Jim Jordan’s Attack on Ethical Investing by Catholic Groups

Just a year ago, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, lamented how Americans—particularly Catholics—were witnessing “assaults on their First Amendment rights to religious freedom.” This summer, Jordan began his own attacks.

On July 30, the House Judiciary Committee announced that it had requested information from “130 U.S. companies, pension plans, and government retirement plans about their engagement with Climate Action’s ESG 100+ cartel.” ESG refers to investment strategies that focus on environmental, social, and governance criteria, expressing a concern for ethical investing.

Ethical investing has become mainstream, so mainstream that Jordan’s committee was able to contact more than 100 companies, pension plans, and government retirement plans. Forbes has covered ESG favorably. So has The Wall Street Journal. But in this polarized climate, Jordan’s scope of jurisprudence has come to include being “woke,” and if he says ESG is woke, then it clearly is.

The committee has sent letters requesting preservation of documents to several major investment firms, including Franklin Templeton, Goldman Sachs, Mellon Investments and Strategic Global Advisors. The letters are a signal of upcoming committee hearings and subpoenas.

The Republican majority on the committee says it is launching an antitrust investigation into whether a “climate cartel” of left-wing activists and large financial institutions “are colluding” to impose radical environmental, social and governance goals on American companies.” They have prepared a report detailing those allegations.

Democrats on the committee released a minority report pointing out that Republicans appear to be arguing that the preference to avoid investing in fossil fuels amounts to collusion, an anticompetitive conspiracy. Democrats further pointed out that investors enjoy First Amendment free speech protections when they pursue investment strategies that support their beliefs, and that seems quite right.

But constitutional protections for free speech are not the most interesting example of the majority on the House Judiciary Committee disregarding the First Amendment.

In addition to issuing preservation letters to investment firms, the commission also targeted the Sisters of Saint Dominic of Caldwell, Mercy Investment Services, Christian Brothers Investment Services and Loyola Marymount University.

These Catholic ministries and religious communities operate in accordance with the authoritative teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, which tell us: “Every economic activity that exploits natural resources must…also be concerned with protecting the environment.”

Pope Francis addressed the relationship between environmental concerns and investment directly when he wrote in his 2015 encyclical that “efforts to promote sustainable use of natural resources are not a waste of money but rather an investment that can yield other economic benefits in the medium term.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has published its own Guidelines for Socially Responsible Investment, which lists environmental, social, and governance concerns.

Non-Catholic religious institutions have also received preservation letters from most of the Judiciary Committee, which appears determined to investigate the exercise of their religious beliefs. They include the Presbyterian Mission Agency, Friends Fiduciary Corporation, JLens, Praxis Mutual Funds and The Pension Board of the United Church of Christ.

What all these groups have in common is a religiously motivated ethical motivation to design investment strategies consistent with their beliefs. Taking these motivations at face value, it seems the House Judiciary Committee is considering a terrible intrusion on religious conscience—all the more shocking given the committee’s vociferous defenses of religious freedom last year.

There are, of course, secular reasons to invest in ESG, and ESG is not a particularly religious investment practice. But religious and secular ethical motivations can and often do overlap. The important point is that religious people are making, and Republicans have generally been the first to say so.

The Judiciary Committee’s interest in ESG practices is a signal that Republicans’ commitment to religious freedom is running out of steam when it challenges their partisan positions. Given the similar way Texas Gov. Greg Abbott targeted religious groups that help migrants this year, the prospects should worry believers.

In its zeal to police “wokeness,” confront its opponents, and defend the fossil fuel industry with a questionable antitrust investigation, the House Judiciary Committee is treading into the dangerous territory of preventing believers from making investment practices consistent with their conscience. It’s a strange turn of events that should draw the attention of religious leaders who have relied on Republican support.

It’s also a good reminder. Faith doesn’t belong to any party. True faith should thwart our partisan instincts. That means we should never be surprised to discover how “woke” religious faith can be.