I study the theory and practice of corporate social responsibility (CSR). My most recent project focuses on the political behavior of firms and on uncovering when that behavior is at odds with their publicly stated CSR initiatives. I’m always on the lookout for cases where corporations commit to one set of priorities but contradict them with their lobbying and political donation practices. So, when I read that despite their controversial new “Just Do It” ad campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick, Nike and its employees were contributing three times as many dollars to Republican candidates and PACs as they were to their Democratic counterparts, it caught my attention. After a bit of research, it turns out the claim is false — but it is Nike’s own lack of transparency that has allowed the story to catch fire and spread.

For decades, Nike’s reputation has been tied to a legendary quote from its most famous and influential pitchman: Michael Jordan is said to have responded to those who criticized his lack of social activism with the line “Republicans buy shoes too.” It is not clear whether Jordan ever actually uttered these words, but they embody Nike’s approach, which has been to tie their brand to messages of gritty self-empowerment that lack direct social or political content. Therefore, it came as a surprise when Nike released its new, overtly political “Just Do It” campaign, the first images of which were released earlier in the month behind the quote “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.” The new Kaepernick campaign marks a stark departure from Nike’s traditional position of principled neutrality, even if its message is calculated to promote profit.

Within two weeks, it had become clear that the new campaign would not hurt Nike’s bottom line. In the days immediately following its release, stock prices temporarily dropped, but upon news that sales had increased a whopping 31% with no evidence that the ad had affected customers’ purchase intent, they soared.

Yet, in the wake of this success, a new narrative emerged: a report from the OpenSecrets website (owned and controlled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics) led with the headline that, “Despite recent ‘progressive’ ads with Colin Kaepernick, Nike gives more money to Republicans than Democrats.” Using graphs and charts from their own website, the author purported to show that Nike’s ad campaign was not just an attempt to make profits, but a cynical cash grab from a company that spent its money mounting political opposition to the very causes it was using to sell shoes.

In no time at all, dozens of articles piggybacked on this claim, often representing it as their own. A perusal of the headlines tells the story. Choice examples include: “Nike Sinks its Great Colin Kaepernick Ad with Conservative Campaign Contributions”; “Nike employees donate over three times as much to Republicans as Democrats: despite a savvy Colin Kaepernick ad, the clothing brand is committed to a repressive political party”; “Surprise! Nike’s generous political donations aim to keep Republicans in control of Congress”; and “Nike is funding Republican power”. Nike deserves to face criticism on many fronts, as many of the authors of these articles are quick to point out. They continue to face controversies over working conditions in overseas factories, where watchdog organizations have been denied entry into contractor factories, short-term workers have reported fainting and health scares due to their working hours and factory temperatures, and workers in Honduras have accused contractors of wage theft. At home, it has been embroiled in a different kind of scandal, after it was revealed that women who work for Nike were regularly suffering sexual harassment in the workplace, culminating in a “small revolt” among women at the company.

Nonetheless, the specific claims these authors make about Nike’s giving practices are misleading, to say the least. It turns out that the supposed disparity in party funding among Nike and its employees goes away when donations to Political Action Committees (PAC’s) are fairly interpreted and accounted for. It is notoriously difficult to track the specific details of PAC donations, which often pass through multiple organizations before arriving at their final destinations. In an effort to hide their expenditures, some individuals have even taken to filing their donations through LLC’s, whose owners are not legally required to disclose their identities. Thankfully, in this case, a little research is rewarded and we can figure out what’s going on. I’ve provided a breakdown of my accounting below for those who are interested.

The short version is this: when we remove the contributions of company founder and former Chairman Phil Knight to major Republican party PAC’s from the calculations, it turns out that Nike and its employees have narrowly favored Democrats over Republicans.

Knight is not a Nike employee. He hasn’t received a salary from Nike since at least 2006, retired as Chairman of the Board in 2016 and has not played any formal role in the governance of Nike in at least two years. He was replaced by Mark Parker, who still holds the position today. Knight’s formal position at Nike is “Chairman Emeritus”, an honorary title that only exists so that Knight may sit in on Board of Directors meetings should he feel like doing so. Furthermore, Knight transferred most of his Nike stock to a company controlled by his son, Travis, in 2016. This means he is not only no longer Chairman, but no longer the company’s largest shareholder, and lacks direct power over the company’s strategic direction.

Since Phil Knight isn’t a Nike employee and doesn’t play a central role in deciding Nike’s strategic direction, it makes little sense to include his giving totals in these calculations.[1] If anything, the evidence suggests it could very well be his absence from the decision-making process that has led to Nike’s sudden willingness to stake its profits on political positioning. The latter is pure speculation of course, but Nike’s legendarily private corporate culture makes speculation the best we can do. In any event, when we remove Knight from the calculation, Nike contributions to political candidates look quite balanced, with a slight preference for Democrats. Taken together, the facts suggest Nike does not deserve the specific criticisms it is facing from the clickbait artists who have scored hits by repeating the same lie in article after article. If they continue to spread, these lies may well tarnish a campaign that could do some good (at the same time as it earns the company millions).