delivering on their pledge of transparency in the release of these documents on the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. 'My uncle lived boldly in pursuit of truth and justice, and his enduring legacy of faith continues to inspire Americans to this day. 'While we continue to mourn his death, the declassification and release of these documents are a historic step towards the truth that the American people deserve.' But MLK's two living children Martin III and Bernice have asked readers to engage with the files with 'empathy and restraint', adding they do not believe Ray acted alone. They wrote: 'As the children of Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King, his tragic death has been an intensely personal grief – a devastating loss for his wife, children, and the granddaughter he never met – an absence our family has endured for over 57 years. 'We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family's continuing grief.' But the timing of their release has raised suspicion as Americans demand to see more files on sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. MORE: Husband says 'go big or go home' after 'killing wife and hiding her decomposing body' MORE: Dad who reported daughter, 9, missing on vacation busted after her body found in pond MORE: Trump calls for Idaho murderer spared death penalty to 'explain what happened'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Labour announce plans to build £38bn Sizewell C nuclear plant
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
The economic cure to populism
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/Getty If there is one theme that has featured most heavily in these columns over the last four years, it has been the dangers of right-wing populism. The destructiveness of Brexit, the dishonesty of Boris Johnson, the recklessness of Liz Truss, and the authoritarianism of Donald Trump have all been familiar themes. It has to be said, however, that populism seems to be surviving my weekly onslaught. Reform UK leads in the opinion polls. The Conservative Party is led by someone who is half-tempted to turn her party into a fully-fledged populist party and who will likely soon be replaced by someone who will not hesitate in turning his party into a fully-fledged populist party. To the extent that President Trump is running into political difficulties, it is for being insufficiently committed to isolationism and conspiracy theories. The public is angry, dissatisfied with the status quo. There is a market for politicians who can articulate that anger, identity something to blame, and promise simple answers to complex problems. And it cannot be a coincidence that the rise of this type of politics has occurred during a period of economic stagnation. There is much more to populism than this; it is at least as much a cultural phenomenon as an economic one. But it is also surely the case that the attraction of populism in the UK would diminish if, by the time we got to the next general election, living standards were rising and expected to continue to rise. It is, therefore, an option for the Government to focus relentlessly on delivering economic growth as a means of achieving re-election (not to mention the more than incidental benefits to the country). Of course, many factors determine economic growth. Some of them can only be delivered in the long term; some – such as Trump's obsession with tariffs – are largely beyond the Government's control; some come at a very high political cost. Let us, for a moment, assume that the Government is willing to risk these high political costs to deliver higher economic growth. What could it do? Before making a few suggestions, what is not an option is an expanded borrow-to-invest strategy. Our current fiscal rules are already loose, in part to fund higher levels of capital spending. That is no bad thing, but remarkably little of that higher capital spending is going into the most economically beneficial areas, like transport or scientific research. The markets are already nervous about our fiscal sustainability and we have the third-highest debt interest costs of any developed country. If the interest rates on our government debt were at the same levels as Germany, we would be paying £50bn a year less than we do. Rather than borrowing more, a credible plan for fiscal credibility is necessary to get those costs down. Contrary to the fashionable view that austerity is bad for growth, it is the loss of control of the public finances that is the real danger. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe This does mean reducing the costs of government both in the short term (the disability benefit bill cannot be allowed to grow at the current rate) and in the long run. For a start, a plan should be announced to get us off the pensions triple lock. Even with spending control, taxes will have to go up. The challenge is that the least unpopular taxes are the most economically damaging. Focusing on the rich goes down well with most of the public but drives away the mobile wealthy. At least a partial retreat on non-doms is necessary, and the idea of a wealth tax should be dismissed. If we need more revenue (and we do), use the main taxes for a broad-based increase. The Government has made some progress on planning but even on this has recently retreated on environmental requirements. The real benefits of planning reform come from increasing the population of the highly productive parts of the country. This requires a substantial expansion of housebuilding in London (where next to no houses are being built) and the Ox-Cam corridor (where we should be massively ambitious), with spending on transport infrastructure focused there too. Ignore the complaints about the Treasury Green Book; we should invest where we get the best return. Economic growth should be prioritised ahead of reducing regional inequality. And while I am being provocatively right wing (at least for a New Statesman column), we should also drop the onerous tax we place on developers that reduces housebuilding, namely the requirement to build large numbers of affordable homes. Just build more homes. Planning is one area where regulations have become too onerous. Rachel Reeves was right to highlight in her Mansion House speech last week that excessive regulation is stifling growth. Her rhetoric needs to be matched by implementation – including in the context of employment rights. Returning to centrist dad mode, what about Brexit? Reduced access to our biggest trading market has proven to be a substantial drag anchor on our economy, predictably enough. The bolder and more ambitious the plans to restore a sensible relationship with the EU, the better. The economic gains will be worth upsetting a vociferous but shrinking minority. Taken together, it would be an agenda that maximises our chances of delivery economic growth and, in the long term, defeating populism. Is it an agenda that a government, especially this Government, could deliver politically? Probably not. It reminds me that, as I conclude the last of these regular New Statesman columns, that it is a lot easier to write about politics than to be a practising politician. [See also: Why is Boris Johnson so scared of Emmanuel Macron?] Related
