This proposal asks JPMorgan to make a regular practice of examining its political contributions
to ensure that they are congruent with the company’s values and policies, and to report out on
this review. This proposal received 47% in support at Pfizer last month.
Events in recent months have made it very clear why this makes sense. After the January 6
attack on the Capitol, corporate donations to the politicians in Congress who challenged the
election results came under nationwide scrutiny. That scrutiny has now broadened to include
ties to politicians who support voter suppression legislation. Public records show that in 2020,
JPMorgan made at least 30 contributions to members of Congress who challenged the election
results.

These aren’t the first issues that reveal how risky it is for corporations to engage in political
spending. And they won’t be the last.

Mr. Weinstock’s resolution notes that Bloomberg News reported last Fall that one-half of
JPMorgan’s political spending in the 2020 election cycle had gone to candidates the article
characterized as “ardent obstructionist[s] of proactive climate policy.” Public records also reveal
how, over the last three election cycles, JPMorgan has contributed at least $2.8 million to at
least 268 candidates and political committees that are working to weaken access to women’s
reproductive healthcare, a contradictory stance for a company that invests in programs to
improve its retention and promotion of female employees. JPMorgan also gives to politicians
who oppose LGBT equality, despite its excellent policies on workplace inclusion.
After January 6, JPMorgan was reported to be pausing all PAC donations in the coming months.
This is a step in the right direction, but we encourage senior leadership to think beyond band-aid
solutions that don’t get to the heart of the problem. And the problem is that political contributions
never succeed in just advancing narrow business interests — inevitably there is collateral
damage. They are inherently fraught with reputation and brand risk.

There really are only two sustainable options: don’t make political contributions, OR tie them to
deeply held, clearly articulated organizational values. This is consistent with the Business
Roundtable’s 2019 declaration, under the chairmanship of Mr. Dimon, that companies must
balance the drive for profits with the needs of customers, employees and communities.
Our country and our world face daunting challenges that demand that the business community
act with integrity and consistency.

Fellow shareholders, if you have not already cast your votes, please vote yes on Item No. 8.