NCPPR: Pfizer, B of A tiptoe away from 'racist' accusations

Friday, April 30, 2021
Steve Jordahl (

Thinker statueTwo major corporations appear to have backtracked on their opposition to Georgia's voter integrity law after being challenged by a shareholder to explain specifically about portions of the bill they allege to be racist.

Individuals who own as little as one share of stock in a publicly traded company are entitled to ask questions of the CEO and board at shareholder meetings. That's how the National Center for Public Policy Research recently got in front of the CEOs of two companies that had come out against Georgia's voter integrity law.

Pfizer had publicly criticized the law as racist. The National Center's David Soderberg, representing shareholder NCPPR, asked CEO Albert Bourla to please be specific:

Soderberg: "Could you explain in detail how requiring voters to show ID when they vote undermines any voting access or voting rights – and which other specific provisions of the bill do you object to and why?"

The CEO's answer seemed to walk back the company's opposition:

Bourla: "We are not taking a position on specifics, of a specific clause, but we are clearly stating our basic principle that access to vote is very important for the democracy, and it's really important for us as a company that operates in the health care sector."

Bank of America had described the law as an "obstacle to the right to vote." Through a moderator, the National Center was able to ask these questions at a shareholder meeting:

Moderator: "Can you explain specifically why requiring voters to show ID in order to avoid fraud is racist?"

Moderator: "And also, [can you explain] Bank of America's timeline for ending all requests for ID from job candidates, employees, visitors to your facilities, borrowers, lenders and attendees at your annual shareholders meeting in conformance with your race-based claims?"

CEO Brian Moynihan – perhaps seeing the logic of the second question – walked back his company's opposition, calling for a bipartisan review of the law:

Moynihan: "… There's lots of provisions in these laws, and that's why last week, after looking at some of the discussion, I got to the conclusion that maybe we need a bipartisan commission …. [W]e need to get a set of voting rules that people believe elections are fair here in the country on all sides and address these issues, and I think it'd be good to get a bipartisan commission to do it, but we are for the right to vote is paramount to being an American."

Comments will be temporarily unavailable. Thank you for your patience as we restore this service!

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details




What's your take thus far on the Biden-run economy?





1 of 2 officers shot in California dies, gunman killed
Russian governor: School shooting in Kazan kills 7 students
FBI names pipeline cyberattackers as company promises return
Biden admin. accused of encouraging unemployment
  Israel responds to Hamas terrorist attack


Conservatives won’t say it: The problem is ‘systemic anti-whiteness’
Tucker Carlson: Anthony Fauci let the coronavirus pandemic happen, why isn't there a criminal investigation?
Top doc: Feds demonizing COVID-19 treatments in order to promote vaccine
Michelle Obama promotes police hatred
Disney tries to run away from the evidence of its racist push


Cartoon of the Day
Heritage: Biden's minimum wage order actually penalizes employers

minimum wage illustrationA researcher who focuses on labor policies such as worker compensation isn't a fan of a recent executive order from Joe Biden bumping up the hourly wage for federal contract workers.