In this recent article published by Columbia Law School’s Blue Sky Blog, Bruce Freed and Karl Sandstrom of the Center for Political Accountability explore how companies can draw lessons from major U.S. law firms in addressing political retaliation and protecting institutional integrity.
Amid a growing wave of state-level efforts to punish companies for their positions—or silence—on contentious social or political issues, the authors highlight the proactive stance taken by law firms to defend the rule of law and uphold their public and professional responsibilities. It raises critical questions for boards and executives: How should a company respond when political retaliation threatens its values or operations?
“...political spending is a kind of speech, and it can associate a company with elected officials and policies that conflict with a company’s public commitments or the beliefs of its shareholders, workers and consumers. It can bring political retaliation. It can associate a company with assaults on American democracy.
We believe that by developing long-term frameworks for deciding whether, when, and how to spend millions of dollars to influence elections, companies can make a consequential difference in reducing the risks they face and demonstrate they are responsible corporate citizens.”
The authors draw powerful parallel for the private sector: law firms’ response to political risk—especially in areas like ESG and DEI where legal claims are not holding up in the courts —offers a model of how companies can articulate principled positions while managing reputational and legal risk.
Rather than disengage or appease, leading firms have publicly reaffirmed their commitment to legal standards, governance, and democratic norms, reinforcing their credibility and trust with stakeholders.
Read the full post here What Companies Can Learn from Law Firms About Political Retaliation
Also, see the CPA-Zicklin Framework for Corporate Political Spending in the CPR Hub.