Lilly suspends contributions to 4 Indiana Congress members over certification votes

Eli Lilly headquarters

Eli Lilly and Co. has suspended political contributions to four Indiana members of Congress who voted last week against certifying the Electoral College results.

Several other Indiana companies also say they are suspending contributions to all candidates or are taking a close look at the matter.

Lilly confirmed Wednesday it put the brakes on contributions to any “sitting members who voted against certification.”

Rep. Jim Banks, Rep. Jackie Walorski, Rep. Jim Baird and Rep. Greg Pence—all Indiana Republicans—voted against certifying the results in one or more states.

It was unclear how much the Indianapolis-based drugmaker had donated to each candidate in recent years.

“Any candidate we support through the LillyPAC must have a record that is consistent with Lilly values,” Lilly said in a written statement. “While we support candidates from both parties with a variety of political views, we expect any candidate we support to demonstrate respect for people and respect for our democratic process and institutions.”

The statement continued: “This certainly covers anyone who promoted violence or sedition that contributed to the appalling events on January 6th or who continues to support violence to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power our democracy is founded upon. As such, LillyPAC will suspend political giving to those who voted against certification of the 2020 election results.”

Other companies, including several manufacturers and utilities, echoed Lilly’s comments.

Duke Energy, the largest provider of electricity in Indiana, said it was “shocked and dismayed” by the events at the U.S. Capitol last week and was taking a pause on all federal political contributions for 30 days.

“During this time, we are evaluating Duke Energy-supported candidates’ values and actions to ensure they align to our values and goals,” said the Plainfield-based subsidiary of North Carolina-based Duke Energy, in a written statement. “The way members of Congress conducted themselves in this critical time will be an important consideration in future support.”

But some other utilities said they don’t contribute to federal candidates. Indianapolis Power & Light Co. said it has a state-only political action committee and does not donate to federal candidates. Citizens Energy said does not have a political action committee and does not make donations to any political candidates.

Elanco Animal Health, based in Greenfield, said in an email to IBJ it has paused all contributions to political candidates “so we can assess the best path forward, aligned to our values of integrity, respect and excellence.”

Engine manufacturer Cummins Corp. said it is not currently contributing funds. “The Cummins PAC has a robust evaluation process for each elected official to which it contributes, including whether or not the individual reflects Cummins’ core values,” the company said in a statement. “The events of last week will absolutely be part of that evaluation process going forward as the PAC board determines future contributions.”

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our updated comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

38 thoughts on “Lilly suspends contributions to 4 Indiana Congress members over certification votes

    1. The only fraud were the lies perpetrated by Donald Trump. Those who amplified and condoned that lie should be recalled by the state of Indiana as they have violated their oath to protect the US Constitution against both foreign and domestic enemies, and it should be done today.

    2. This comment is hilarious. These four members of Congress ought to be investigated for their role in fomenting an antidemocratic and criminal coup attempt/insurrection, and if warranted prosecuted (seditious conspiracy is a felony punishable with up to 20 years in prison), including prohibited from holding public office under the Fourteenth Amendment if convicted. The least of their problems is receiving money from a corporate PAC. The commenter’s notion of “cancel culture” is ridiculous—what kind of pathetic revolutionary complains about that? Given the T**** administrations’s embrace of capital punishment, especially hanging, one might think their supporters would be happy sacrificing their lives for their misplaced principles (based on lies they tell themselves), rather than complaining about PAC money. Boo hoo. Maybe they should ask for coup participation ribbons instead.

  1. I was waiting for someone to claim that withholding campaign donations from those who supported anti-democratic/anti-republican/anti-Constitutional (fascist) behavior is somehow itself “fascist”.

    .

    I’m guessing that all those at the federal and state level who got elected by proclaiming their support for “The Trump Agenda” on video are worried that it will be replayed again and again in their opponents’ 2022 ads.

    1. With video footage from the rampage and Trump’s rally remarks as the voice-over. Powerful TV spot.

  2. As an Eli Lilly and Company stockholder since 1964 and Duke stockholder since about 1996, I am embarrassed by this…and Lilly and Duke should be as well. This is so much nonsense as to be inconceivable; in no way did those Congressmen cited incite the violence that occurred. I can’t wait for the pendulum to swing back and knock some of these woke corporate jerks on their unappreciative posteriors.

    1. I’m right there with you Bob. It’s idiotic for anyone to say these various members of Congress were guilty of ‘inciting violence’ when they were simply questioning the integrity of the vote and wanted that checked out to make sure there weren’t fraudulent things that happened. All of which got swept under the rug once the DC melee happened. That’s a long way from inciting people to rioting and violence. Unlike a lot of language that was used over the past year encouraging people on the other side of the spectrum to riot, burn buildings, violence, etc.

    2. Yes, it’s not the fault of the person who yelled fire in the crowded theatre, it’s the fault of the people who listened.

      For all the talk of fraudulent things, no one has managed to introduce any evidence into a court of law, the one place that would grant relief. It’s all nonsense and fake news and disinformation.

      Again, the only fraud is the lie that the election was stolen.

    3. The congresspeople were “questioning the integrity of the vote” after there was no question that the election was fair and free of fraud, as determined by the Attorney General of the US (appointed by the President) and many Federal judges (also appointed by the President).

      .

      Continuing to lie about election fraud is the problem here, Keith, not calling out the liars.

    4. The congressman were trying to override a fair and accurate election. They were supporting maniacal lies from Trump. Seems a pretty good reason to me to withhold any future funds from them.

    5. Krebs: No evidence of fraud
      Barr: No evidence of fraud
      All 50 Secretaries of State: No evidence of fraud
      International Observers: No evidence of fraud
      Courts: Trump lawsuits lack merit, no evidence of fraud

      Bob P. and Keith P.: Please investigate the fraud……

    6. Sounds like the free market in action, Bob. These capitalists no longer want to support certain politicians and they are free to do with their capital as they please. OR should corporations be forced to provide donations to politicians? Is that what you’re suggesting?

    7. I hope they’ve suspended contributions to all the democrats who not only condoned but encouraged the rioting of cities nationwide, BTW Including our own. If not, just a bunch of spineless hypocrites.

    1. Kudos Tim – our ‘democracy’ has been bought and paid for by corporate donations for way too long. But corporate welfare is all these companies are looking for. When the party in office changes, so will their stance. Also, where were the ‘statements’ and condemnation when the left was burning down our country? Who lost donations due to this ‘violence’?

    2. Agree Tim. Corporate funds an/or profiits should either be used to fund operations or return them to the shareholders in the form of dividends. A “LillyPAC” does ZERO to create shareholder value. I would think the shareholders should be voting on a measure to disband the Lilly PAC as a waste of shareholder funds. (and I don’t want to hear how the PAC helps fund legislation that supports Lilly in Congress).

    3. Ah, you’re lost Mark S. Corporate PACs DO give money to congresscritters who support their positions on laws that impact their profits. That is WHY they give money.

    4. Mark S., please be advised the Lilly corporate PAC is funded solely by voluntary contributions from eligible employees of the company. There is no effect on shareholders or the company’s bottom line.

    1. Lovely concept, but corporations are now people too per Citizens United.

      Publicly funded elections like in other countries would be a very good idea but both sides won’t go for it.

    2. Do you feel the same about people like George Soros (among many)? He contributes to campaigns in many states without necessarily residing in them. I’m not sure there is a good answer because of free speech though I don’t like so many wealthy individuals being able to influence elections the way they do.

    3. Yep. Soros, whichever Koch didn’t die, you name ‘em. All of them can pay for elections with higher taxes.

  3. If the Capital riots hadn’t happened their would have been no problem with them requesting an investigation just as the Democrats had done in three elections over the past 20 years. You want to blame DT for getting everyone worked up to the point of rioting that’s fine, but what you’re saying here is don’t ever question election integrity again or you will be severely punished.

    1. Its one thing to question it. It’s another to continue to repeat the allegations as “questions” after they’ve been shown to be without merit, as lies, in a court of law. Because, at that point, you’re trying to overturn the result of the election.

      The goal was obvious – question the results of just enough states, all states in which Democrats won, to overturn the election of Joe Biden. If Congress had issues with the election processes, they shouldn’t have sworn themselves in, because their own election run by the same machines by the same individuals by states that had made the same changes. Meaning, their election was potentially just as corrupt as Biden’s. And in that same election, Republicans had held the Senate and gained seats in the House. Further, if a Republican state like Texas made the same changes as, say, Pennsylvania? That wasn’t questioned at all by the Republicans. So, no consistency at all.

      But they didn’t stop the ratification of their own election. After January 3rd, they didn’t have a leg to stand on. They were peddling BS to keep the base happy and knew it.

      I’d also like to point that the Republicans actually conducted an investigation into voter fraud after the 2016 election. They disbanded after not finding any.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Advisory_Commission_on_Election_Integrity

    2. You must not listen to or read any news other than Faux News, OAN, and Newsmax. Everyone else reported that NO FACTS supporting election challenges were ever produced in a court.

      .

      NO FACTS means that by Jan. 6th anyone still challenging the election results was also continuing to spread a LIE by the 45th President.

  4. Good for Lilly. The was no evidence of voter fraud. And if the legislators who voted YEA have specific evidence that will justify the disenfranchising legally cast votes, they should clearly present this. The votes were appalling and reflect aiding and abetting false accusations and lies and the the insurrection at the Capital that had congresspeople cowering as a violent mob sought to destroy democracy. Trump can certainly point to some solid accomplishments and he had a great opportunity to show leadership over the last year regarding Covid. Many things were in his favor. But so much wrong overshadowed the good: capricious behaviour, misinformation campaigns, fomenting hate, egging on and supporting a riot, and most importantly, not assisting Congress by summoning assistance to the Capitol Police immediately as the break in occurred. Unacceptable.

  5. Response to the representatives who voted in favor:

    Many are dismayed and dissatisfied with votes to sustain an objection to accept democratically cast votes in Arizona and Pennsylvania, and in doing so to implicitly accept false claims of vote irregularities and thereby aid and abet a platform of disinformation and mob hooliganism effected by the President of the United States.

    One asks you if you have direct understanding and direct verifiable data supporting vote irregularities for which objections were raised. Without clear and undisputable evidence of vote tampering or irregularities, a YEA vote reflected implicit approval to seek to overturn the will of the people. I ask the basis and rationale and justification for your actions. I ask your knowledge, familiarity, and understanding of the affected districts, their inhabitants, their needs, and their characteristics that would lead you to seek to ignore their rights as citizens to cast votes following safe and secure measures and policies enacted by their jurisdictions and subsequently affirmed through court challenges.

    Do you feel your vote reflected the will of each and every constituent within your district. What key and overriding material interest you had in the disputed state tallies? Does your YEA vote reflect an absolute belief that election results in Arizona and Pennsylvania should not be accepted. Would you welcome a vote by other states regarding the integrity of votes in Indiana.

    We the People and Congress, in particular, faced the greatest breach of the Capitol since the 1800s. Lives were lost, and lives were endangered by an uncontrolled mass of individuals seeking through intimidation and vigilantism to overturn documented fair election results.

    Shameful is the response to vote YEA to disenfranchise legally cast votes and give credence to a massive campaign of misinformation. Disheartening is the fact that a representative of We the People would still agree to uphold a farcical belief of vote irregularity and to do so just hours after a vile and violent attack on democracy resulting in destruction and desecration in the Capitol; just hours after your colleagues cowered in the chamber in fear of their lives.

    All should proactively address issues with government representation on local, state and federal levels. Further, it is imperative, and now urgent, that carefully consider effects and implications of your actions and to place first and foremost benefits for citizens rather than party or ideology.

  6. Braun saved his skin by backing out as an objector after the riot. But he was perpetuating the fraud laud right up to the 11th hour, so he is a sympathizer with the remaining objectors.

    1. Sadly, I suspect our fellow Hoosiers will overlook that in four years when he’s running for reelection.

    2. ditto. exactly right. Lilly action seems appropriate to me.
      some people don’t seem to get that after 4 years, actually since 2010, russian disinformation has tried to divide us and degrade us as a nation. they could not have done so without american quislings. propaganda is a helluva drug. an opioid like no other. I have lost many friends to this disease. this is psyops directed at our people. even Romney said that we must begin to heal with first telling the truth. it starts with rejecting the Big Lie.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets in {{ count_down }} days.