Firm Partisan Political Positioning, Affective Polarization, and Risk Communication: Examining Firms’ Voluntary Disclosures on COVID-19

COVID-19 is among the most salient issues in the world presently, and for many current executives, it is likely to be among the greatest challenges they will face. Upon entering the U.S. context, the disease was immediately subject to the process of affective polarization, with clear partisan splits forming around perceptions of its risks that did not relate to science. We explore whether firms’ preexisting political positioning affected how they voluntarily disclosed to their investors on a novel, affectively polarized issue by examining whether firms’ disclosure of COVID-19 risks covaries with their partisan political giving. Analyzing conference call and campaign contribution data for the S&P 500, we find a positive association between a firm’s contributions to Democrats and its disclosure of COVID-19 risks.

Oil and gas companies invest in legislators that vote against the environment

Do campaign contributions from oil and gas companies influence legislators to vote against the environment, or do these companies invest in legislators that have a proven antienvironmental voting record? Using 28 y of campaign contribution data, we find that evidence consistently supports the investment hypothesis: The more a given member of Congress votes against environmental policies, the more contributions they receive from oil and gas companies supporting their reelection.

Campaign Contribution Limits in California, Oregon & Washington: What a Difference It Makes

This research examines the current restrictions on campaign contributions to nonfederal candidates in the states of Washington, Oregon, and California, as well as the legal challenges in the latter two states. The impact of unrestricted contributions in Oregon had the effect of larger campaign coffers, per registered voter, for state house, state senate, and gubernatorial races for the 2014 election, as well as a more prominent role for wealthy individual donors.

The Origins and Development of Judicial Recusal in Texas

In 21st century Texas, a judge’s decision to recuse from a case is based on a complex set of norms, codes and procedures intended to promote impartiality. For most of the state’s history, however, the sole ground for the removal of a judge from a case was not recusal for bias but disqualification based on rigid conditions set out in the Texas Constitution. This article examines the foundations and emergence of the modern concept of judicial recusal in Texas with the intent to illustrate a shift from rigid constitutional grounds to a more fluid approach based on judicial interpretation of a code of conduct. The author concludes that while Texas disqualification and recusal jurisprudence is conservative and restrained, it remains to be seen whether this restraint can continue unchanged in a post-Caperton era. The Caperton probability of bias standard has become part of the dialogue on recusal and disqualification in Texas, but Caperton-based challenges are unlikely to prevail in the near future because many members of the bench and bar share the belief that the state’s judicial campaign contribution restrictions and recusal jurisprudence create a firewall against violations of the Due Process Clause. The risk, however, is that continued resistance to change may further erode public confidence in existing ethical safeguards and fall short of assuaging concerns that wealthy donors continue to exercise disproportionate influence on the judiciary.