During June, AT&T plastered its social media accounts with rainbows, asserted that the company "recognizes, embraces, and stands with LGBTQ+ people," and emphasized its commitment to addressing the "mental health crisis among LGBTQ+ youth." Simultaneously, according to new campaign finance filings obtained by Popular Information, AT&T quietly sent thousands in corporate PAC contributions to anti-LGBTQ politicians in Alabama that are targeting trans youth.
The Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project must return any contributions and rescind any recognition provided by AT&T immediately and do so in a most public manner. The HRC must reform their Corporate Accountability Index to include political donations and publish the results.
I wonder how many corporations under the “Best Places To Work For LGBTQ Equality” are contributors to anti LGBTQ legislation.
Has HRC acknowledged this incongruity with their index ? Having briefly looked at the index there are several hundred corporations and I bet many more than AT&T are just as guilty of social fraud.
Great reporting. The bigger question in my mind is do we expect corporations to pick a side (meaning say and do things consistently) or do we think they will always play both sides (Michael Jordan: “republicans buy sneakers too.”). I feel like that they will at their core/board room level justify playing both sides for commercial reasons and we will be having these debates ongoing when they never intend to pick one side. Or maybe just shift it one way: so it’s not 50/50 but rather 60/40 or 8/20. 100/0 may not happen shining a light on hypocrisy should help shift the ratios.
This analysis shows us that rankings like the one produced by HRC are meaningless. Corporate PR campaigns can say or do anything, without accountability. But corporate spending has a detrimental impact on real lives. Unless the public knows what companies are doing with their money, they can’t make informed decisions about how to spend their own money. We already have very few choices when selecting our communications providers; inaccurate information could lead us to be stuck with an offensive company for the duration of a two year contract. I am relieved that I don’t use AT&T, but this makes me wonder what the providers I use do with the funds I send them.
If only we could make our decisions on the basis of service quality rather than avoidance of hate. Thank you for reviewing and interpreting the limited public disclosure available through FEC so we can have a better idea of what’s going on behind the scenes.
The Human Rights Campaign and the Trevor Project must return any contributions and rescind any recognition provided by AT&T immediately and do so in a most public manner. The HRC must reform their Corporate Accountability Index to include political donations and publish the results.
I wonder how many corporations under the “Best Places To Work For LGBTQ Equality” are contributors to anti LGBTQ legislation.
Judd
Has HRC acknowledged this incongruity with their index ? Having briefly looked at the index there are several hundred corporations and I bet many more than AT&T are just as guilty of social fraud.
Great reporting. The bigger question in my mind is do we expect corporations to pick a side (meaning say and do things consistently) or do we think they will always play both sides (Michael Jordan: “republicans buy sneakers too.”). I feel like that they will at their core/board room level justify playing both sides for commercial reasons and we will be having these debates ongoing when they never intend to pick one side. Or maybe just shift it one way: so it’s not 50/50 but rather 60/40 or 8/20. 100/0 may not happen shining a light on hypocrisy should help shift the ratios.
Another lying corporation. I'm so glad I switched to Mint Mobile.
This is outrageous behavior on the part of AT&T....shame on them.
This analysis shows us that rankings like the one produced by HRC are meaningless. Corporate PR campaigns can say or do anything, without accountability. But corporate spending has a detrimental impact on real lives. Unless the public knows what companies are doing with their money, they can’t make informed decisions about how to spend their own money. We already have very few choices when selecting our communications providers; inaccurate information could lead us to be stuck with an offensive company for the duration of a two year contract. I am relieved that I don’t use AT&T, but this makes me wonder what the providers I use do with the funds I send them.
If only we could make our decisions on the basis of service quality rather than avoidance of hate. Thank you for reviewing and interpreting the limited public disclosure available through FEC so we can have a better idea of what’s going on behind the scenes.
It's bad enough AT&T's service isn't very good, but this goes beyond the pale.