Ahead of Election Day, Americans Expect Companies to Get Out the Vote — But Not Much Else

This memo features analysis from Morning Consult’s report on Corporate Engagement & the 2024 U.S. election. For more insights on how other corporate actions, like ESG investing, are being perceived by consumers ahead of the 2024 election, download the full report here.

While much of the country remains polarized over which candidate to support in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a rare consensus has emerged elsewhere in the political universe — and it’s in relation to how the private sector should (or should not) involve itself in the final run-up to November. 

New Morning Consult data reveals that an overwhelming majority of Americans of every age, gender, employment status and political affiliation think companies should do what they can to ensure their employees are able to vote on or before Election Day. But more public displays of political engagement — such as donating money to a campaign or offering commentary on election results — are decidedly unpopular. 

Keep election activations internal

More than 4 in 5 (82%) U.S. adults said companies should provide employees with time to vote in the upcoming election, and more than 2 in 3 (69%) said companies should actively encourage this behavior. 

Other internal initiatives like holding voter registration drives among employees (54%), distributing election information (43%) and hosting company-wide meetings to discuss election issues (41%) are also supported by sizable portions of Americans. 

However, the public opinion picture looks much different for external-facing actions. Majorities of U.S. adults don’t want brands to donate money to specific candidates (52%) or speak out about the result of the presidential election in the event it is contested (55%).

This broad aversion to public stances from the private sector is reflected again and again in Morning Consult research on all sorts of corporate activism topics, from philanthropic giving to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). In fact, it is a result so routinely displayed in our data that we included the following credo in our recent 2024 Corporate Engagement Report: Internal actions are always more important than external advocacy. 

In other words, how companies serve their employees is the primary litmus test for most American consumers. And in the context of the upcoming election, serving employees means providing them with the time and tools to exercise their right to vote, however they choose, more so than anything else. 

Public actions are seen as most partisan

Another factor driving the widespread support for internal election-related initiatives is that they’re largely perceived as non-political. The opposite is true, meanwhile, for public-facing ones. 

Of all tested potential corporate actions, U.S. adults rated donating to a campaign and commenting on election results as the most partisan.

Brands contemplating such actions (or similar ones) should calibrate their risk tolerance to match the boldness of any public moves they intend to make. While our 2024 Corporate Engagement Report found that less than a quarter of U.S. adults have boycotted a company for political reasons, that could still be a large enough slice of the public to have a material financial impact — especially since wealthy consumers are among the most likely to report engaging in this behavior. 

That said, the opinions of employees are arguably most important on this topic. It’s crucial for brands to understand how their key internal stakeholders will interpret and respond to any political stance before speaking out, because it could differ from that of the general public.  

To November and beyond

While companies must carefully weigh the risks of making a planned public statement or donation ahead of the election, other actions outside their direct control could also impact brand reputation. 

American workers are more comfortable than ever with discussing political issues in the workplace; given the divisive nature of U.S. politics, these conversations are ripe for escalation and have the potential to negatively impact employees’ feelings of satisfaction or engagement. 

Plus, individual employees have their own platforms to express their views, both internally and externally, which can be viewed as a direct representation of their company’s stance on an issue. That means one viral post by a single employee could carry a lot of weight, and quickly become how the public defines their company’s perspective on the issue.

To best manage these hazards through Election Day and thereafter, brands should provide clear guidance around what appropriate political discourse looks like and — to the extent possible — ensure that any workplace political discussions occur privately.