Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Apr 26, 2018
On April 26, 2018, Justin Danhof, Esq., General Counsel and Free Enterprise Project Director at the National Center for Public Policy Research, asked the following question at Pfizer's annual shareholder meeting:
I’m Justin Danhof of the National Center for Public Policy Research. I want to ask about some of the company’s troubling affiliations.
Pfizer is one of the top donors to the Human Rights Campaign. HRC is perhaps the nation’s leading opponent of religious liberty. HRC also works to dictate corporate philanthropy away from conservative and Christian organizations. I highly doubt that when someone invests their hard-earned money with Pfizer that they anticipate those funds will be used to try and root out Christianity and oppose religious liberty.
Pfizer also contributes to UnidosUS, formerly known as La Raza, and partners with the League of Latin American Citizens, or LULAC. Both groups have openly lobbied for sanctuary city policies and essentially support amnesty for illegal aliens.
Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary city policies. Pfizer risks reputational harm and consumer backlash for supporting these fringe groups. A 2017 Harvard-Harris poll found that 80 percent of registered voters believe sanctuary city policies are wrong. The vast majority of Americans believe illegal aliens who are arrested for criminal acts should be turned over to federal authorities in compliance with federal law.
I have a few specific questions on immigration reform, then a general question:
Does Pfizer believe, like its beneficiaries UnidosUS and LULAC, that states and localities can flout federal law and not turn over the names of illegal aliens they’ve arrested to federal authorities – even if they’ve committed violent felonies?
Because 80 percent of Americans surely include current and potential customers, do you see any potential downside for Pfizer related to the company’s support of groups lobbying for sanctuary cities and amnesty?
If these groups do not represent Pfizer’s position on immigration, then why would you fund them and what exactly is the company’s stance on immigration reform?
We are a free-market organization. We have never called for a boycott or tried to direct a company’s philanthropy. We just want to make sure that the company is actually informed about what these groups are doing. Can you explain to us investors why Pfizer is funding anti-religious bigotry and the promotion of sanctuary cities?