In recent weeks, pro-ESG media outlets have been working overtime to spin a narrative that simply doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. A recent article by Paul Monies at Oklahoma Watch claims that the low vote totals for anti-ESG and anti-DEI shareholder proposals prove that shareholders overwhelmingly support these ideologies.
But that’s not what the data—or the deeper story—actually shows.
Yes, many proposals from conservative shareholder coalitions receive single-digit support—sometimes less than 1%. But that’s not because shareholders are in love with ESG. It’s because the system is rigged. Proxy advisory giants like ISS and Glass Lewis routinely recommend voting against proposals that challenge ESG orthodoxy, and most institutional investors follow their lead.
But there’s another, more troubling reason: red states are voting against their own values—and they don’t even know it.
According to a recent report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, many red-state pension funds are actually voting in favor of ESG and DEI proposals. Their study, Grading State Pension Funds on ESG, reveals that states with conservative leadership often receive failing grades on fiduciary responsibility because their pension funds are supporting radical activist proposals that undermine shareholder value and contradict the very principles those states claim to uphold.
Our own preliminary findings at Bowyer Research confirm this trend. Red states almost never vote in favor of proposals that oppose ESG, de-banking, DEI, anti-religious discrimination, or China risk. In other words, they’re not just failing to resist the ESG tide—they’re actively helping it rise.
At some point, do pro-fiduciary owners—such as red-state pension plans, corporate pension plans, churches, and foundations—actually stop and ask, “How did we vote on that?” And more importantly, “How can we fix this now?”
Because here’s the reality: no one seriously believes that in a free and fair election—where asset owners are actually told how their money is being voted—99% of investors would say:
- “No, I don’t want to know anything more about whether shareholder dollars paying for puberty blockers for kids is risky for the company.”
- “I’m not interested in the risks of de-banking.”
- “Offering pride ERGs but no similar groups for people of faith is fine.”
- “Membership in a collusive ad-buying cartel that targeted conservative media for a boycott is a non-issue for me.”
- “I’m not worried that companies have gotten too entangled in China. I don’t want any further disclosures about China risk.”
- “I think it’s fine when companies make pledges based on activist demands about “sustainable” agriculture and ignore warnings from actual farmers about disruptions to food security”.
- “I don’t think that oil and gas companies should reconsider pledges to phase out oil and gas and I don’t think they should present estimates of how decarbonization will affect their profitability.”
And yet, that’s exactly what the vote totals are being used to imply. The media and ESG advocates try to use these numbers to prove that shareholders don’t care about puberty blockers for children, or weaponizing ad budgets against conservatives, or anti-Christian discrimination in HR policy. But the truth is, conservatives do care about these issues. It’s their “helpers”—staff, consultants, asset managers—who don’t.
Meanwhile, the media ignores the surge in proposals coming from non-ESG groups. As Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) recently shared with me, ADF and its partners filed 28 shareholder resolutions this year—up from just nine the year before. These proposals focus on issues like compelled speech in DEI programs, de-banking, and religious liberty. That’s the largest increase in social-topic proposals from any ideological bloc, and it didn’t come from the ESG crowd.
And they’re not alone. Oklahoma Treasurer Todd Russ, and the Heritage Foundation are stepping up to challenge the ESG status quo. They understand that low vote totals don’t mean defeat—they mean the system is broken, and it’s time to fix it.
The trend is clear: pro-fiduciary shareholders are stepping up. They’re placing more proposals on the ballot, asking tougher questions, and demanding accountability. But red states and conservative institutions are still operating with an outdated set of assumptions. They believe that simply speaking out against ESG is enough—while their votes, cast by proxy managers and consultants, continue to support the very political drift they oppose.
The truth is, the ESG establishment is nervous. They see the growing wave of shareholder activism from values-driven investors. They know the Overton window is shifting. And they’re trying to gaslight the public into thinking that low vote totals mean no support.
But we know better. We’re playing the long game. And we’re just getting started.
✓ Want to know how your organization has been voting on these issues?
✓ Want help making sure your actual votes match your public promises about your mission?
Let’s talk. It’s time to align your values with your votes.
