March 2, 2023

Margaret M. Madden

Pfizer Inc.

Re:

Pfizer Inc. (the “Company”)

Incoming letter dated December 16, 2022

Dear Margaret M. Madden:

This letter is in response to your correspondence concerning the shareholder

proposal (the “Proposal”) submitted to the Company by Tara Health Foundation and co-

filer for inclusion in the Company’s proxy materials for its upcoming annual meeting of

security holders.

The Proposal requests that the Company publish an annual report, at reasonable

expense, analyzing the congruency of political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures

during the preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies, including

the Company’s stated goal to “end discrimination against women, ensure equal

opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health,” listing and explaining any

instances of incongruent expenditures, and stating whether the identified incongruencies

have led to a change in future expenditures or contributions.

We are unable to concur in your view that the Company may exclude the Proposal

under Rule 14a-8(i)(10). Based on the information you have presented, it appears that the

Company’s public disclosures do not substantially implement the Proposal.

We are unable to concur in your view that the Company may exclude the Proposal

under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii). In our view, the Proposal does not address substantially the

same subject matter as the proposals previously included in the Company’s 2021 and

2022 proxy materials.

Copies of all of the correspondence on which this response is based will be made

available on our website at

https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/2022-2023-shareholder-

proposals-no-action

Sincerely,

Rule 14a-8 Review Team

cc:

Sanford Lewis

Margaret M. Madden

Pfizer Inc.

–

Legal Division

Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary

235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017

Chief Governance Counsel

Tel 212 733 3451 Fax 646 563 9681

margaret.m.madden@pfizer.com

BY EMAIL

(shareholderproposals@sec.gov)

December 16, 2022

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Division of Corporation Finance

Office of Chief Counsel

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:

Pfizer Inc.

–

2023 Annual Meeting

Omission of Shareholder Proposal of

Tara Health Foundation and Louise Davis

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are writing pursuant to Rule 14a-8(j) promulgated under the Securities Exchange

Act of 1934, as amended (the

“

Exchange Act

”

), to request that the Staff of the Division of

Corporation Finance (the

“

Staff

”

) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the

“

Commission

”

) concur with our view that, for the reasons stated below, Pfizer Inc., a

Delaware corporation (

“

Pfizer

”

), may exclude the shareholder proposal and supporting

statement (the

“

Proposal

”

) submitted by Tara Health Foundation (

“

Tara Health

”

) and co-filed

by Nia Impact Capital

(“Nia”)

, on behalf of Louise Davis, from the proxy materials to be

distributed by Pfizer in connection with its 2023 annual meeting of shareholders (the

“

2023

proxy materials

”

). Tara Health and Ms. Davis, together with their respective representatives,

are collectively referred to as the “Proponents.”

In accordance with Section C of Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14D (Nov. 7, 2008)

(

“

SLB 14D

”

), we are emailing this letter and its attachments to the Staff at

shareholderproposals@sec.gov. In accordance with Rule 14a-8(j), we are simultaneously

sending a copy of this letter and its attachments to the Proponents as notice of Pfizer

’

s intent

to omit the Proposal from the 2023 proxy materials.

Rule 14a-8(k) and Section E of SLB 14D provide that shareholder proponents are

required to send companies a copy of any correspondence that the shareholder proponents

elect to submit to the Commission or the Staff. Accordingly, we are taking this opportunity

to remind the Proponents that if the Proponents submit correspondence to the Commission or

the Staff with respect to the Proposal, a copy of that correspondence should concurrently be

furnished to the undersigned.

Pfizer

Breakthroughs that change patients' lives*

pfizer.com

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 2

The Proposal

The text of the resolution contained in the Proposal is set forth below:

Resolved: Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing

the congruency of political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during

the preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies,

including Pfizer’s stated goal to “end discrimination against women, ensure

equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.” Such a

report should list and explain any instances of incongruent expenditures, and

state whether the identified incongruencies have led to a change in future

expenditures or contributions.

II.

Bases for Exclusion

We hereby respectfully request that the Staff concur with Pfizer’s view that the

Proposal may be excluded from the 2023 proxy materials pursuant to:

•

Rule 14a-8(i)(10) because Pfizer has substantially implemented the Proposal;

and

•

Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) because the Proposal deals with substantially the same

subject matter as two previously submitted shareholder proposals, and the

most recently submitted of those proposals did not receive the support

necessary for resubmission.

III.

Background

Pfizer received the Proposal via email on November 8, 2022, accompanied by a cover

letter from Tara Health, dated November 8, 2022, and a letter from Merrill Lynch, dated

November 8, 2022, verifying Tara Health’s continuous ownership of at least the requisite

amount of Pfizer common stock for at least the requisite period preceding and including the

date of submission of the Proposal. On November 17, 2022, Pfizer sent a letter to Tara

Health notifying them that Pfizer believed the Proposal exceeded 500 words and requesting

that the Proposal be revised so that it does not exceed 500 words. On November 17, 2022,

Pfizer received the Proposal from Nia, accompanied by a cover letter, dated November 14,

2022, and an authorization letter from Ms. Davis, dated November 11, 2022. On November

21, 2022, Pfizer received a revised version of the Proposal, under 500 words, submitted by

the Proponents via email. Copies of the Proposal, cover letters, authorization letter and

related correspondence are attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 3

IV.

The Proposal May be Excluded Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) Because Pfizer

Has Substantially Implemented the Proposal.

Rule 14a-8(i)(10) permits a company to exclude a shareholder proposal if the

company has already substantially implemented the proposal. The Commission adopted the

“substantially implemented” standard in 1983 after determining that the “previous formalistic

applicati

on” of the rule defeated its purpose, which is to “avoid the possibility of

shareholders having to consider matters which already have been favorably acted upon by the

management.”

See

Exchange Act Release No. 34-

20091 (Aug. 16, 1983) (the “1983

Release”)

; Exchange Act Release No. 34-12598 (July 7, 1976). Accordingly, the actions

requested by a proposal need not be “fully effected” provided that they have been

“substantially implemented” by the company.

See

1983 Release.

Applying this standard, the Staff has consistently permitted the exclusion of a

proposal when it has determined that the company’s policies, practices and procedures or

public disclosures compare favorably with the guidelines of the proposal.

See, e.g.

IDACORP, Inc.

(Apr. 1, 2022);

Edison International

(Feb. 23, 2022);

JPMorgan Chase &

Co.

(Feb. 5, 2020);

The Allstate Corp.

(Mar. 15, 2019);

Johnson & Johnson

(Feb. 6, 2019);

United Cont’l Holdings, Inc.

(Apr. 13, 2018);

eBay Inc.

(Mar. 29, 2018);

Kewaunee Scientific

Corp.

(May 31, 2017);

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

(Mar. 16, 2017);

Dominion Resources, Inc.

(Feb. 9, 2016);

Ryder System, Inc.

(Feb. 11, 2015).

In addition, the Staff has permitted exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) where a

company already addressed the underlying concerns and satisfied the essential objective of

the proposal, even if the proposal had not been implemented exactly as proposed by the

proponent. For example, in

PG&E Corp.

(Mar. 10, 2010), the Staff permitted exclusion

under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) of a proposal requesting that the company provide a report

disclosing, among other things, the company’s standards for choosing the organizations to

which the company makes charitable contributions and specifically asked for disclosure of

the “business rationale and purpose for each of the charitable contributions.”

In arguing that

the proposal had been substantially implemented, the company referred to a website where

the company had described its policies and guidelines for determining the types of grants that

it makes and the types of requests that the company typically does not fund. Although the

proposal appeared to contemplate disclosure of each and every charitable contribution, the

Staff concluded that the company had substantially implemented the proposal.

See also, e.g.

The Wendy’s Co.

(Apr. 10, 2019) (permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) of a proposal

requesting a report assessing human rights risks of the company’s operations, including the

principles and methodology used to make the assessment, the frequency of assessment and

how the company would use the assessment’s results, where the company had a code of

ethics and a code of conduct for suppliers and disclosed on its website the frequency and

While there is currently a proposed amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) that would modify this standard, such

proposal has not been adopted. Accordingly, the standard discussed above remains the current

Commission-adopted standard.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 4

methodology of its human rights risk assessments);

MGM Resorts Int’l

(Feb. 28, 2012)

(permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) of a proposal requesting a report on the

company’s sustainability policies and performance, including multiple objective statistical

indicators, where the company published an annual sustainability report).

In particular, the Staff has permitted exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) where a

company satisfied the essential objective of a proposal seeking disclosure relating to the

company’s political expenditures even

if the proposal had not been implemented exactly as

proposed by the proponent. For example, in

Exelon Corp.

(Feb. 26, 2010), the Staff

permitted exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) of a proposal requesting that the company

prepare a report disclosing its policies and procedures for political contributions and its

monetary and non-monetary political contributions. In arguing that the proposal had been

substantially implemented, the company referenced its political contributions guidelines and

report, which

provided information regarding the company’s political contributions policies

and procedures and monetary and nonmonetary political contributions. Although the actions

taken by the company may not have exactly aligned with the requests made by the proponent,

the Staff concluded that the company had substantially implemented the proposal.

In this instance, Pfizer has substantially implemented the Proposal, the essential

objective of which is to obtain a report from Pfizer on how its political expenditures align

with Pfizer’s stated values and policies.

In this respect, the Proposal’s supporting statement

explains that its request for disclosure is based on the view that “Pfizer’s political

expenditures appear to be misaligned with [Pfizer’s]

stated values a

nd interests.”

described below, Pfizer already publicly discloses how its political and lobbying

contributions

–

both to trade associations and to candidates and political committees

–

align

with its stated values and policies.

In particular, Pfizer’s website already contains extensive disclosure regarding Pfizer’s

support of trade associations. In addition to disclosing the portion of its membership dues

that are used for federal lobbying activity

, Pfizer publishes on its “Political Partnership”

webpage an Industry Associations

– Report on Incongruencies (the “Congruency Report”)

that describes Pfizer’s positions on important public policy matters and Pfizer’s alignment

with its “most significant trade association memberships” on each position.

The

Congruency Report states that Pfizer “believe[s] that public policy engagement is an

important and appropriate role for companies in open societies” and that “there is value in

making sure [Pfizer’s] positions on issues important to Pfizer and [its]

industry are

communicated and understood within those organizations.”

In this respect, the Congruency Report includes the following summaries of Pfizer’s

alignment with its most significant trade association memberships, together with a detailed

analysis

of Pfizer’s alignment with the associations “across six areas of key public policy and

See

Pfizer’s

Industry Associations

–

Report on Incongruencies, available at https://www.pfizer.com/

about/programs-policies/political-partnerships and attached hereto as Exhibit B.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 5

ESG significance for Pfizer: Climate Change; Patient Access to Healthcare; Trade; Tax;

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and Civic Integrity”:

•

Biotechnology Innovation Organization.

“The policy goals of Pfizer and the

Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) are generally in alignment across the

key areas reviewed. To the extent differences exist in the company and trade

association’s respective positions, such as on tax, they are largely because either

Pfizer or BIO has taken a position on particular matters on which the other has not.

Indeed, Pfizer has been more vocal than BIO on support of free trade, though both

agree on the importance of intellectual property protections in trade agreements. On

broad policy goals, Pfizer and BIO are well aligned. Pfizer engages with BIO on the

following issues: (a) intellectual property/innovation protection; (b) vaccine policy

and advocacy; (c) patient affordability solutions; and (d) FDA User Fee agreements

(in partnership with PhRMA).”

•

Business Roundtable.

“The policy goals of Pfizer and the Business Roundtable

(BRT) are generally in alignment across the key areas reviewed. To the extent there

are differences in the company and trade association’s respective positions, they are

because Pfizer and BRT are focusing on different specific aspects of the issue.

However, on broad policy goals, Pfizer and BRT are well aligned. Pfizer engages

with the BRT on the following issues: (a) U.S. tax competitiveness; (b) global tax

debate; (c) free trade policies and intellectual property protection; (d) employer health

care and health equity solutions; and (e) enhancing diversity and inclusion in the

workforce.”

•

National Association of Manufacturers.

“The policy goals of Pfizer and the

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) are generally in alignment across the

key areas reviewed. The alignment is less close in the areas of climate change and

access to healthcare, largely because Pfizer and the NAM are focusing on different

specific aspects of the issue. However, on broad policy goals, Pfizer and BRT are

well aligned. Pfizer engages with NAM on the following issues: (a) high quality

manufacturing; (b) international trade; and (c) to oppose governmental intervention in

health care, including price controls in Medicare.”

•

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

“Pfizer and

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) are closely

aligned on policy goals and specific positions. The only notable exception is in the

area of climate change, where PhRMA has not taken a public position. Pfizer engages

with PhRMA on the following issues: (a) lead industry efforts to advance pro-patient

policies and defeat negative drug pricing proposals at the federal level; (b) advance

rebate pass-through, copay accumulator bans and out of pocket caps at state level; (c)

protect intellectual property rights globally; and (d) advance FDA User Fee

agreements (in partnership with BIO).”

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 6

•

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“The policy goals of Pfizer and the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce (Chamber) are generally in alignment across the key areas reviewed. To

the extent there are differences in the company and trade association’s respective

positions, they are generally because Pfizer and Chamber are focusing on different

specific aspects of the issue. However, on broad policy goals, they are well aligned.

Pfizer engages with the Chamber on the following issues: (a) promote and protect

intellectual property/innovation through Global Innovation Policy Center; (b) drive

narrative on counterfeits/product integrity; (c) lead on U.S. tax competitiveness; and

(d) protect employer health care and drive policies to promote competition in health

care.”

In explaining how Pfizer aligns its trade association memberships with Pfizer’s stated

values and policies, the Congruency Report notes that “support of these organizations is

evaluated annually by [Pfizer’s] U.S. Government Relations leaders based on these

organizations’ expertise in healthcare policy and advocacy and support of key issues of

importance to Pfizer.” The Congruency Report also notes that Pfizer “monitor[s] where and

to what extent [Pfizer’s] trade associations are misaligned” with Pfizer on issues important to

Pfizer and “will advocate for the trade association to come into alignment, but if an

organization’s misalignment is egregious, and the membership benefits to Pfizer and its

stakeholders are outweighed by the misalignments, [Pfizer] will reduce or end [its]

involvement with the organization.”

In addition, Pfizer publishes on its website an annual report titled the Pfizer PAC and

Corporate Contributions Report (the “Political Contributions Report”), which lists the

candidates and political committees supported by either Pfizer Inc. or the Pfizer political

action committee (the “Pfizer PAC”) and clearly explains Pfizer’s rationale and motivation

for making such political expenditures.

In this regard, the Political Contributions Report

indicates that the driving force behind Pfizer’s political and electioneering expenditures is to

“support candidates of both political parties who support state and federal policies that

impact [Pfizer’s] purpose: Breakthroughs that change patients’ lives.” Pfizer also explains in

the Political Contributions Report how its political and electioneering expenditures align with

Pfizer’s policy priorities, stating that the “decision to contribute to any elected official is

made based on [the candidate’s] voting record on durable policies that support innovation,

patient access to and affordability of their medicines, high quality manufacturing, a secure

supply chain, a competitive tax code and a robust intellectual property system.” The purpose

of such evaluation is “to ensure Pfizer’s values are upheld.” The Political Contributions

Report, therefore, clearly describes the manner in which Pfizer’s political expenditures are

aligned with its stated values and policies.

See

Pfizer’s PAC and Corporate Political Contributions Report, available at https://cdn.pfizer.com

/pfizercom/investors/corporate/2021_Pfizer_PAC_and_Corporate_Political_Contributions_Report.pdf and

attached hereto as Exhibit C.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 7

Moreover, the Political Contributions Report acknowledges that politicians will have

a range of views about policy that are both related and unrelated to Pfizer’s business.

While

the Political Contributions Report identifies recipients of contributions who hold a diversity

of political positions, it cl

early states that contributions made to such recipients “[do] not

imply an endorsement of a candidate’s position on any social or religious issue.”

Instead of

focusing on candidates’ political views concerning matters unrelated to Pfizer’s business, the

Political Contributions Report states that Pfizer

’s role is to “activat[e] those [elected officials]

who support Pfizer’s mission and advocat[e] for policymakers who align with

policies that

enable [Pfizer’s] purpose.”

The Political Contributions Report al

so describes Pfizer’s corporate policy requiring

“all PAC and corporate political contributions to be compiled and published annually in a

report that is made available to employees, shareholders, and the public, and posted on

[Pfizer’s] website.”

In addi

tion, the Political Contributions Report describes that Pfizer

requests trade associations receiving $100,000 or more from Pfizer in a given year to report

to Pfizer the portion of Pfizer dues or payments used for certain non-deductible expenditures,

which amounts Pfizer discloses in the Political Contributions Report. Further, the Political

Contributions Report describes the PAC Steering Committee’s process of “evaluat[ing]

candidates on a basis of their views on the issues that impact Pfizer and its coll

eagues.”

addition, the Political Contributions Report describes that Pfizer traditionally does not make

contributions to 527 Issue Organizations and that to the extent Pfizer does make those

expenditures, such expenditures “would have to be reviewed an

d approved by the Political

Contributions Policy Committee and subsequently disclosed.”

The Political Contributions

Report also notes that Pfizer “has determined that it will not make any direct independent

expenditures.”

Given the extensive disclosure in the Congruency Report and the annual Political

Contributions Report, Pfizer has already publicly disclosed how its political expenditures

align with its stated values and policies.

Therefore, Pfizer has satisfied the Proposal’s

essential objective

–

obtaining a report from Pfizer on

the congruency between Pfizer’s

political expenditures and

Pfizer’s stated values and policies –

and thus its public disclosures

compare favorably with those requested by the Proposal.

Accordingly, Pfizer believes that the Proposal may be excluded from its 2023 proxy

materials pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) as substantially implemented.

The Proposal May be Excluded Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) Because It

Deals with Substantially the Same Subject Matter as Two Previously Submitted

Shareholder Proposals, and the Most Recently Submitted of Those Proposals

Did Not Receive the Support Necessary for Resubmission.

Under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii), a shareholder proposal may be excluded from a

company

’

s proxy materials if it deals with

“

substantially the same subject matter as a

proposal, or proposals, previously included in the company

’

s proxy materials within the

preceding five calendar years if the most recent vote occurred within the preceding three

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 8

calendar years,

”

and the proposal received

“

[l]ess than 15 percent of the votes cast if

previously voted on twice.

”

Precedent Regarding Exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(12).

The Staff has confirmed on numerous occasions that Rule 14a-8(i)(12) does not

require that the proposals, or their subject matters, be identical in order for a company to

exclude the later-submitted proposal. Although the predecessor to Rule 14a-8(i)(12) required

a proposal to be

“

substantially the same proposal

”

as prior proposals, the Commission

amended this rule in 1983 to permit exclusion of a proposal that

“

deals with substantially the

same subject matter.

”

The Commission explained the reason for, and meaning of, this

revision in the 1983 Release:

The Commission believes that this change is necessary to signal a clean break

from the strict interpretive position applied to the existing provision. The

Commission is aware that the interpretation of the new provision will continue

to involve difficult subjective judgements, but anticipates that those judgements

will be based upon a consideration of the

substantive concerns

raised by a

proposal rather than the specific language or actions proposed to deal with those

concerns.

(Emphasis added.)

When considering whether proposals deal with substantially the same subject matter,

the Staff has focused on the

“

substantive concerns

”

raised by the proposals. Thus, the Staff

has concurred with the exclusion of proposals under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) when the proposal in

question shares similar underlying issues with a prior proposal, even though the specific

language or scope of the proposals differs or the proposals recommend different actions be

taken by the company.

See, e.g.

Pfizer, Inc.

(Jan. 20, 2022) (permitting exclusion under

Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a proposal requesting that the board take the necessary steps to permit

written consent by shareholders that dealt with substantially the same subject matter as a

prior proposal requesting the same action but that contained different supporting statements);

Exxon Mobil Corp.

(Mar. 15, 2022) (permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a

proposal requesting that the board take the necessary steps to lower the ownership threshold

required to call a special shareholder meeting that dealt with substantially the same subject

matter as a prior proposal requesting the same action but that did not include discussion of

related issues such as

application of the company’s current policy with respect to special

meetings and the use of virtual shareholder meetings);

Alphabet, Inc.

(Apr. 16, 2019)

(permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a proposal requesting a review of the

company

’

s board composition and qualifications that dealt with substantially the same

While there is currently a proposed amendment to Rule 14a-8(i)(12) that would modify this standard, such

proposal has not been adopted. Accordingly, the standard discussed above remains the current

Commission-adopted standard.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 9

subject matter as prior proposals containing minor differences in language that also requested

review of the company

’

s board composition and qualifications);

Apple Inc.

(Nov. 20, 2018)

(permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a proposal requesting management review

the company’s policies relating to human rights to assess the need to adopt additional policies

and report on its findings that dealt with substantially the same subject matter as prior

proposals requesting that the company establish a human rights committee of its board);

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

(Jan. 27, 2017) (permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a

proposal requesting a public study regarding whether divestiture of the company

’

s non-core

banking business segments would enhance shareholder value that dealt with substantially the

same subject matter as a prior proposal requesting the board to appoint an independent

committee of the board to address whether divestiture of non-core banking business segments

would enhance shareholder value);

The Coca-Cola Co.

(Jan. 18, 2017) (permitting exclusion

under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a proposal requesting that the company prepare a report charting

the number of Arab and non-Arab employees by job category in Israel and Palestine that

dealt with substantially the same subject matter as a prior proposal requesting that the board

make all possible lawful efforts to implement certain equal opportunity employment

principles for corporations in Israel and Palestine);

Pfizer Inc.

(Jan. 9, 2013) (permitting

exclusion under Rule 14(a)(i)(12) of a proposal requesting that the board authorize the

preparation of a report on

the company’s lobbying contributions and expenditures that dealt

with substantially the same subject matter as prior proposals requesting disclosure of both

lobbying contributions and political contributions);

Exxon Mobil Corp.

(Mar. 23, 2012)

(permitting exclusion under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) of a proposal requesting that the board create a

policy articulating the company

’

s commitment to the human right to water that dealt with

substantially the same subject matter as prior proposals, one of which requested that the

board report on how the company ensures that it is accountable for environmental impacts in

communities where it operates).

The Proposal Deals with Substantially the Same Subject Matter as Two

Previously Submitted Proposals.

Pfizer included the following shareholder proposal in its proxy materials for its 2022

annual meeting of shareholders (the

“

2022 Proposal,

”

attached hereto as Exhibit D):

RESOLVED:

Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing

the congruency of political and electioneering expenditures during the

preceding year against the company’s fundamental purpose and publicly stated

company values and policies.

Pfizer also included the following shareholder proposal in its proxy materials for its 2021

annual meeting of shareholders (the

“

2021 Proposal,

”

attached hereto as Exhibit E):

Resolved: Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the

congruency of political and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year

against publicly stated company values and policies.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 10

As shown above, the resolved clauses of the 2022 Proposal and the 2021 Proposal

(collectively, the “Prior Proposals”)

are virtually identical and overlap significantly with the

current Proposal.

The substantive concern expressed in the Proposal, and in each of the 2022 Proposal

and the 2021 Proposal, is the same

– the congruency of Pfizer’s political expenditures with

Pfizer’s stated values and polic

ies. In this regard, the resolved clause of the Proposal is

essentially the same as the resolved clause of each of the Prior Proposals, as is the action

requested of Pfizer

Specifically, the Proposal asks Pfizer to analyze “the congruency of [its]

political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against

publicly stated [Pfizer] value and policies.”

Likewise, the 2022 Proposal ask

ed Pfizer to

analyze “the congruency of [its] political and electioneering expenditures during t

preceding year against [Pfizer’s] fundamental purpose and publicly stated [Pfizer] values and

policies.”

The 2021 Proposal similarly asked

Pfizer to analyze “the congruency of [its]

political and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against publicly stated

[Pfizer] values and policies.”

In addition, the supporting statements of the Proposal and the Prior Proposals

demonstra

te each proposal’s shared

concern with

Pfizer’s political expenditures and their

congruency with Pfizer’s stated values and policies.

Each of the Proposal and the Prior

Proposals assert that

“Pfizer’s political expenditures appear to be misaligned” with i

“values and interests,” that “Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that

minimize risk to [Pfizer’s] reputation and brand by addressing possible missteps in corporate

electioneering and political spending

”

that contrast with its stated objectives and that Pfizer

analyze “risks to [its] brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with

publicly stated [Pfizer] values.”

While the respective supporting statements of the Proposal

and the Prior Proposals contain differences in scope, this does not change the fundamental

concern of each proposal

– the congruency of Pfizer’s political expenditures with Pfizer’s

stated values and policies. In this regard, the Proposal and the 2021 Proposal emphasize

Pfizer’s stated interest in “‘[e]xpanded access to health insurance coverage,’” particularly for

“‘patients with under

diagnosed and undertreated conditions.’”

The two proposals also focus

on “women’s access to reproductive health care,” including to Pfizer

-manufactured

“contr

aceptives and a drug commonly prescribed

for [medical abortion].”

The 2022

Proposal, on the other hand, emphasizes Pfizer’s non

-discrimination policy, its stated

opposition to forced labor and its recognition of rights to a healthy environment, life, health,

water and sanitation. However, although the scope of the Proposal and the Prior Proposals

may differ, such distinctions merely stem from the use of different examples of alleged

incongruency to illustrate each

proponent’s underlying concern with

the primary substantive

concern of

consistency between Pfizer’s political expenditures and its stated values.

Similarly, m

inor additions to the Proposal’s resolved clause to include specific

examples of Pfizer’s stated goals (to “end discrimination against wom

en, ensure equal

opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health”) and

to provide specific

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 2022

Page 11

guidelines for the report (to “list and explain any instances of incongruent expenditures, and

state whether the identified incongruencies have led to a change in future expenditures or

contributions”)

do not change the substantive concern of the Proposal.

Moreover, the Staff recently permitted Pfizer to exclude a nearly identical proposal to

the current Proposal as substantially duplicative of the 2022 Proposal. In

Pfizer, Inc.

(February 22, 2022), the Staff determined that a proposal similarly requesting an analysis of

“the congruency of [Pfizer’s] political

, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during the

preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies” was substantially

duplicative under Rule 14a-8(i)(11) of the 2022 Proposal. Like the Proposal and the 2021

Proposal, the substantially duplicative

proposal’s supporting statement specifically

addressed

expanded access to health insurance coverage for patients with under-diagnosed and

undertreated conditions and

women’s access to rep

roductive health care. Tara Health also

acknowledged that the two proposals at issue were substantially duplicative. Both the

Proponent’s view and the Staff’s decision are

indicative of the substantial similarity between

the Proposal and the 2022 Proposal. Accordingly, each proposal focuses on the same

substantive concern of the congruency between Pfizer’s political expenditures and its stated

values and policies.

The Proposal Included in Pfizer

’

s 2022 Proxy Materials Did Not Receive the

Shareholder Support Necessary to Permit Resubmission.

Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) provides that a company may exclude a proposal that deals with

substantially the same subject matter as previously submitted proposals if the proposal

received

“

[l]ess than 15 percent of the votes cast if previously voted on twice

”

within

“

the

preceding five calendar years.

”

Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14 (July 13, 2001) explains that

only votes for and against a proposal are included in the calculation of the shareholder vote;

abstentions and broker non-votes are not included. As disclosed in Pfizer

’

s Current Report

on Form 8-K, filed with the Commission on May 2, 2022 and attached hereto as Exhibit F,

there were 393,729,907 votes cast in favor of the 2022 Proposal and 3,387,577,521 votes cast

against the 2022 Proposal. This amounts to 10.41% of the votes cast in favor of the 2022

Proposal. Thus, the last time that Pfizer

’

s shareholders considered a proposal substantially

similar to the Proposal, it received less than 15% of the votes cast.

Accordingly, Pfizer believes the Proposal, dealing with substantially the same subject

matter as the 2022 Proposal and the 2021 Proposal, is excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii)

for failing to receive the requisite shareholder support.

VI.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing analysis, we respectfully request that the Staff concur that it

will take no action if Pfizer excludes the Proposal from its 2023 proxy materials.

Office of Chief Counsel

December 16, 202

Page 12

Should the Staff disagree with the conclusions set forth in this letter, or should any

additional information be desired in support of Pfizer

’

s position, we would appreciate the

opportunity to confer with the Staff concerning these matters prior to the issuance of the

Staff

s response. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (212) 733-3451 or Marc S. Gerber

of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP at (202) 371-7233.

Very truly yours,

Margaret M. Madden

Enclosures

cc:

Shelly Alpern

Director of Corporate Engagement

Rhia Ventures

Meredith Benton

EXHIBIT A

(see attached)

November 8, 2022

Margaret M. Madden

Senior Vice President, Corporate Secretary & Chief Governance Counsel

Pfizer Inc.

235 East 42

Street

New York, NY 10017

Via email: Margaret.M.Madden@pfizer.com

Re: Shareholder Proposal for 2023 Annual Shareholder Meeting

Dear Ms. Madden,

On behalf of Tara Health Foundation,

I am submitting the attached proposal (the “Proposal”)

pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Rule 14a

-8 to be included in the proxy

statement of Pfizer (the “Company”) for its 2023 annual meeting of shareholders. Tara Health

Foundation is the lead filer for the Proposal and may be joined by other shareholders as co-filers.

Tara Health Foundation has continuously beneficially owned, for at least one year as of the date

hereof, at least $25,000

worth of the Company’s common stock. Verificatio

n of this ownership is

attached. Tara Health Foundation intends to continue to hold such shares through the date of the

Company’s 2023 annual meeting of shareholders.

I am available to meet with the Company in person or via teleconference on December 5, 2022

between 9:00 am and 10:00 am ET and December 8, 2022 between 9:00 am and 10:00 am ET.

We expect to be joined by a co-filer, who will be authorizing Tara Health to conduct the initial

engagement meeting but may participate subject to their availability.

Please send future correspondence and communications regarding this proposal to my

representative Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement at Rhia Ventures, who can be

contacted at shelley@rhiaventures.org.

Please be advised that we will hereafter be using a representative regarding the management of this

proposal. Please send any correspondence regarding this proposal including deficiency notices, no

action requests or engagement scheduling to Shelley Alpern, director of corporate engagement at

Rhia Ventures, who can be contacted at shelley@rhiaventures.org. I authorize Ms. Alpern to speak

on my behalf, negotiate withdrawal of the proposal and engage with the company and its

representatives.

Sincerely,

Dr. Ruth Shaber

President and Founder

Tara Health Foundation

Enclosures:

Shareholder proposal

Verification of share ownership

cc:

Shelley Alpern, Rhia Ventures

Shareholder Proposal for Pfizer 2023 Proxy Ballot re Political Contributions Misalignment

Submitted by Tara Health Foundation

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MISALIGNMENT

Whereas:

Pfizer

political parties and committees that support public policies important to the industry, such as

aim to end discrimination against women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access

How

stated

values and interests.

patients with under-diagnosed and undertreated conditions are able to address them; and that

those who will benefit from Pfizer medicines are better able to have access to them. Yet in

2018, Pfizer was a top contributor to a 527 organization leading efforts to strike down the

Affordable Care Act, which has made prescription drugs more accessible for millions, and

contributes to PhRMA, which donates to numerous organizations opposing congressional efforts

to reform drug pricing.

Pfizer manufactures contraceptives and a drug commonly prescribed for medication abortion.

Yet the proponent estimates that since the beginning of the 2020 election cycle, Pfizer and its

employee PACs have donated at least $5 million to politicians and political organizations

working to weaken

access to reproductive health care. In the South during this period,

to anti-choice state candidates exceeded those to other candidates by a

ratio of 3:1, and its contributions to anti-choice federal candidates exceeded those to other

candidates by a ratio of 2:1. For example, Pfizer contributed to multiple sponsors of bills passed

in 2022 in Tennessee and Louisiana that will restrict access to medication abortion.

This pattern spending has drawn scrutiny from

STAT, Bloomberg News, Huffington Post, The

Minnesota Daily, CQ ESG Briefing, Agenda

Financial Times

publication

)

and

Forbes

Proponents believe Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize risk to

reputation and brand by addressing possible missteps in corporate electioneering and political

spending that contrast with its stated healthcare objectives.

Resolved:

Resolved: Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency of

political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against publicly

imination against

policy states

that

"political contributions are made

support the election

candidates,

innovation and

access

medicines."

Pfizer listed "Gender Equality"

a Sustainable Development Goal in its

ESG

report stating:

"We

reproductive health."

ever, Pfizer's political expenditures appear

misaligned

with

the company's

Pfizer

has

stated

that

"Expanded

access

health insurance coverage will help ensure

that

women's

Pfizer's contributions

stated company values and policies, including Pfizer's stated goal

"end discr

women, ensure equal opportunities

for

leadership and

access

reproductive health."

Such

Shareholder Proposal for Pfizer 2023 Proxy Ballot re Political Contributions Misalignment

Submitted by Tara Health Foundation

report should list and explain any instances of incongruent expenditures, and state whether the

identified incongruencies have led to a change in future expenditures or contributions.

Supporting Statement:

Proponents recommend that such report contain management's analysis of risks to our

company's brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with publicly

stated company values.

ending,

from the corporate treasury and from the PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time

during the year, on printed, internet or broadcast communications, which are reasonably

susceptible to interpretation as in support of or opposition to a specific candidate.

"Expenditures

for

electioneering communications" means

'\:ovember

14.

2022

.\1argaret

Madden

Senior Vice President and Corporate Sccrctarv.

Chief

Governance Counsel

Pfizer

235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York I

001

Attention: Corporate Secretary.

Also via email at:

Re: Shareholder proposal for 2023 Annual Shareholder Meetin

!.!

Dear Corporate Secretary.

Nia Impact Capital

co-filing a shareholder proposal on

behalf

Louise Davis ("co-filers").

vno are shareholders

Pfizer Inc. for action at the next annual meetin~

Pfizer Inc. The

co-tilers are submitting the enclosed shareholder proposal for inclusion

Pfizer Inc. 's 2023

proxy

statement

for consideration

shareholders. in accordance with Rule l 4a-8

the

General Rules and Regulations

the Securities Exchange Act

1934. As lead filer. Tara

Health Foundation

designated to conduct the initial engagement conversation with the

company as required

amended SEC rules. The lead filer is designated to meet initially with

the Company but the co-filer may join the meeting subject to their availability.

The co-filer has continuously beneficially owned. for at least two years and through today m

least S15.000

the Company's common stock. Verification

proof

ownership will foilO\v.

The co-filer intends to continue to hold such shares through the date

the

Company's

2023

annual meeting

shareholders.

A letter from the co-filer authorizing Nia Impact Capital to act on their

behalf

enclosed. A

representative

the lead filer will attend the stockholders' meeting to move the resolution

required.

are available

discuss this issue and appreciate the opportunity

engage and seek

resolve the Pro onent's concerns. Please contact Meredith Benton

to schedule a meeting and to discuss any

questions. Please address any future correspondence regarding the

pro_oosal

throuQ:h

this

address.

Sincerely.

Kristin Hull. PhD.

Encl: Authorization letters and Proposal

DocuSign Envelope ID: A2A58E13-58CF-4DD6-8O77-71 B94AA907C6

/ 11/

2022

Margaret

Madden

Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary,

Chief

Governance Counsel

Pfizer Inc.

235 East 42nd

Street

New

York_

New

York 10017.

Attention: Corporate Secretary.

Also via email at:

.)ear Ms. Madden_

I hereby authorize Nia Impact Capital to co-file a shareholder resolution on my behalf for the

Pfizer Inc. 2023 annual shareholder meeting. The proposal requests that the company oublish

annual report anal

ing the congruency

its political, lobbying, and electioneering expendnures

against its stated company rnlues and policies.

I support this proposal and give Nia Impact Capital

full

authority to engage with the company on

behalf regarding the proposal and the underlying issues, and to negotiate a withdrawal

the

proposal to the extent the representative

Yiews

the company·s actions as responsive. I intend to

hold the requisite number

shares required

Rule l 4a-8 through the 2023 annual meeting.

I understand that I may be identified on the corporation·s proxy statement as a filer or co-filer

the aforementioned resolution.

Sincerely,

DocuS,gnao by:

(pw

St.

lW-l

DC63

0O7

◄4

Louise Davis

From:

Shelley Alpern <

shelley@reprohealthinvestors.org

Sent:

Monday, November 21, 2022 1:55 PM

To:

Rolon, Suzanne <

Suzanne.Y.Rolon@Pfizer.com

Cc:

Madden, Margaret <

Margaret.M.Madden@Pfizer.com

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Re: Shareholder Proposal Submitted to Pfizer - 2023

Please find attached a revised proposal that is under 500 words.

Best regards,

Shelley Alpern

Rhia Ventures | Director of Corporate Engagement

cell: (617) 970-8944 |

www.rhiaventures.org

To schedule an appointment with me, visit

my Calendly page

C18D

Rhia

VENTURES

From:

Kelly Hall <

kelly@niaimpactcapital.com

Sent:

Monday, November 21, 2022 6:29 PM

To:

Rolon, Suzanne <

Suzanne.Y.Rolon@Pfizer.com

Cc:

Meredith Benton <

benton@whistlestop.capital

>; Jaylen Spann <

spann@whistlestop.capital

>; Kristin Hull

kristin@niaimpactcapital.com

>; Shelley Alpern <

shelley@reprohealthinvestors.org

>; Madden, Margaret

Margaret.M.Madden@Pfizer.com

Subject:

[EXTERNAL] Shareholder Proposal Submitted to Pfizer - 2023

Hello Suzanne,

I hope you're doing well!

Please see attached a revised proposal that is under 500 words.

Warm regards,

Kelly

Kelly Hall

[She/Her]

Operations & Communications Associate

Nia Impact Capital

www.niaimpactcapital.com

nia

Certified

Co,poration

\::::::I

Shareholder Proposal for Pfizer 2023 Proxy Ballot re Political Contributions Misalignment

Submitted by Tara Health Foundation

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MISALIGNMENT

Whereas:

Pfizer has stated “political contributions are made to support the election of candidates, political

parties and committees that support public policies important to the industry, such as

innovation and access to medicines,” and “[w]e aim to end discrimination against women,

ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.”

However, Pfizer’s political expenditures appear to be misaligned with the company’s stated

values and interests.

Pfizer has stated that “Expanded access to health insurance coverage will help ensure that

patients with under-diagnosed and undertreated conditions are able to address them; and that

those who will benefit from Pfizer medicines are better able to have access to them.” Yet in

2018, Pfizer was a top contributor to a 527 organization leading efforts to strike down the

Affordable Care Act, which has made prescription drugs more accessible for millions, and

contributes to PhRMA, which donates to numerous organizations opposing congressional efforts

to reform drug pricing.

Pfizer manufactures contraceptives and a drug commonly prescribed for medication abortion.

Yet the proponent estimates that since the beginning of the 2020 election cycle, Pfizer and its

employee PACs have donated at least $5 million to politicians and political organizations

working to weaken women’s access to reproductive health care. In the South during this period,

Pfizer’s contributions to anti-choice state candidates exceeded those to other candidates by a

ratio of 3:1, and its contributions to anti-choice federal candidates exceeded those to other

candidates by a ratio of 2:1. For example, Pfizer contributed to multiple sponsors of bills passed

in 2022 in Tennessee and Louisiana that will restrict access to medication abortion.

This pattern spending has drawn scrutiny from

STAT, Bloomberg News, Huffington Post, The

Minnesota Daily, CQ ESG Briefing, Agenda

Financial Times

publication

)

and

Forbes

Proponents believe Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize risk to

reputation and brand by addressing possible missteps in corporate electioneering and political

spending that contrast with its stated healthcare objectives.

Resolved:

Resolved: Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency of

political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against publicly

stated company values and policies, including Pfizer’s stated goal to “end discrimination against

women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.” Such a

report should list and explain any instances of incongruent expenditures, and state whether the

identified incongruencies have led to a change in future expenditures or contributions.

Shareholder Proposal for Pfizer 2023 Proxy Ballot re Political Contributions Misalignment

Submitted by Tara Health Foundation

Supporting Statement:

Proponents recommend that such report contain management's analysis of risks to our

company's brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with publicly

stated company values. “Electioneering expenditures" means spending, from the corporate

treasury and from the PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year which

are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as in support of or opposition to a specific

candidate.

EXHIBIT B

(see attached)

Industry Associations

–

Report on Incongruencies

Introduction

Pfizer Inc. (Pfizer) actively participates in the public policy arena because

government policies affect our ability to meet patient needs and provide

shareholder value. Barriers to access, counterfeit medicines, illegal importation

and challenges to intellectual property protection challenge essential aspects of

our business.. For this reason, we actively participate in public policy dialogues to

explain our perspectives. We have extensive knowledge about health care and

many ideas about improving its efficiency, as well as a global perspective on public

health, disease prevention and health education. We believe that public policy

engagement is an important and appropriate role for companies in open societies.

In furtherance of these goals, Pfizer is a member of various industry and trade

groups that represent both the pharmaceutical industry and the business

community at large to bring about consensus on broad policy issues that can

impact Pfizer

’

s business objectives and ability to serve patients. Our support of

these organizations is evaluated annually by the company

’

s U.S. Government

Relations leaders based on these organizations

’

expertise in healthcare policy and

advocacy and support of key issues of importance to Pfizer. In addition to their

positions on health care policy issues, we realize these organizations may engage

in a broad range of other issues that extend beyond the scope of what is of

primary importance to Pfizer's business. If concerns arise about a particular issue,

we convey our concerns, as appropriate, through our colleagues who serve on the

boards and committees of these groups. We believe there is value in making sure

our positions on issues important to Pfizer and our industry are communicated

and understood within those organizations. Pfizer

’

s participation as a member of

these various industry and trade groups comes with the understanding that we

may not always agree with each position taken by the larger organization and/or

other members.

Our most significant trade association memberships are with the U.S. Chamber of

Commerce (Chamber), the Business Roundtable (BRT), the National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM), the Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), and the

Pfizer

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). We work

closely and are proud of our collaboration with each of these trade associations on

core issues of great importance to Pfizer

’s business

and our stakeholders. PhRMA

and BIO lead the industry in promoting pro-patient and pro-innovation health care

policies while fighting against harmful government price control policies. The BRT,

Chamber and NAM are leading voices on US tax competitiveness. All of these

trade associations are vocal advocates for robust protections for intellectual

property rights.

Of course, because these trade associations represent so many members with a

diversity of interests, at times their positions and efforts on certain issues are not

perfectly aligned with our own. Some misalignment is an unavoidable

consequence of any collective endeavor. Nevertheless, we monitor where and to

what extent our trade associations are misaligned with the company on such

issues. Where possible, we will advocate for the trade association to come into

alignment, but if an organization

’

s misalignment is egregious, and the

membership benefits to Pfizer and its stakeholders are outweighed by the

misalignments, we will reduce or end our involvement with the organization.

In addition, the Governance & Sustainability Committee of the Board has oversight

of the company’s issues related to public policy, political spending policies and

practices and our lobbying activities. At least annually, the Committee receives a

report from the company’s U.S. Government Relations leaders regarding our

public policies activities, including an overview of the benefits derived from the

company’s association with certain trade and other organizations.

That said, the following report outlines the public policy positions of Pfizer and the

five trade associations across six areas of key public policy and ESG significance for

Pfizer: Climate Change; Patient Access to Healthcare; Trade; Tax; Diversity, Equity,

and Inclusion; and Civic Integrity. The report also compares Pfizer and the trade

associations’ positions and descri

bes the degree of alignment and areas of

misalignment. Please note that while some of these issues, such as healthcare

access, tax and trade are core to Pfizer's business, the other issues are

nevertheless important to the company although they may not be core to the

company's business

Biotechnology Innovation Organization

The policy goals of Pfizer and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) are

generally in alignment across the key areas reviewed. To the extent differences

exist in the company and trade association

’

s respective positions, such as on tax,

they are largely because either Pfizer or BIO has taken a position on particular

matters on which the other has not. Indeed, Pfizer has been more vocal than BIO

on support of free trade, though both agree on the importance of intellectual

property protections in trade agreements. On broad policy goals, Pfizer and BIO

are well aligned. Pfizer engages with BIO on the following issues: (a) intellectual

property/innovation protection; (b) vaccine policy and advocacy; (c) patient

affordability solutions; and (d) FDA User Fee agreements (in partnership with

PhRMA).

Pfizer

BIO

Gap Analysis

Climate

Change

Pfizer understands and

takes action to reduce the

risks of adverse impacts

from climate threats by

recognizing that climate

change is a defining issue

of the times caused

primarily by human

activities. These values

are illustrated through

demonstrable policies and

goals, supporting

government efforts for

market-based solutions

aimed at achieving

science-based emission

reduction targets, while

also taking steps at the

company level, including

becoming carbon neutral

by 2030. The company

also seeks to engage value

chain partners to help

them achieve target

reductions in emissions.

BIO believes that climate

change is one of the

greatest public policy

challenges facing this

generation and that

biotechnology has the

potential to be a

transformative asset in

this struggle. It supports

efforts to reduce

greenhouse gas

emissions as well as

establishing a national

low carbon fuels

standard. BIO strongly

supports the Growing

Climate Solutions Act,

including the

establishment of a

national carbon market,

the U.S. rejoining the

Paris Climate Accords,

and the development of

Sustainable Aviation

Fuels. Lastly, BIO

opposes the practice of

granting small refinery

Pfizer and BIO are in

close alignment on

climate change, with

both favoring market-

based and scientific-

evidence based

solutions to climate

change.

hardship waivers under

the Renewable Fuel

Standard.

Access to

Healthcare

Pfizer seeks to maximize

the use of its medicines

and vaccines for

supporting global public

health efforts. This

includes permitting, as

safely as possible, access

to investigational drugs

still in development in

limited circumstances. As

a global company, Pfizer

attempts to ensure that

underserved patients

around the world have

access to essential

medicines and vaccines.

In addition, Pfizer seeks to

educate underserved

patients on health literacy

to further health equity.

BIO believes that

biotechnology can help

provide healthcare

solutions for a variety of

problems, such as opioid

addiction, vaccine access,

and disease prevention.

BIO member companies

are committed to making

innovative biotechnology

medicines available to

patients who need them

through the efficient

development of

approved, safe and

effective products.

However, BIO opposes

global drug price control

schemes such as those

found in H.R. 3. BIO

favors expanding access

to investigational drugs

as long as proper

safeguards remain in

place. Lastly, BIO and its

members often work

together with patient

advocacy organizations to

better understand the

patients it serves in order

to help raise awareness

and understanding of

disease and to advance

patient-focused public

policies.

Pfizer and BIO are in

close alignment in

expanding access to

healthcare, including

expanded access to

investigational drugs

and COVID vaccines.

Trade

Pfizer balances the

realities of encouraging

trade, commerce, and

patient access while

protecting IP that is at the

heart of the company

’

innovation engine. As a

company that engages

BIO supports eliminating

acute and systemic trade

barriers to innovative

biotechnology tools,

particularly in important

export markets, such as

China, the European

Union, and Mexico. It

Pfizer and BIO are in

close alignment on the

importance of

intellectual property

protections in trade

agreements, but Pfizer

has spoken more

favorably of free trade

heavily in R&D, it is

imperative to the success

of the company that

products that are the

result of costly research be

given the appropriate

market protections. This

includes advocating for

free trade agreements

that provide legal

certainty. Pfizer also

emphasizes an ethical

supply chain and following

applicable antitrust laws,

both in the U.S. and

abroad.

believes that to fully

leverage the potential of

biotechnology, a level-

playing field at the global

level is essential. BIO also

favors robust intellectual

property protections for

biotechnology

companies. It has

criticized the World Trade

Organization

’

s (WTO)

proposed

“

TRIPS

”

waiver

of intellectual property

rights for technologies

used to prevent, contain,

or treat COVID-19. In

addition, BIO supports

pursuing biotechnology-

specific outcomes in new

trade agreements and

modernizing older trade

agreements to address

biotechnology. It

criticized the United

States-Mexico-Canada

Agreement (USMCA) for

failing to include

enhanced intellectual

property standards for

American

biopharmaceutical

products.

agreements generally

than BIO has.

Tax

Pfizer opposes increasing

the tax burden on U.S.

companies through

changes to the foreign

minimum tax.

BIO supports a number of

state-level tax credits,

deductions, and

exemptions. It supports

seed capital tax credits

and angel investor tax

credits to encourage

early-stage investment,

tax credits to increase the

availability of venture

capital, tax credits for

research and

development, sales tax

exemptions for

Pfizer and BIO have

different focuses in the

area of tax policy. BIO

does not appear to

have taken a position

on the foreign

minimum tax issue of

most interest to Pfizer,

but holds a number of

other positions on tax

policy that Pfizer has

not addressed. Thus,

Pfizer and BIO

’

positions are

equipment used in

research and

development and

manufacturing, capital

investment tax incentives,

innovation investment tax

incentives, tax credit

transferability, the option

to carry forward net

operating losses (NOL),

and capital gains

deductions. At the

federal level, it supports a

number of biofuel tax

incentives, particularly

the Second Generation

Biofuel Producer Tax

Credit, the Special

Depreciation Allowance

for Second Generation

Biofuel Plant Property,

the Biodiesel and

Renewable Diesel Fuels

Credit, and the

Alternative Fuel Vehicle

Refueling Property Credit.

It also supports reform of

limitations on NOL

carryforwards under

Section 382 of the federal

tax code.

misaligned in this area,

though not in conflict.

Diversity

Equity &

Inclusion

Pfizer has numerous

company policies and

reports that emphasize

the importance of

diversity, equity, and

inclusion to the company

and provide metrics that

reflect the priority that the

company places on such

efforts. This emphasis on

values related to DE&I is

not illustrated only in

policies addressing

company personnel, but

also related to patients, as

BIO supports increasing

diversity, equity and

inclusion (DE&I) in the

biotechnology space. It

has spearheaded several

initiatives dedicated to

improving diversity such

as its BIOEquity Agenda

and the Right Mix Matters

campaign. BIO also

believes that it is

imperative to increase

diversity in clinical trials in

order to best reflect the

population that will

Pfizer and BIO are in

close alignment on

matters of DE&I, in

terms of the corporate

workforce, clinical

trials and access to

healthcare.

the company seeks to

overturn longstanding

inequities in healthcare

systems, such as through

inclusive drug trials.

ultimately be using the

tested drugs. Lastly, BIO

has committed to

promoting health equity

by enhancing clinical trial

diversity, promoting

access to vaccines and

therapeutics for

uninsured and

underserved populations

and fostering enhanced

nutritional,

environmental, and

mental wellness

opportunities in

economically

disadvantaged

communities.

Civic Integrity

Pfizer opposed the events

at the Capitol on January 6,

2021 and paused Pfizer

Political Action Committee

(PAC) giving to the 147

Republicans who voted

against certifying the

election for the first half of

2021. Pfizer also supports

ensuring every American

citizen’s right to vote,

which is fundamental to

our democracy.

BIO opposed the events

that took place at the

Capitol on January 6. As a

result, it briefly paused all

political giving in order to

reassess the criteria it

uses to make political

donations.

Pfizer and BIO are in

close alignment on

civic integrity, with

both condemning the

events that took place

at the Capitol on

January 6, 2021.

Business Roundtable

The policy goals of Pfizer and the Business Roundtable (BRT) are generally in

alignment across the key areas reviewed. To the extent there are differences in

the company and trade association

’

s respective positions, they are because Pfizer

and BRT are focusing on different specific aspects of the issue. However, on broad

policy goals, Pfizer and BRT are well aligned. Pfizer engages with the BRT on the

following issues: (a) U.S. tax competitiveness; (b) global tax debate; (c) free trade

policies and intellectual property protection; (d) employer health care and health

equity solutions; and (e) enhancing diversity and inclusion in the workforce.

Pfizer

Business Roundtable

Gap Analysis

Climate

Change

Pfizer understands and

takes action to reduce the

risks of adverse impacts

from climate threats by

recognizing that climate

change is a defining issue

of the times caused

primarily by human

activities. These values

are illustrated through

demonstrable policies and

goals, supporting

government efforts for

market-based solutions

aimed at achieving

science-based emission

reduction targets, while

also taking steps at the

company level, including

becoming carbon neutral

by 2030. The company

also seeks to engage value

chain partners to help

them achieve target

reductions in emissions.

The Business Roundtable

believes corporations

should lead by example,

support sound public

policies, and drive

innovation in order to

best address climate

change. However, the

BRT asserts that effective

change will not happen in

a vacuum, and that it is

imperative for the U.S.

government to act in

tandem with

corporations. In

particular, the BRT calls

on the U.S. government

to adopt a more

comprehensive,

coordinated, and market-

based approach to

emissions reduction. This

approach should also

place a premium on

fostering innovation, U.S.

competitiveness, and

compliance flexibility.

The BRT identifies global

cooperation and

diplomacy as the keys to

achieving the collective

Both Pfizer and BRT

favor market-based

and scientific-evidence

based solutions to

climate change. Pfizer

is committed to taking

responsible climate

action and reducing

environmental impact;

BRT also advocates for

corporations to take

such actions. BRT has

been criticized in the

press in recent months

for opposing the Biden

administration

’

s Build

Back Better legislation,

despite its substantial

investment in

combating climate

change. But this

opposition is due to

the onerous tax

provisions included in

the legislation; BRT

has called for separate

legislative action on

climate change.

global action that is

necessary to address the

climate change challenge.

However, the BRT has

received criticism in the

press for opposing the

Biden administration

’

Build Back Better

legislation, despite its

substantial investment in

combating climate

change.

Access to

Healthcare

Pfizer seeks to maximize

the use of its medicines

and vaccines for

supporting global public

health efforts. This

includes permitting, as

safely as possible, access

to investigational drugs

still in development in

limited circumstances. As

a global company, Pfizer

attempts to ensure that

underserved patients

around the world have

access to essential

medicines and vaccines.

In addition, Pfizer seeks to

educate underserved

patients on health literacy

to further health equity.

The BRT believes that an

affordable, innovative

and efficient healthcare

system is an essential

factor in ensuring a

better quality of life for all

Americans as well as a

more productive and

competitive U.S.

workforce. The BRT has

established its own

Health & Retirement

committee to bring about

its goals. The

committee

’

s purpose is to

support health policy

initiatives and the U.S.

retirement system. The

BRT also supports policies

that will improve the

affordability and quality

of U.S. healthcare and is

particularly interested in

the intersection of racial

equity and health. The

BRT believes that by

focusing on effective and

inclusive healthcare and

retirement policies, the

U.S. will become a more

attractive location for

skilled workers and

businesses. BRT has also

Pfizer and BRT are

both focused on

expanding access to

healthcare. Pfizer

largely focuses on

expanding access to

medicines and

vaccines, including

investigational drugs.

BRT does not appear

to have taken a

position on these

specific initiatives,

except that it has been

promoting access to

COVID vaccines, and is

instead focused on

reducing the cost of,

and expanding access

to, health insurance.

Both Pfizer and BRT

support efforts to

promote equity in

access to healthcare.

actively promoted use of

COVID vaccines.

Trade

Pfizer balances the

realities of encouraging

trade, commerce, and

patient access while

protecting IP that is at the

heart of the company

’

innovation engine. As a

company that engages

heavily in R&D, it is

imperative to the success

of the company that

products that are the

result of costly research be

given the appropriate

market protections. This

includes advocating for

free trade agreements

that provide legal

certainty. Pfizer also

emphasizes an ethical

supply chain and following

applicable antitrust laws,

both in the U.S. and

abroad.

The BRT believes that

every sector of the U.S.

economy benefits from

free trade, and that

future economic growth

and jobs in the U.S.

depend on expanding

U.S. trade and investment

opportunities around the

world. In this same vein,

the BRT is very supportive

of friendly trade relations

with Canada and Mexico.

However, the BRT takes

issue with China

’

s trade

and investment practices

and supports the

preservation of the Phase

Agreement as well as

working with U.S. allies

and trading partners to

press for further

structural reforms in

China such as stronger

intellectual property

protections. Lastly, the

BRT opposes the Section

232 tariffs on steel and

aluminum imports.

Pfizer and BRT are in

close alignment on

trade policy. Both

favor free trade

agreements and the

protection of

intellectual property

rights through such

agreements.

Tax

Pfizer opposes increasing

the tax burden on U.S.

companies through

changes to the foreign

minimum tax.

The BRT supports tax and

fiscal policies that

promote innovation and

create more opportunity

for America

’

s workers,

communities and job

creators. It strongly

supports the 2017 tax

reform and believe that it

has aligned the U.S.

corporate tax rate with

global competitors

thereby allowing for low

unemployment, better-

Pfizer and BRT are in

close alignment on

opposition to changes

to the foreign

minimum tax that

would increase the tax

burden on U.S.

companies relative to

foreign companies.

BRT has positions on

numerous other tax

issues on which Pfizer

has not taken a public

position.

than-expected growth in

GDP, and the fastest two-

year wage growth in 20

years (prior to the

pandemic). Furthermore,

the BRT believes that any

U.S. minimum tax should

be agreed upon at a

global level instead of just

applying to U.S.

companies. Lastly, the

BRT opposes an increase

in corporate taxes being

bundled into an

infrastructure bill.

Diversity

Equity &

Inclusion

Pfizer has numerous

company policies and

reports that emphasize

the importance of

diversity, equity, and

inclusion to the company

and provide metrics that

reflect the priority that the

company places on such

efforts. This emphasis on

values related to DE&I is

not illustrated only in

policies addressing

company personnel, but

also related to patients, as

the company seeks to

overturn longstanding

inequities in healthcare

systems, such as through

inclusive drug trials.

The BRT strongly

supports the DE&I efforts

of its member companies.

It also recommends that

member companies

increase transparency on

corporate diversity by

voluntarily disclosing

their diversity metrics,

including hiring and

leadership. Furthermore,

the BRT has taken a

multi-faceted approach to

DE&I initiatives and has

created substantive

policies that address DE&I

issues in employment,

finance, education,

health, housing, and the

justice system.

Pfizer and BRT are in

close alignment on

matters of DE&I, both

in terms of the

corporate workforce

and access to

healthcare.

Civic Integrity

Pfizer opposed the events

at the Capitol on January 6,

2021and paused Pfizer

Political Action Committee

(PAC) giving to the 147

Republicans who voted

against certifying the

election for the first half of

2021. Pfizer also supports

ensuring every American

The BRT strongly

opposed claims that the

results of the 2020

Presidential election were

the product of fraud

before, during, and after

the events that took place

at the Capitol on January

6, 2021. The BRT also

supports greater access

Pfizer and BRT are in

close alignment on

civic integrity, with

both condemning the

events that took place

at the Capitol on

January 6, 2021, and

supporting access to

voting.

citizen’s right to vote,

which is fundamental to

our democracy.

to voting and encourages

broad voter participation.

In the same vein, the BRT

encourages its member

companies to allow their

employees to take the

day off of work in order to

vote.

National Association of Manufacturers

The policy goals of Pfizer and the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) are

generally in alignment across the key areas reviewed. The alignment is less close

in the areas of climate change and access to healthcare, largely because Pfizer and

the NAM are focusing on different specific aspects of the issue. However, on broad

policy goals, Pfizer and BRT are well aligned. Pfizer engages with NAM on the

following issues: (a) high quality manufacturing; (b) international trade; and (c) to

oppose governmental intervention in health care, including price controls in

Medicare.

Pfizer

NAM

Gap Analysis

Climate

Change

Pfizer understands and

takes action to reduce the

risks of adverse impacts

from climate threats by

recognizing that climate

change is a defining issue

of the times caused

primarily by human

activities. These values

are illustrated through

demonstrable policies and

goals, supporting

government efforts for

market-based solutions

aimed at achieving

science-based emission

reduction targets, while

also taking steps at the

company level, including

becoming carbon neutral

by 2030. The company

The NAM recognizes that

climate change poses a

serious threat to the

planet. It has called for a

clear and unified federal

climate policy that is

based on science-based

metrics and that

preempts conflicting and

duplicative regulations. It

supports increasing

investments in public-

and private-sector energy

and water efficiency,

scaling up the adoption of

energy- and water-

efficient products and

technologies, and

developing pathways for

the deployment of new

technologies like carbon

Both Pfizer and the

NAM favor scientific

evidence based

solutions to climate

change. There is some

misalignment in how

to achieve these

solutions, with Pfizer

focused on market-

based mechanisms

while the NAM

supports greater

regulatory clarity and

consistency that

supports innovation

and a global approach

to climate change.

also seeks to engage value

chain partners to help

them achieve target

reductions in emissions.

capture, utilization, and

storage. It believes that

any federal policy must

be part of a broader

global solution and has

encouraged the U.S. to

reengage with the

international community

in order to reduce

greenhouse gas

emissions collectively,

rather than in isolation.

The NAM is opposed to

measures, such as the

Green New Deal, that it

believes would too

quickly transition the U.S.

from fossil fuels and

would put U.S.

manufacturers at a

competitive

disadvantage.

Access to

Healthcare

Pfizer seeks to maximize

the use of its medicines

and vaccines for

supporting global public

health efforts. This

includes permitting, as

safely as possible, access

to investigational drugs

still in development in

limited circumstances. As

a global company, Pfizer

attempts to ensure that

underserved patients

around the world have

access to essential

medicines and vaccines.

In addition, Pfizer seeks to

educate underserved

patients on health literacy

to further health equity.

The NAM supports

market-based solutions

to lower healthcare costs.

In particular, it supports

moving the U.S. from a

fee-for-service or volume-

based healthcare system

to a value-based

healthcare system;

enacting policies that

allow employers to use

innovative approaches to

providing coverage for

their employees, such as

wellness programs,

association health plans,

and direct primary care;

improving health savings

accounts to reduce

patient out-of-pocket

costs; reducing

Affordable Care Act

–

mandated reporting

requirements; and

maintaining the tax-

Pfizer and the NAM are

in broad alignment on

minimizing

government

intervention between

patients and the drugs

and vaccines they

need. Pfizer largely

focuses on expanding

access to medicines

and vaccines, including

investigational drugs.

The NAM does not

appear to have taken a

position on these

specific initiatives,

except that it has been

promoting access to

COVID vaccines, and is

instead focused on

reducing the cost of

healthcare and health

insurance, while

combating

exempt status of

employee health benefits

to avoid higher premiums

for workers and families.

The NAM is opposed to

government price

controls, which it argues

will chill innovation and

expose consumers to

unsafe medicines.

government price

controls.

Trade

Pfizer balances the

realities of encouraging

trade, commerce, and

patient access while

protecting IP that is at the

heart of the company

’

innovation engine. As a

company that engages

heavily in R&D, it is

imperative to the success

of the company that

products that are the

result of costly research be

given the appropriate

market protections. This

includes advocating for

free trade agreements

that provide legal

certainty. Pfizer also

emphasizes an ethical

supply chain and following

applicable antitrust laws,

both in the U.S. and

abroad.

The NAM supports free

trade agreements to

provide certainty in the

global marketplace, open

markets for U.S.-

manufactured goods, and

eliminate unfair barriers

to trade. It believes that

the U.S. needs to work

with allies to shape the

global rules for trade. It

supports vigorous

protection of intellectual

property rights at home

and abroad and targeted

policies directed at China

to reverse the country

’

illegal subsidies,

intellectual property theft,

and discriminatory

industrial policies. It also

supports modernizing

U.S. and foreign customs

operations to cut red tape

and expedite legitimate

trade in the U.S. and

across foreign borders

and implementing U.S.

export control and

investment review

policies that promote the

leadership,

competitiveness, and

strength of the U.S.

manufacturing industry.

The NAM is opposed to

tariffs, which it argues

Pfizer and the NAM are

in close alignment on

trade policy. Both

favor free trade

agreements and the

protection of

intellectual property

rights through such

agreements.

undermine economic

growth by restricting

trade.

Tax

Pfizer opposes increasing

the tax burden on U.S.

companies through

changes to the foreign

minimum tax.

The NAM supports a

competitive tax code that

promotes economic

growth and incentivizes

investment in

infrastructure, research

and development, and

human capital. It is

opposed to increasing

taxes, particularly the

corporate tax and foreign

minimum tax, and to

limiting tax deductions,

such as the business

interest expense

deduction.

Pfizer and the NAM are

in close alignment on

opposition to changes

to the foreign

minimum tax that

would increase the tax

burden on U.S.

companies relative to

foreign companies.

The NAM has positions

on numerous other tax

issues on which Pfizer

has not taken a public

position.

Diversity

Equity &

Inclusion

Pfizer has numerous

company policies and

reports that emphasize

the importance of

diversity, equity, and

inclusion to the company

and provide metrics that

reflect the priority that the

company places on such

efforts. This emphasis on

values related to DE&I is

not illustrated only in

policies addressing

company personnel, but

also related to patients, as

the company seeks to

overturn longstanding

inequities in healthcare

systems, such as through

inclusive drug trials.

The NAM supports

diversity, equity, and

inclusion policies. It

encourages

manufacturers to take

proactive measures to

hire more women, people

of color, and members of

the LGBT community and

to make their workplaces

more open and

accepting.

Pfizer and the NAM are

in close alignment on

DE&I, matters in the

corporate workforce,

although the NAM

does not appear to

have focused on

inequities in

healthcare systems

specifically.

Civic Integrity

Pfizer opposed the events

at the Capitol on January 6,

2021 and paused Pfizer

Political Action Committee

(PAC) giving to the 147

The NAM encourages

people to vote and spoke

out against efforts after

the 2020 general election

to undermine the

Pfizer and the NAM are

in close alignment on

civic integrity, with

both condemning the

events that took place

Republicans who voted

against certifying the

election for the first half of

2021. Pfizer also supports

ensuring every American

citizen’s right to vote,

which is fundamental to

our democracy.

presidential election

results.

following the 2020

election.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America

Pfizer and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) are

closely aligned on policy goals and specific positions. The only notable exception is

in the area of climate change, where PhRMA has not taken a public position. Pfizer

engages with PhRMA on the following issues: (a) lead industry efforts to advance

pro-patient policies and defeat negative drug pricing proposals at the federal level;

(b) advance rebate pass-through, copay accumulator bans and out of pocket caps

at state level; (c) protect intellectual property rights globally; and (d) advance FDA

User Fee agreements (in partnership with BIO).

Pfizer

PhRMA

Gap Analysis

Climate

Change

Pfizer understands and

takes action to reduce the

risks of adverse impacts

from climate threats by

recognizing that climate

change is a defining issue

of the times caused

primarily by human

activities. These values

are illustrated through

demonstrable policies and

goals, supporting

government efforts for

market-based solutions

aimed at achieving

science-based emission

reduction targets, while

also taking steps at the

company level, including

becoming carbon neutral

by 2030. The company

also seeks to engage value

chain partners to help

them achieve target

reductions in emissions.

No public policy or

position identified.

PhRMA does not have

public positions on

climate change, so

there is no material

misalignment between

Pfizer and PhRMA on

this topic.

Access to

Healthcare

Pfizer seeks to maximize

the use of its medicines

and vaccines for

supporting global public

health efforts. This

PhRMA is willing to work

with all stakeholders to

deliver a more resilient,

stronger, affordable and

equitable healthcare

Pfizer and PhRMA are

in close alignment on

expanding access to

healthcare, including

through greater access

includes permitting, as

safely as possible, access

to investigational drugs

still in development in

limited circumstances. As

a global company, Pfizer

attempts to ensure that

underserved patients

around the world have

access to essential

medicines and vaccines. In

addition, Pfizer seeks to

educate underserved

patients on health literacy

to further health equity.

system for all. However,

it believes that the

current price setting

proposals in Congress

threaten Americans

’

access to crucial,

breakthrough medicines,

and that there should

instead be a cap on out-

of-pocket costs for

seniors. It also focuses

on lower cost sharing and

making drugs prices

more predictable. PhRMA

wants to ensure that

billions of dollars in

rebates and discounts get

passed on to patients

–

not kept by the insurance

companies, hospitals and

middlemen. PhRMA also

supports expanded

access to investigational

drugs.

to investigational

drugs.

Trade

Pfizer balances the

realities of encouraging

trade, commerce, and

patient access while

protecting IP that is at the

heart of the company

’

innovation engine. As a

company that engages

heavily in R&D, it is

imperative to the success

of the company that

products that are the

result of costly research be

given the appropriate

market protections. This

includes advocating for

free trade agreements

that provide legal

certainty. Pfizer also

emphasizes an ethical

supply chain and following

applicable antitrust laws,

PhRMA supports free and

fair trade and believes

that through trade

agreements with other

countries, medicines

developed in the U.S. are

able to reach patients

around the world who

otherwise would not be

able to access the latest

treatments and cures.

However, it argues that

some countries artificially

limit the price of

innovative U.S.

pharmaceuticals, and fail

to adequately protect

intellectual property,

thereby hampering

access to new treatments

in foreign countries and

reducing investment in

Pfizer and PhRMA are

in close alignment on

trade policy, with both

favoring free trade and

strong intellectual

property protections.

both in the U.S. and

abroad.

research and

development. PhRMA

argues that this

ultimately harms patients

and health systems.

Therefore, PhRMA

supports strong IP

protection policies.

Tax

Pfizer opposes increasing

the tax burden on U.S.

companies through

changes to the foreign

minimum tax.

PhRMA believes that

increased taxes limit the

ability of pharmaceutical

companies to provide

new treatments abroad

and disincentivizes

research and

development for

lifesaving cures. It

engaged an outside

auditor to estimate the

effects of the Biden

administration

’

s federal

income tax payment plan

on the pharmaceutical

industry. The analysis

showed that the

administration

’

s tax

proposals would increase

tax payments on the

pharmaceutical industry

by more than $95 billion

because of revisions to

the global minimum tax

regime and related

proposals. This coupled,

with the increase in the

corporate income tax rate

to 28%, would raise the

pharmaceutical industry

’

taxes by an estimated

$40.7 billion.

Pfizer and PhRMA are

in close alignment on

opposition to changes

to the foreign

minimum tax that

would increase the tax

burden on U.S.

companies relative to

foreign companies.

Diversity

Equity &

Inclusion

Pfizer has numerous

company policies and

reports that emphasize

the importance of

diversity, equity, and

PhRMA is committed to

enhancing diversity,

equity and inclusion in

the pharmaceutical

industry. It published the

Pfizer and PhRMA are

in close alignment on

matters of DE&I, both

in terms of the

corporate workforce,

inclusion to the company

and provide metrics that

reflect the priority that the

company places on such

efforts. This emphasis on

values related to DE&I is

not illustrated only in

policies addressing

company personnel, but

also related to patients, as

the company seeks to

overturn longstanding

inequities in healthcare

systems, such as through

inclusive drug trials.

first ever industry-wide

principles on clinical trial

diversity. Further, it has

consistently responded to

government requests for

information on diversity

initiatives. PhRMA has

also created a grant

program that awards

money to community-

based projects to address

inequities in diagnosis,

treatment, and

adherence. Lastly,

PhRMA has published an

open letter on equity,

noting that systemic

racism is as real as any

disease and commits

PhRMA to pursuing

various measures in

order to improve its

diversity, equity and

inclusion efforts.

access to healthcare

and participation in

clinical trials.

Civic Integrity

Pfizer opposed the events

at the Capitol on January 6,

2021 and paused Pfizer

Political Action Committee

(PAC) giving to the 147

Republicans who voted

against certifying the

election for the first half of

2021. Pfizer also supports

ensuring every American

tizen’s right to vote,

which is fundamental to

our democracy.

PhRMA

’

s CEO issued a

strong rebuke of the

events at the Capitol on

January 6. Soon after,

PhRMA paused all

political giving to those

who voted to reject the

outcome of the 2020

presidential election.

Pfizer and PhRMA are

in close alignment on

civic integrity, with

both condemning the

events that took place

at the Capitol on

January 6, 2021.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

The policy goals of Pfizer and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) are

generally in alignment across the key areas reviewed. To the extent there are

differences in the company and trade association

’

s respective positions, they are

generally because Pfizer and Chamber are focusing on different specific aspects of

the issue. However, on broad policy goals, they are well aligned. Pfizer engages

with the Chamber on the following issues: (a) promote and protect intellectual

property/innovation through Global Innovation Policy Center; (b) drive narrative

on counterfeits/product integrity; (c) lead on U.S. tax competitiveness; and (d)

protect employer health care and drive policies to promote competition in health

care.

Pfizer

Chamber

Gap Analysis

Climate

Change

Pfizer understands and

takes action to reduce the

risks of adverse impacts

from climate threats by

recognizing that climate

change is a defining issue

of the times caused

primarily by human

activities. These values

are illustrated through

demonstrable policies and

goals, supporting

government efforts for

market-based solutions

aimed at achieving

science-based emission

reduction targets, while

also taking steps at the

company level, including

becoming carbon neutral

by 2030. The company

also seeks to engage value

chain partners to help

them achieve target

reductions in emissions.

The Chamber

acknowledges the

severity of the climate

threat, that humans are

contributing, and that

steps needs to be taken

to address the crisis. The

organization recognizes

the role that business and

market-driven solutions

can play in slowing the

effects of climate change.

In addition, governments

and technological

solutions should be

leveraged but solutions

must be realistic, durable,

and reinforce U.S.

economic

competitiveness.

On climate change,

both Pfizer and the

Chamber favor

market-based and

technology-based

solutions. Pfizer is

committed to taking

responsible climate

action and reducing

environmental impact;

the Chamber also

advocates for

corporations to take

such actions. The

Chamber has been

criticized for its history

of opposition to

legislation targeting

climate change and

opposing the Biden

administration

’

s Build

Back Better legislation,

which includes climate

provisions. The

Chamber testified

before Congress in

October and noted

that c

ombating climate

change requires

citizens, governments,

and businesses to

work together

–

and

that inaction is not an

option.

Access to

Healthcare

Pfizer seeks to maximize

the use of its medicines

and vaccines for

The Chamber believes

private business is a

significant factor in what

Pfizer and the

Chamber are in

alignment on

supporting global public

health efforts. This

includes permitting, as

safely as possible, access

to investigational drugs

still in development in

limited circumstances. As

a global company, Pfizer

attempts to ensure that

underserved patients

around the world have

access to essential

medicines and vaccines.

In addition, Pfizer seeks to

educate underserved

patients on health literacy

to further health equity.

makes America the leader

in healthcare in the world.

American innovation

leads to better outcomes

for both domestic and

international patients and

companies must be

provided proper

incentives and protection

to allow research and

development to continue.

These protections should

be balanced to increase

affordability and optimize

access for all patients.

Employer-sponsored

healthcare provides the

best option for many

Americans.

expanding access to

healthcare. Pfizer

largely focuses on

expanding access to

medicines and

vaccines, including

investigational drugs.

The Chamber does not

appear to have taken a

position on these

specific initiatives,

except that it has been

promoting access to

COVID vaccines, and is

instead focused on

reducing the cost of,

and expanding access

to, health insurance.

Trade

Pfizer balances the

realities of encouraging

trade, commerce, and

patient access while

protecting costly IP that is

at the heart of the

company

’

s profitability.

As a company that

engages heavily in R&D, it

is imperative to the

success of the company

that products that are the

result of costly research be

given the appropriate

market protections. This

includes advocating for

free trade agreements

that provide legal

certainty. Pfizer also

emphasizes an ethical

supply chain and following

applicable antitrust laws,

both in the U.S. and

abroad.

The Chamber emphasizes

free trade and opposes

tariffs, providing

American companies the

opportunity to participate

in the global marketplace.

In addition to agreements

that open the

marketplace, it

’

important that these

agreements also provide

intellectual property

protections that protect

and encourage

innovation.

Pfizer and the

Chamber are in close

alignment on trade

policy. Both favor free

trade agreements and

the protection of

intellectual property

rights through such

agreements.

Tax

Pfizer opposes increasing

the tax burden on U.S.

The Chamber believes in

tax policies that support

Pfizer and the

Chamber are in close

companies through

changes to the foreign

minimum tax.

business and promote

the growth the economy.

This generally means

lower and stable tax rates

for business that spurs

job growth and

investment. In addition,

the Chamber supports

repealing taxes on certain

aspects of healthcare.

Internationally, the

Chamber supports tax

agreements that

establish fair systems by

which American

companies can compete

globally, and opposes an

increase to the global

minimum tax for U.S.

companies.

alignment on

opposition to changes

to the foreign

minimum tax that

would increase the tax

burden on U.S.

companies relative to

foreign companies.

The Chamber has

positions on numerous

other tax issues on

which Pfizer has not

taken a public position.

Diversity

Equity &

Inclusion

Pfizer has numerous

company policies and

reports that emphasize

the importance of

diversity, equity, and

inclusion to the company

and provide metrics that

reflect the priority that the

company places on such

efforts. This emphasis on

values related to DE&I is

not illustrated only in

policies addressing

company personnel, but

also related to patients, as

the company seeks to

overturn longstanding

inequities in healthcare

systems, such as through

inclusive drug trials.

The Chamber supports

and understands the role

that diversity, equity, and

inclusion play in creating

a vibrant and dynamic

economy. This includes

by supporting member

efforts, instituting

programs, and creating

studies that illustrate that

diversity is a strength in

America. The

organization believes that

DE&I efforts will be

central to a growing

economy in the future.

Pfizer and the

Chamber are in close

alignment on matters

of DE&I, with respect

to promoting diversity

in the corporate

workforce.

Civic Integrity

Pfizer opposed the events

at the Capitol on January 6,

2021 and paused Pfizer

Political Action Committee

(PAC) giving to the 147

The Chamber condemned

the attacks against the

Capitol on January 6 and

believes the 2020

presidential electoral

Pfizer and the

Chamber both

condemned the events

of January 6, 2021. The

Chamber has taken a

Republicans who voted

against certifying the

election for the first half of

2021. Pfizer also supports

ensuring every American

citizen’s right to vote,

which is fundamental to

our democracy.

college was won by Joe

Biden. After the attacks,

the organization

announced that it would

holistically consider

future contributions to

candidates, including

their positions on issues

related to democracy, but

did not say it would

categorically withhold

funds from those who

voted against certifying

the electoral college. The

Chamber opposes the For

the People Act of 2021,

Democrats

’

signature

voting rights bill this

session, taking the

position that it would

silence voices from the

political process.

position against the

For the People Act of

2021; although Pfizer

has indicated its

support for voting

rights, it has not taken

a public position on

this bill.

Methodology

This report surveys the public policy positions of Pfizer and five national trade

associations of which Pfizer is a member: the Biotechnology Innovation

Organization, the Business Roundtable, the National Association of Manufacturers,

the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and the U.S. Chamber

of Commerce (collectively the

“

Trade Associations

”

). The review included the

notable written policies of Pfizer and the Trade Associations generally addressing

six issues: Climate Change; Patient Access to Healthcare; Trade; Tax; Diversity,

Equity, and Inclusion; and Civic Integrity.

The report draws from the policies maintained on the websites of Pfizer and the

Trade Associations. The policies were identified through a review of the respective

websites and targeted keyword searches of the websites. In addition, we compiled

recent notable criticism of the Trade Associations

’

positions featured in media

outlets through keyword searches of media databases. Please note, this report is

focused on current Pfizer and Trade Association policies as of Fall 2021 and we

omitted policies and criticism that we could determine were written prior to 2019.

December 2021

EXHIBIT C

(see attached)

zer PAC and

Corporate Political

Contributions Report

January 2021 – December 2021

Corporate Affairs

Government Relations

zer PAC

Leading the Conversation.

U.S. Government Rela ons & P zer PAC

A Message from Rady Johnson & Sally Susman, Co-Chairs, P zer PAC

We are pleased to share our 2021 elec on cycle poli cal contribu ons report, which includes a list of candidates and poli cal

commi ees supported either by P zer Inc. or the P zer PAC from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.

It has been an incredible year as our colleagues have once again delivered excellence by developing and advancing our COVID-19

vaccine and an -viral as well as many other breakthrough medicines and vaccines. In 2021, we were able to defend against

challenging policy proposals that would have inhibited pa ents’ access to breakthroughs and support candidates of both poli cal

par es who support state and federal policies that impact our purpose: Breakthroughs that change pa ents’ lives.

In 2021, P zer PAC and P zer Inc. supported 1,285 candidates and mul ple poli cal commi ees at all levels of government. Fi y-

three percent of the P zer PAC disbursements in 2021 went to Republicans and 47% went to Democrats. We con nue to advance

our purpose to discover and deliver breakthrough medicines and vaccines in part thanks to our loyal P zer PAC members and our

P zer U.S. Government Rela ons team who are on the ground educa ng elected o cials about P zer’s purpose, ac va ng those

who support P zer’s mission and advoca ng for policymakers who align with policies that enable our purpose.

As P zer’s Chief Compliance & Corporate A airs O cers, we can tell you unequivocally that our decision to contribute to any

elected o cial is made based on a candidates’ vo ng record on durable policies that support innova on, pa ent access to and

a ordability of their medicines, high quality manufacturing, a secure supply chain, a compe ve tax code and a robust intellectual

property system. Our PAC support does not imply an endorsement of a candidate’s posi on on any social or religious issue, and

we always consider a candidate’s ethical conduct in our evalua on to ensure P zer’s values are upheld. P zer’s ability to innovate

requires a favorable regulatory and legisla ve framework. The P zer PAC helps ensure that framework is strong.

We hope you will take some me to review the report to see which candidates the PAC supported in your state and community.

Our priority in 2022 is to help build a construc ve discourse in the poli cal and regulatory environment while suppor ng policies –

and policymakers – who share these same ideals.

As P zer’s PAC Co-Chairs, and through our interac ons with elected o cials, we see rst-hand how decisions are made that

impact our ability to bring breakthroughs to pa ents and healthcare providers who rely on us every day. When we lead the policy

conversa on, we can ensure our voice is heard and that we can con nue to focus on pu ng pa ents rst in everything we do.

Thank you for your support,

Sally Susman

Execu ve Vice President

Chief Corporate A airs O cer

Co-Chair, P zer PAC

Rady Johnson

Execu ve Vice President

Chief Compliance, Quality & Risk O cer

Co-Chair, P zer PAC

Leading the Conversation

and

Making

an Impact

PFIZER PAC

Leading the Conversa on.

What is a PAC?

PAC stands for Poli cal Ac on

Commi ee. A poli cal ac on

commi ee is a government

regulated

organiza on that anyone can form

to raise money for poli cal campaign

dona ons. PACs are formed by

individuals, non-

pro ts, and even

many major corpora ons.

How Does P zer PAC Work?

The P zer poli cal ac on commi ee,

P zer PAC, is a nonpar san

organiza on that provides

opportuni es for employees to

par cipate in the American poli cal

process. The P zer PAC is an

employee

run organiza on with a

Steering Commi ee made up of P zer

employees from di erent divisions

of the company. All corporate PACs

are funded by voluntary employee

contribu ons. P zer PAC is no

di erent; it relies on the par cipa on

of P zer colleagues.

Who Receives P zer

PAC Contribu ons?

P zer PAC is nonpar san. It supports

Democrats and Republicans alike.

From January 2021 through Decmeber

2021, P zer PAC supported 1,285

candidates and commi ees. True to

its nonpar san values, P zer PAC is

commi ed to support candidates

from both poli cal par es who

share P zer’s vision and values for

healthcare. When choosing to make

a contribu on to a candidate, the

P zer PAC considers candidates’ views

on issues that impact P zer and its

employees as well as the presence

of P zer facili es or employees in

the candidate’s district or state. A

complete list of P zer PAC and state

corporate poli cal contribu ons for

January 2021 - December 2021 is

included in this report.

-I

PFIZER PAC & POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

GOVERNANCE POLICY

P zer complies fully with all federal, state, and local laws and repor ng requirements governing PAC

and corporate poli cal contribu ons.

P zer has a Corporate Policy Procedure (#802a) that requires all PAC and corporate poli cal

contribu ons to be compiled and published annually in a report that is made available to employees,

shareholders, and the public, and posted on the Company’s website at

www.p zer.com

in “Lobbying

and Poli cal Contribu ons” under the “About P zer” tab within the “Corporate Governance” sec on.

At the end of each Federal cycle (every two years), the P zer PAC is audited by Withum, a cer ed

public accoun ng and advisory rm.

P zer also requests that trade associa ons receiving total payments of $100,000 or more from P zer in

a given year report the por on of P zer dues or payments used for expenditures or contribu ons that,

if made directly by P zer, would not be deduc ble under sec on 162(e)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue

Code. We are disclosing such informa on received from our trade associa ons in this report.

P zer has a PAC Steering Commi ee comprised of seven colleagues who review and approve all

and corporate poli cal contribu ons on a monthly basis. Steering Commi ee members represent

di erent divisions across the P zer organiza on. The P

AC Steering Commi ee evaluates candidates

based on issues that impact P zer and its colleagues. It also takes note of whether P zer facili es

or colleagues reside in a candidate’

s district or state. In addi on, all P

AC and corporate contribu on

requests are shared with the P zer Poli cal Contribu ons Policy Commi ee for review

. The Poli cal

Contribu ons Policy Commi ee is responsible for governing the P zer P

AC.

P zer does not tradi onally make contribu ons to 527 Issue Organiza ons. If we were asked to make

such a contribu on, it would have to be reviewed and approved by the Poli cal Contribu ons Policy

Commi ee and subsequently disclosed in our semi-annual report.

Finally, in light of the Supreme Court decision in the Ci zens United case, P zer has determined that

it will not make any direct independent expenditures, a decision which has been discussed at the

executive level as well as with the

Governance & Sustainability Committee

of our Board.

Poli cal Contribu ons Policy Commi ee

P zer PAC Steering Commi ee

CO CHAIR

Sally Susman

Execu ve Vice President

Chief Corporate A airs O cer

CO CHAIR

Rady Johnson

Execu ve Vice President

Chief Compliance, Quality

& Risk O cer

TREASURER

Ma hew Meehan

Director

U.S. Government Rela ons

SECRETARY

Barbara Bon glio

Assistant General Counsel

Corporate Governance

Leslie Black, DBA

Senior Manager

Oncology Training

Jim Cafone

Vice President

P zer Global Supply

Sharon Cas llo

Senior Director

Media Rela ons

David Blackwell

Senior Director

Global General Toxicology

Research & Development

Josh Brown

Vice President

State Government Rela ons

Corporate A airs

Sheryl Colyer

Vice President

People Experience

Navin Katyal

Global Franchise & Business Lead

P zer Vaccines, mRNA

P zer Biopharma Group

John Kelly

Vice President

Quality Opera ons & EHS

P zer Global Supply

Nick Lagunowich

Global President

Internal Medicine

P zer Biopharma Group

Margaret Madden

Senior Vice President

& Corporate Secretary

Chief Governance Counsel

Ed Nowicki

Senior Vice President

Deputy Chief Compliance O cer

Corporate Compliance

Andrew Schmeltz

Global President

P zer Oncology

P zer Biopharma Group

Jennifer Walton

Vice President

U.S. Government Rela ons

Corporate A airs

Sam Gonzalez

Business/Scien c Opera ons Lead

Global Products Development

Mike Ho man

Vice President

GBS Sourcing & Enterprise Services

Andrew Mar n

Vice President

US Marke ng Lead - Xeljanx

P zer Biopharma Group

Dezarie Mayers

Director, Colleague Programs

Corporate A airs

Political Contributions

Recipients

January 2021 – December 2021

zer PAC

Leading the Conversation.

Corporate Affairs

Government Relations

Pfizer

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

ALABAMA

US SENATE

Sen. Thomas H. Tuberville

Up in ‘26

$2,500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Terri Andrea Sewell

007

$2,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Gregory J. Reed

005

$1,500.00

Sen. Bobby D. Singleton

024

$1,000.00

Sen. Larry Stu s

006

$1,000.00

Sen. Garlan Gudger, Jr.

004

$500.00

Sen. Clay Sco eld

009

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Laura Hall

019

$1,000.00

Rep. Paul W. Lee

086

$1,000.00

Rep. Joe Lovvorn

079

$500.00

Rep. Nathaniel Ledbe er

024

$1,500.00

Rep. Kyle South

016

$500.00

Rep. Anthony Daniels

053

$500.00

ALASKA

US SENATE

Sen. Lisa Ann Murkowski

$2,500.00

ARIZONA

US HOUSE

Rep. Tom O’Halleran

002

$3,000.00

ARKANSAS

US SENATE

Sen. Thomas Bryant Co on

Up in ‘26

$1,000.00

Sen. John Nichols Boozman

$5,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Stephen Allen Womack

003

$2,500.00

CALIFORNIA

US SENATE

Sen. Alex Padilla

$5,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

US HOUSE

Rep. Peter Ray Aguilar

033

$1,000.00

Rep. Nane e Diaz Barragan

044

$2,000.00

Rep. Amerish B. Bera

006

$3,000.00

Rep. Kenneth S. Calvert

041

$1,000.00

Rep. Tony Cardenas

029

$6,000.00

Rep. J. Luis Correa

046

$4,500.00

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo

016

$2,000.00

Rep. Michael Garcia

027

$1,000.00

Rep. Jimmy Gomez

034

$7,000.00

Rep. Barbara Jean Lee

013

$1,000.00

Devin G. Nunes

022

$5,000.00

Rep. James V. Pane a

019

$4,000.00

Rep. Nancy Pelosi

012

$5,000.00

Rep. Sco H. Peters

050

$5,000.00

Rep. Raul Ruiz

025

$1,000.00

Rep. Linda T. Sanchez

038

$3,000.00

Rep. Michael C. Thompson

004

$2,000.00

Rep. Norma Judith Torres

035

$1,000.00

Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard

040

$1,000.00

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Sen. Toni G. Atkins

Up in ‘26

$2,000.00

Sen. Bill Dodd

Up in ‘26

$3,000.00

Sen. Steven M. Glazer

Up in ‘26

$1,500.00

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AG Rob Bonta

$5,000.00

STATE TREASURER

Hon. Fiona Ma

$1,600.00

STATE CONTROLLER

Sen. Bob M. Hertzberg

$1,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Josh Becker

Up in ‘24

013

$2,000.00

Sen. Melissa Hurtado

014

$1,400.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Monique Limon

Up in ‘24

019

$1,500.00

Sen. Josh Newman

Up in ‘24

029

$1,500.00

Sen. Susan Rubio

022

$3,000.00

Sen. David K. Min

Up in ‘24

037

$1,500.00

Sen. Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh

Up in ‘24

023

$1,500.00

STATE HOUSE

Assm. Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry

004

$2,000.00

Assm. Joaquin Arambula

031

$2,500.00

Assm. Frank Bigelow

005

$1,500.00

Assm. Tasha Boerner Horvath

076

$1,500.00

Mia Bonta

018

$1,500.00

Autumn R. Burke

062

$2,000.00

Assm. Lisa Calderon

057

$1,500.00

Assm. Wendy Carrillo

051

$2,000.00

Assm. Jim Cooper

009

$2,000.00

Assm. Jordan Cunningham

035

$1,500.00

Assm. Tom Daly

069

$2,000.00

Assm. Heath Flora

012

$2,000.00

Assm. Vince Fong

034

$2,000.00

Assm. Mike A. Gipson

064

$1,500.00

Lorena Gonzalez

080

$3,000.00

Assm. Timothy S. Grayson

014

$1,500.00

Assm. Jacqui Irwin

044

$2,000.00

Assm. Marc Levine

010

$1,500.00

Assm. Evan Low

028

$2,000.00

Assm. Brian Maienschein

077

$1,500.00

Assm. Chad Mayes

042

$2,000.00

Assm. Jose Medina

061

$1,500.00

Assm. Kevin Mullin

022

$1,500.00

Assm. Adrin Nazarian

046

$2,000.00

Assm. Patrick O’Donnell

070

$1,500.00

Assm. Co e Petrie-Norris

074

$2,000.00

Assm. James C. Ramos

040

$1,500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Assm. Eloise Gomez Reyes

047

$1,500.00

Assm. Robert Rivas

030

$1,500.00

Assm. Freddie Rodriguez

052

$1,500.00

Assm. Blanca E. Rubio

048

$3,000.00

Assm. Rudy Salas

032

$2,000.00

Assm. Miguel San ago

053

$1,500.00

Assm. Marie Waldron

075

$1,500.00

Assm. Christopher M. Ward

078

$1,500.00

Assm. Carlos Villapudua

013

$1,500.00

Assm. Marc Berman

037

$1,500.00

Assm. Suze e Mar nez Valladares

038

$1,500.00

Assm. Akilah Weber

079

$1,500.00

STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Sen. Anthony J. Portan no

Up in ‘26

$2,000.00

COLORADO

US HOUSE

Rep. Kenneth R. Buck

004

$2,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Bob Gardner

Up in ‘24

012

$200.00

Sen. Chris Hansen

Up in ‘24

031

$400.00

Sen. Cleave Simpson, Jr.

Up in ‘24

035

$200.00

Sen. Rob Woodward

015

$400.00

Sen. Rachel Zenzinger

Up in ‘24

019

$200.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Mark Baisley

039

$200.00

Rep. Colin Larson

022

$200.00

Rep. Hugh McKean

051

$200.00

Rep. Ma Soper

054

$200.00

Rep. Dan Woog

063

$200.00

Rep. Tim Geitner

019

$200.00

Rep. Tonya Van Beber

048

$200.00

CONNECTICUT

US SENATE

Sen. Richard Blumenthal

$2,500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

US HOUSE

Rep. Joseph D. Courtney

002

$1,000.00

Rep. James Andrew Himes

004

$1,000.00

Rep. John Barry Larson

001

$2,000.00

DELAWARE

US SENATE

Sen. Christopher Andrew Coons

Up in ‘26

$5,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester

001

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Nicole Poore

012

$300.00

Sen. Bryan Townsend

011

$300.00

Sen. David P. Sokola

008

$300.00

Sen. Trey Charles Paradee, III

017

$300.00

Sen. Gerald W. Hocker

020

$250.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Andria L. Benne

032

$200.00

Rep. Kevin S. Hensley

009

$200.00

Rep. Valerie J. Longhurst

015

$300.00

Rep. Peter C. Schwartzkopf

014

$400.00

Rep. Ruth Briggs King

037

$200.00

Rep. Debra J. He ernan

006

$250.00

Rep. David S. Bentz

018

$300.00

FLORIDA

US SENATE

Sen. Marco Antonio Rubio

$1,500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Gus Michael Bilirakis

012

$6,500.00

Rep. Vernon Gale Buchanan

016

$10,000.00

Rep. Stephanie N. Murphy

007

$4,500.00

Rep. Darren Michael Soto

009

$1,000.00

Rep. Greg Steube

017

$1,000.00

Rep. Maria E. Salazar

027

$2,500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

STATE TREASURER

Hon. Jimmy Patronis

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Rep. Colleen Burton

022

$500.00

Sen. Lori Berman

031

$500.00

Sen. Ben Albri on

026

$500.00

Sen. Manny Diaz, Jr.

036

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Kamia L. Brown

045

$1,000.00

Rep. Charles Wesley Clemons, Sr.

021

$500.00

Rep. Lawrence McClure

058

$500.00

Rep. William Cloud Robinson, Jr.

071

$500.00

Rep. Allison Tant

009

$1,000.00

Rep. Lauren Uhlich Melo

080

$500.00

Rep. Sam Garrison

018

$500.00

Rep. Wyman Duggan

015

$500.00

Rep. Daniel Anthony Perez

116

$500.00

Rep. Kelly Skidmore

091

$500.00

GEORGIA

US HOUSE

Rep. Earl L. B. Carter

001

$1,500.00

Rep. A. Drew Ferguson, IV

003

$7,500.00

Rep. Henry C. Johnson, Jr.

004

$2,000.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Brian P. Kemp

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Ma hew Freeman Brass

028

$500.00

Sen. Dean Burke

011

$1,000.00

Sen. Gloria Singleton Butler

055

$1,000.00

Sen. Gail Davenport

044

$1,000.00

Sen. Michael Dugan

030

$1,000.00

Sen. Bo Hatche

050

$500.00

Sen. Chuck Hufstetler

052

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Burt Jones

025

$2,000.00

Sen. John F. Kennedy

018

$500.00

Sen. Kay Kirkpatrick

032

$500.00

Sen. Nancy Grogan Orrock

036

$1,000.00

Sen. Blake Tillery

019

$500.00

Sen. Ben L. Watson

001

$1,000.00

Sen. Steve Gooch

051

$1,000.00

Sen. Jason R. Anavitarte

031

$500.00

Sen. Michelle Au

048

$500.00

Sen. Clint R. Dixon

045

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Pa y J. Bentley

139

$500.00

Rep. Shaw Blackmon

146

$500.00

Rep. Jon G. Burns

159

$1,000.00

Rep. Joe Campbell

171

$500.00

Rep. Kasey Carpenter

004

$500.00

Rep. Sharon M. Cooper

043

$1,000.00

Rep. Ka e M. Dempsey

013

$500.00

Rep. Chuck Efstra on

104

$1,000.00

Rep. Terry England

116

$1,000.00

Rep. Barry A. Fleming

121

$500.00

Rep. Ma hew Hatche

150

$500.00

Rep. Carolyn Hugley

136

$500.00

Rep. William W. Mitchell

088

$1,000.00

Rep. W. Mark Newton

123

$1,000.00

Rep. Larry J. Parrish

158

$500.00

Rep. Alan T. Powell

032

$500.00

Rep. David Ralston

007

$1,000.00

Rep. Richard H. Smith

134

$1,000.00

Rep. Tyler Paul Smith

018

$500.00

Rep. Calvin Smyre

135

$1,000.00

Rep. Al Williams

168

$500.00

Rep. Noel Williams

148

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Bruce Williamson

115

$500.00

Rep. James Beverly

143

$1,000.00

Rep. John L. Corbe

174

$500.00

Rep. Ma hew Gambill

015

$500.00

Rep. Robert Prui

149

$500.00

Rep. Derek J. Mallow

163

$500.00

Rep. El-Mahdi Holly

111

$500.00

Rep. James D. Burche

176

$500.00

Rep. Stan Gunter

008

$500.00

Rep. Jodi Lo

122

$500.00

Rep. Ma hew S. Dubnik

029

$500.00

Rep. Robert F. Levere

033

$500.00

HAWAII

US SENATE

Sen. Mazie Keiko Hirono

Up in ‘24

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Hon. Joshua B. Green

$2,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Donovan M. Dela Cruz

022

$200.00

Sen. Ronald D. Kouchi

008

$500.00

Sen. Dru Mamo Kanuha

003

$500.00

Sen. Jarre K. Keohokalole

024

$500.00

Sen. Karl Rhoads

013

$250.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Della Au Bela

024

$500.00

Rep. Sylvia J. Luke

025

$500.00

Rep. Sco K. Saiki

026

$500.00

Rep. Takashi Ohno

027

$300.00

Rep. Mark M. Nakashima

001

$250.00

Rep. Ryan I. Yamane

037

$1,000.00

Rep. Aaron Ling Johanson

031

$1,000.00

IDAHO

GOVERNOR

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Gov. Brad Li le

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Je C. Agenbroad

013

$300.00

Sen. Mark R. Harris

032

$400.00

Sen. Abby Lee

009

$400.00

Sen. Fred S. Mar n

015

$800.00

Sen. Peter J. Riggs

003

$300.00

Sen. Janie Ward-Engelking

018

$300.00

Sen. Chuck Winder

020

$400.00

Ali Rabe

017

$300.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Sco C. Bedke

027

$1,000.00

Rep. Laurie Lickley

025

$400.00

Rep. Ilana S. Rubel

018

$400.00

ILLINOIS

US SENATE

Sen. L. Tammy Duckworth

$5,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Sean Casten

006

$2,000.00

Rep. Rodney Lee Davis

015

$2,500.00

Rep. Robin Lynne Kelly

002

$3,000.00

Rep. Darin M. LaHood

016

$10,000.00

Rep. Bradley Sco Schneider

010

$2,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Omar Aquino

002

$500.00

Sen. Melinda Willden Bush

031

$250.00

Sen. William Cunningham

018

$3,000.00

Sen. Sara Feigenholtz

006

$1,000.00

Sen. Laura Fine

009

$1,000.00

Sen. Don Harmon

039

$2,500.00

Sen. Napoleon B. Harris, III

015

$1,000.00

Sen. Michael E. Has ngs

019

$500.00

Sen. Linda Holmes

042

$250.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Ma e Hunter

003

$1,000.00

Sen. Emil Jones, III

014

$250.00

Sen. Steven M. Landek

012

$500.00

Sen. Dan McConchie

026

$2,500.00

Sen. Julie A. Morrison

029

$750.00

Sen. Antonio Munoz

001

$500.00

Sen. Chapin Rose

051

$250.00

Sen. Dave Syverson

035

$500.00

Sen. Celina Villanueva

011

$250.00

Sen. John F. Curran

041

$250.00

Sen. Win Stoller

037

$250.00

Sen. Cris na Castro

022

$250.00

Sen. Sue Rezin

038

$250.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Jaime M. Andrade, Jr.

040

$500.00

Rep. Dan E. Brady

105

$250.00

Rep. Kambium Buckner

026

$250.00

Rep. Kelly M. Burke

036

$250.00

Rep. Tim Butler

087

$250.00

Rep. Kelly M. Cassidy

014

$250.00

Rep. Deborah O’Keefe Conroy

046

$250.00

Rep. Fred Crespo

044

$250.00

Rep. William Davis

030

$250.00

Rep. Anthony DeLuca

080

$1,000.00

Rep. Tom Demmer

090

$500.00

Rep. Jim Durkin

082

$1,000.00

Rep. Marcus C. Evans, Jr.

033

$750.00

Rep. Mary E. Flowers

031

$1,000.00

Rep. La Shawn K. Ford

008

$250.00

Rep. Robyn Gabel

018

$1,000.00

Rep. Jehan A. Gordon-Booth

092

$2,500.00

Rep. Latoya N. Greenwood

114

$500.00

Rep. Gregory Harris

013

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Elizabeth Hernandez

024

$2,500.00

Rep. Jay C. Ho man

113

$500.00

Rep. Frances Ann Hurley

035

$250.00

Rep. Thaddeus M. Jones

029

$1,000.00

Rep. Camille Lilly

078

$250.00

Rep. Natalie A. Manley

098

$250.00

Rep. Rita May eld

060

$250.00

Rep. Deanne Marie Mazzochi

047

$500.00

Rep. Bob Morgan

058

$500.00

Rep. Mar n J. Moylan

055

$250.00

Rep. Robert Rita

028

$1,000.00

Rep. Lamont J. Robinson, Jr.

005

$1,000.00

Rep. Nicholas K. Smith

034

$1,000.00

Rep. Ryan Spain

073

$250.00

Rep. Lawrence M. Walsh, Jr.

086

$1,000.00

Rep. Emanuel Chris Welch

007

$4,000.00

Rep. Keith R. Wheeler

050

$250.00

Rep. Ann M. Williams

011

$250.00

Rep. Kathleen Willis

077

$250.00

Rep. Michael J. Zalewski

023

$1,250.00

Rep. Sam Yingling

062

$250.00

Rep. Tony M. McCombie

071

$250.00

Rep. Eva-Dina Delgado

003

$250.00

Rep. Aaron M. Or z

001

$250.00

CITY COUNCILPERSON

Ald. Howard B. Brookins, Jr.

Up in ‘23

$500.00

INDIANA

US HOUSE

Rep. Larry Dean Bucshon

008

$8,000.00

Rep. Gregory J. Pence

006

$2,500.00

Rep. Jacqueline Walorski

002

$1,500.00

Rep. Victoria Spartz

005

$1,000.00

Rep. Frank J. Mrvan, Jr.

001

$2,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

STATE SENATE

Sen. Vaneta G. Becker

Up in ‘24

050

$500.00

Sen. Jean D. Breaux

Up in ‘24

034

$250.00

Sen. Edward E. Charbonneau

Up in ‘24

005

$1,000.00

Sen. Michael R. Crider

Up in ‘24

028

$500.00

Ronald T. Grooms

046

$500.00

Sen. Kyle Walker

031

$500.00

Sen. Mike Bohacek

Up in ‘24

008

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Bradford J. Barre

056

$1,000.00

Rep. Mar n J. Carbaugh

081

$1,000.00

Rep. Todd Michael Huston

037

$1,000.00

Rep. Donald Joseph Lehe

025

$500.00

Rep. Dennis James Zent

051

$500.00

Rep. Cindy Meyer Ziemke

055

$1,000.00

Rep. Robert Allen Heaton

046

$250.00

Rep. Ryan David Ha ield

077

$250.00

Rep. Wendy Marie McNamara

076

$250.00

Rep. Ma hew Sco Lehman

079

$500.00

IOWA

US SENATE

Sen. Charles E. Grassley

$3,500.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Kimberly Reynolds

$2,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Tony Bisignano

017

$500.00

Sen. Dan Dawson

Up in ‘24

008

$200.00

Sen. Pam Jochum

Up in ‘24

014

$250.00

Sen. Kevin Kinney

039

$250.00

Sen. Liz Mathis

Up in ‘24

034

$250.00

Sen. Amanda Ragan

027

$250.00

Sen. Amy Sinclair

Up in ‘24

014

$500.00

Sen. Anne e Sweeney

025

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Jack Whitver

019

$500.00

Sen. Zach Wahls

037

$750.00

Sen. Chris Cournoyer

049

$250.00

Sen. Nate Boulton

Up in ‘24

016

$250.00

Sen. Carrie Koelker

029

$250.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Brian Best

012

$500.00

Rep. Jane E. Bloomingdale

051

$500.00

Wesley C. Breckenridge

029

$250.00

Rep. Pat Grassley

050

$500.00

Rep. Megan Hess Jones

002

$500.00

Rep. Kenan Judge

044

$250.00

Rep. Brian K. Lohse

030

$500.00

Rep. Mary S. Mascher

086

$250.00

Rep. Ann Meyer

009

$750.00

Rep. Brian Meyer

033

$250.00

Rep. Kris n Sunde

042

$500.00

Rep. Jon Thorup

028

$500.00

Rep. Ma W. Windschitl

017

$500.00

Rep. Jacob Bossman

006

$200.00

Rep. Lee Hein

096

$200.00

Rep. Brent Siegrist

016

$200.00

Rep. Dus n D. Hite

079

$200.00

Rep. Jennifer Konfrst

043

$250.00

Rep. John Forbes

040

$500.00

Rep. Gary M. Mohr

094

$500.00

KANSAS

US SENATE

Sen. Jerry W. Moran

$500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Ron Estes

004

$1,500.00

Rep. Jacob LaTurner

002

$1,500.00

Rep. Tracey Robert Mann

001

$1,500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

GOVERNOR

Gov. Laura Kelly

$2,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Beverly Gossage

Up in ‘24

009

$500.00

Sen. Kristen O’Shea

Up in ‘24

018

$500.00

Sen. Mark Ste en

Up in ‘24

034

$500.00

Sen. Mike Thompson

Up in ‘24

010

$500.00

Sen. Richard Hilderbrand

Up in ‘24

013

$500.00

Sen. Molly Baumgardner

Up in ‘24

037

$500.00

KENTUCKY

US SENATE

Sen. Rand Howard Paul

$5,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Andy H. Barr, IV

006

$2,500.00

Rep. S. Bre Guthrie

002

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Julie Raque Adams

036

$1,000.00

Sen. Ralph A. Alvarado

028

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Kimberly Poore Moser

064

$1,000.00

Rep. Bart T. Rowland

053

$1,000.00

LOUISIANA

US SENATE

Sen. William Cassidy

Up in ‘26

$1,000.00

Sen. John Neely Kennedy

$2,500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Troy A. Carter

002

$1,000.00

Rep. Stephen Joseph Scalise

001

$2,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Regina Ashford Barrow

Up in ‘23

015

$1,000.00

Sen. Joseph Bouie, Jr.

Up in ‘23

003

$500.00

Sen. Gary M. Carter, Jr.

Up in ‘23

007

$1,000.00

Sen. Patrick Page Cortez

Up in ‘23

023

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Jimmy Harris

Up in ‘23

004

$1,000.00

Sen. Bob Hensgens

Up in ‘23

026

$500.00

Sen. Katrina R. Jackson

Up in ‘23

034

$500.00

Sen. Jay Luneau

Up in ‘23

029

$500.00

Sen. Fred H. Mills, Jr.

Up in ‘23

022

$1,000.00

Sen. Barrow Peacock

Up in ‘23

037

$500.00

Sen. Karen Carter Peterson

Up in ‘23

005

$500.00

Sen. J. Rogers Pope

Up in ‘23

013

$500.00

Sen. Gary L. Smith, Jr.

Up in ‘23

019

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Lawrence A. Bagley

Up in ‘23

007

$500.00

Rep. Raymond J. Crews

Up in ‘23

008

$250.00

Rep. Jason Hughes

Up in ‘23

100

$250.00

Rep. Mike Huval

Up in ‘23

046

$1,000.00

Edward C. James

Up in ‘23

101

$500.00

Rep. Edmond Jordan

Up in ‘23

029

$500.00

Rep. Dus n Miller

Up in ‘23

040

$250.00

Rep. Christopher Turner

Up in ‘23

012

$500.00

Rep. Cedric Bradford Glover

Up in ‘23

004

$250.00

MAYOR

May. LaToya Cantrell

Up in ‘23

$5,000.00

CITY COUNCILPERSON

Timolynn Sams

$2,500.00

MARYLAND

US SENATE

Sen. Christopher Van Hollen

$2,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Steny Hamilton Hoyer

005

$2,000.00

Rep. Kweisi Mfume

007

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Malcolm L. Augus ne

047

$250.00

Sen. Pamela G. Beidle

032

$250.00

Sen. Joanne Claybon Benson

024

$250.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Mary Beth Carozza

038

$250.00

Sen. Arthur Carr Ellis

028

$250.00

Sen. Brian Je rey Feldman

015

$500.00

Sen. Bill Ferguson

046

$1,500.00

Sen. Jason Charles Gallion

035

$250.00

Sen. Antonio L. Hayes

040

$500.00

Sen. Stephen S. Hershey, Jr.

036

$500.00

Sen. Ka e Fry Hester

009

$250.00

Sen. J. B. Jennings

007

$500.00

Sen. Cheryl Corinne Kagan

017

$500.00

Sen. Delores G. Kelley

010

$750.00

Sen. Katherine Klausmeier

008

$250.00

Sen. Benjamin F. Kramer

019

$250.00

Sen. Clarence K. Lam

012

$250.00

Sen. Obie Pa erson

026

$250.00

Sen. Paul G. Pinsky

022

$750.00

Sen. Edward Robert Reilly

033

$250.00

Sen. Bryan W. Simonaire

031

$250.00

Sen. Mary L. Washington

043

$250.00

STATE HOUSE

Del. Lisa Belcastro

011

$125.00

Del. Harry Bhandari

008

$125.00

Del. Alfred Clinton Carr, Jr

018

$125.00

Del. Nick Charles

025

$125.00

Del. Brian A. Chisholm

31B

$125.00

Del. Bonnie L. Cullison

019

$500.00

Del. Terri L. Hill

012

$125.00

Del. Steve C. Johnson

34A

$125.00

Del. Adrienne A. Jones

010

$1,500.00

Del. Ariana Brannigan Kelly

016

$250.00

Del. Ken Kerr

03B

$125.00

Del. Nicholaus R. Kipke

31B

$500.00

Del. Susan W. Krebs

09B

$250.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Del. Robbyn Lewis

046

$125.00

Del. James Ma hew Morgan

29A

$250.00

Del. Joseline A. Pena-Melnyk

021

$500.00

Del. Shane E. Pendergrass

013

$750.00

Del. Teresa Reilly

35B

$125.00

Del. Samuel I. Rosenberg

42A

$250.00

Del. Sid Saab

033

$250.00

Del. Sheree Sample-Hughes

37A

$250.00

Del. Kathryn Y. Szeliga

007

$500.00

Del. Karen Lewis Young

03A

$250.00

Del. Heather Alice Bagnall

033

$125.00

MASSACHUSETTS

US HOUSE

Rep. Katherine M. Clark

005

$4,500.00

Rep. Richard Edmund Neal

001

$2,500.00

MICHIGAN

US SENATE

Sen. Gary Charles Peters

Up in ‘26

$2,500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Daniel Timothy Kildee

008

$3,000.00

Rep. Frederick Stephen Upton

006

$5,000.00

Rep. John Moolenaar

004

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Winnie Brinks

029

$500.00

Sen. Rick Outman

033

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Julie Calley

087

$500.00

Rep. Ma hew Hall

063

$500.00

Rep. John Robert Roth

104

$250.00

Rep. Mike Mueller

051

$250.00

Rep. Patrick Outman

070

$250.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Andrew Fink

058

$500.00

MINNESOTA

US HOUSE

Rep. Thomas Earl Emmer, Jr.

006

$2,500.00

MISSISSIPPI

GOVERNOR

Gov. Tate Reeves

Up in ‘23

$1,000.00

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Delbert Hosemann

Up in ‘23

$1,000.00

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Hon. Mike Chaney

Up in ‘23

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Kevin Blackwell

Up in ‘23

019

$500.00

Sen. Nicole Akins Boyd

Up in ‘23

009

$250.00

Sen. Hob Bryan

Up in ‘23

007

$500.00

Sen. Dennis DeBar, Jr.

Up in ‘23

043

$500.00

Sen. Joey Fillingane

Up in ‘23

041

$250.00

Sen. Josh Harkins

Up in ‘23

020

$500.00

Sen. John A. Horhn

Up in ‘23

026

$250.00

Sen. Chris Johnson

Up in ‘23

045

$500.00

Sen. M. Dean Kirby

Up in ‘23

030

$500.00

Sen. J. Walter Michel

Up in ‘23

025

$1,000.00

Sen. Rita Po s Parks

Up in ‘23

004

$500.00

Sen. John A. Polk

Up in ‘23

044

$500.00

Sen. Brice Wiggins

Up in ‘23

052

$250.00

Sen. Angela Turner-Ford

Up in ‘23

016

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Richard Benne

Up in ‘23

120

$500.00

Rep. Philip Gunn

Up in ‘23

056

$1,000.00

Rep. Joey Hood

Up in ‘23

035

$500.00

Rep. John Thomas Lamar

Up in ‘23

008

$500.00

Rep. Sam C. Mims, V

Up in ‘23

097

$500.00

Rep. John O. Read

Up in ‘23

112

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Jason M. White

Up in ‘23

048

$500.00

Rep. Lee Yancey

Up in ‘23

074

$500.00

Rep. Henry B. Zuber, III

Up in ‘23

113

$1,000.00

MISSOURI

US HOUSE

Rep. Jason Thomas Smith

008

$1,000.00

Rep. Ann Louise Wagner

002

$5,000.00

STATE TREASURER

Hon. Sco Fitzpatrick

Up in ‘24

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Lincoln Hough

020

$900.00

Sen. Holly Rehder

Up in ‘24

027

$1,000.00

Sen. Caleb Rowden

Up in ‘24

019

$2,400.00

Sen. Brian Williams

014

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Rob Vescovo

112

$1,000.00

Rep. Dean Plocher

089

$2,000.00

NEBRASKA

US SENATE

Sen. Debra S. Fischer

Up in ‘24

$1,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Adrian Michael Smith

003

$2,500.00

NEVADA

US SENATE

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto

$1,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Steven Alexzander Horsford

004

$3,000.00

STATE TREASURER

Hon. Zachary Beare Conine

$1,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Sco Thomas Hammond

Up in ‘24

018

$1,000.00

Sen. Ira D. Hansen

014

$1,000.00

Sen. Heidi Seevers Gansert

Up in ‘24

015

$2,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Roberta Ann Lange

Up in ‘24

007

$1,000.00

Sen. Keith F. Pickard

020

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Assm. Gregory Hafen

036

$1,500.00

Assm. Alexis M. Hansen

032

$1,500.00

Assm. Melissa Hardy

022

$1,500.00

Assm. Glen Kaimi Leavi

023

$1,500.00

Assm. Philip O’Neill

040

$1,000.00

Assm. Robin L. Titus, M.D.

038

$1,500.00

Assm. Heidi Wathne Kasama

002

$1,000.00

Assm. Lisa Krasner

026

$1,000.00

Assm. Jill Dickman

031

$1,000.00

MAYOR

Sen. Patricia Ann Spearman

$1,000.00

NEW HAMPSHIRE

US HOUSE

Rep. Ann McLane Kuster

002

$3,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Joseph E. Bradley, III

003

$1,000.00

Sen. Sharon M. Carson

014

$1,000.00

Sen. William M. Gannon

023

$1,000.00

Sen. Charles W. Morse

022

$1,000.00

Sen. Donna M. Soucy

018

$1,000.00

NEW JERSEY

US HOUSE

Rep. Joshua S. Go heimer

005

$2,500.00

Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr.

006

$2,500.00

Rep. William James Pascrell, Jr.

009

$2,000.00

Rep. Mikie Sherrill

011

$2,500.00

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman

012

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Dawn Marie Addiego

008

$500.00

Sen. Jon M. Bramnick

021

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Anthony M. Bucco

025

$750.00

Sen. Richard J. Codey

027

$750.00

Sen. Kris n M. Corrado

040

$500.00

Sen. Joseph P. Cryan

020

$500.00

Sen. Sandra Bolden Cunningham

031

$500.00

Sen. Vin Gopal

011

$1,000.00

Sen. Linda R. Greenstein

014

$500.00

Sen. Gordon M. Johnson

037

$500.00

Sen. Joseph A. Lagana

038

$500.00

Sen. Fred H. Madden

004

$500.00

Sen. Steven V. Oroho

024

$500.00

Sen. Declan Joseph O’Scanlon, Jr.

013

$500.00

Sen. Nelida Pou

035

$1,000.00

Sen. M. Teresa Ruiz

029

$500.00

Sen. Paul A. Sarlo

036

$750.00

Sen. Holly T. Schepisi

039

$500.00

Sen. Robert W. Singer

030

$500.00

Sen. Troy Singleton

007

$500.00

Stephen M. Sweeney

003

$2,000.00

Sen. Joseph F. Vitale

019

$1,000.00

Sen. Andrew Zwicker

016

$1,000.00

Sen. Nicholas P. Scutari

022

$1,000.00

Sen. Patrick J. Diegnan, Jr.

018

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Assm. Daniel R. Benson

014

$750.00

John J. Burzichelli

003

$500.00

Assm. Herbert Conaway

007

$1,000.00

Assm. Craig J. Coughlin

019

$2,000.00

Assm. Joseph F. Danielsen

017

$500.00

Be yLou DeCroce

026

$500.00

Assm. Christopher P. DePhillips

040

$500.00

Assm. John DiMaio

023

$500.00

Joann Downey

011

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

•

• • •

• •

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Assm. Aura Kenny Dunn

025

$500.00

Assm. Roy Freiman

016

$500.00

Assm. Louis D. Greenwald

006

$1,000.00

Assm. Mila M. Jasey

027

$500.00

Assm. Angelica M. Jimenez

032

$500.00

Assm. Pamela Rosen Lampi

006

$500.00

Assm. Yvonne M. Lopez

019

$500.00

Assm. John Francis McKeon

027

$1,000.00

Assm. Paul D. Moriarty

004

$500.00

Assm. Gabriela M. Mosquera

004

$500.00

Assm. Raj Mukherji

033

$500.00

Assm. Nancy F. Munoz

021

$500.00

Assm. Carol A. Murphy

007

$500.00

Assm. Erik Peterson

023

$500.00

Assm. Eliana Pintor Marin

029

$1,000.00

Assm. Anne e Quijano

020

$500.00

Assm. Kevin J. Rooney

040

$500.00

Assm. Gary S. Schaer

036

$750.00

Assm. Sterley S. Stanley

018

$400.00

Assm. Shavonda E. Sumter

035

$500.00

Assm. Lisa Swain

038

$300.00

Adam J. Taliaferro

003

$500.00

Assm. P. Christopher Tully

038

$300.00

Assm. Anthony S. Verrelli

015

$500.00

Assm. Benjie E. Wimberly

035

$500.00

Assm. Harold J. Wirths

024

$500.00

NEW MEXICO

GOVERNOR

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham

$5,000.00

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Hon. Howie C. Morales

$3,400.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Gregory A. Baca

Up in ‘24

029

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Craig W. Brandt

Up in ‘24

040

$1,000.00

Sen. William F. Burt

Up in ‘24

033

$250.00

Sen. Joseph Cervantes, Joe

Up in ‘24

031

$500.00

Sen. David M. Gallegos

Up in ‘24

041

$250.00

Sen. Daniel A. Ivey-Soto

Up in ‘24

015

$1,000.00

Sen. Gay G. Kernan

Up in ‘24

042

$500.00

Sen. Mark D. Moores

Up in ‘24

021

$500.00

Sen. George K. Munoz

Up in ‘24

004

$500.00

Sen. Bill B. O’Neill

Up in ‘24

013

$500.00

Sen. Michael Padilla

Up in ‘24

014

$250.00

Sen. Cli R. Pirtle

Up in ‘24

032

$250.00

Sen. Elizabeth Stefanics

Up in ‘24

039

$500.00

Sen. Bill G. Tallman

Up in ‘24

018

$300.00

Sen. Gerald P. Or z y Pino

Up in ‘24

012

$750.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Gail Armstrong

049

$500.00

Alonzo Baldonado

008

$250.00

Rep. Zachary J. Cook

056

$500.00

Rep. Rebecca L. Dow

038

$500.00

Rep. Brian F. Egolf, Jr.

047

$500.00

Rep. Kelly K. Fajardo

007

$1,000.00

Rep. Jason Carl Harper

057

$400.00

Rep. Patricia A. Lundstrom

009

$500.00

Rep. Antonio Maestas

016

$250.00

Rep. Javier I. Mar nez

011

$250.00

Rep. Rodney D. Montoya

001

$250.00

Rep. Roger Evan Montoya

040

$500.00

Rep. William R. Rehm

031

$250.00

Rep. Elizabeth L. Thomson

024

$500.00

Bri ney Aileene Barreras

012

$500.00

Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena

033

$250.00

Rep. Ambrose M. Castellano

070

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

NEW YORK

US SENATE

Sen. Charles E. Schumer

$5,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. John Michael Katko

024

$2,500.00

Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney

018

$2,500.00

Rep. Gregory Weldon Meeks

005

$3,500.00

Rep. Joseph D. Morelle

025

$1,000.00

Rep. Jerrold Lewis Nadler

010

$1,000.00

Rep. Kathleen Maura Rice

004

$1,000.00

Rep. Thomas R. Suozzi

003

$1,000.00

Rep. Ritchie J. Torres

015

$2,000.00

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis

011

$1,500.00

Rep. Elise M. Stefanik

021

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Kathleen C. Hochul

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Jamaal T. Bailey

036

$500.00

Sen. Philip M. Boyle

004

$500.00

Sen. Neil D. Breslin

044

$500.00

Sen. Leroy G. Comrie, Jr.

014

$500.00

Sen. Patrick M. Gallivan

059

$500.00

Sen. Joseph A. Gri o

047

$500.00

Sen. Peter B. Harckham

040

$500.00

Sen. Brad M. Hoylman

027

$500.00

Sen. Robert Jackson

031

$500.00

Sen. Brian P. Kavanagh

026

$500.00

Sen. Timothy M. Kennedy

063

$500.00

Sen. Andrew J. Lanza

024

$500.00

Sen. Shelley B. Mayer

037

$500.00

Sen. Robert G. Or

062

$500.00

Sen. Kevin S. Parker

021

$500.00

Sen. J. Gustavo Rivera

033

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Diane J. Savino

023

$500.00

Sen. James G. Skou s

039

$500.00

Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky

016

$500.00

Sen. Andrea Stewart-Cousins

035

$1,000.00

Sen. Kevin M. Thomas

006

$500.00

Sen. Elijah Reichlin-Melnick

038

$1,500.00

Sen. Anna M. Kaplan

007

$500.00

Sen. Michelle Hinchey

046

$500.00

Sen. Simcha Felder

017

$500.00

Sen. Sean M. Ryan

060

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Assm. Peter J. Abbate, Jr.

049

$500.00

Assm. Thomas J. Abinan

092

$500.00

Assm. Je rion L. Aubry

035

$500.00

Assm. William A. Barclay

120

$500.00

Assm. Didi Barre

106

$500.00

Assm. Edward C. Braunstein

026

$500.00

Assm. Kevin M. Byrne

094

$500.00

Assm. Kevin A. Cahill

103

$500.00

Assm. Michael J. Cusick

063

$500.00

Assm. Steven H. Cymbrowitz

045

$500.00

Assm. Maritza Davila

053

$500.00

Assm. Erik Mar n Dilan

054

$500.00

Assm. Je rey Dinowitz

081

$500.00

Assm. Richard N. Go ried

075

$1,000.00

Assm. Aileen M. Gunther

100

$500.00

Assm. Andrew D. Hevesi

028

$500.00

Assm. Alicia L. Hyndman

029

$500.00

Assm. Charles D. Lavine

013

$500.00

Assm. William B. Magnarelli

129

$500.00

Assm. John T. McDonald, III

108

$500.00

Assm. Daniel J. O’Donnell

069

$500.00

Assm. Amy R. Paulin

088

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Assm. Crystal D. Peoples-Stokes

141

$500.00

Assm. N. Nick Perry

058

$500.00

Assm. Stacey G. Phe er Amato

023

$500.00

Victor M. Pichardo

086

$500.00

Assm. J. Gary Pretlow

089

$500.00

Assm. Dan Quart

073

$500.00

Assm. Karines Reyes

087

$500.00

Robert J. Rodriguez

068

$500.00

Assm. Colin J. Schmi

099

$500.00

Assm. Michaelle C. Solages

022

$500.00

Assm. Phillip G. Steck

110

$500.00

Assm. Helene E. Weinstein

041

$500.00

Assm. David I. Weprin

024

$500.00

Assm. Kenneth Paul Zebrowski

096

$500.00

Assm. Donna A. Lupardo

123

$500.00

Assm. Patricia A. Fahy

109

$500.00

Assm. Nily D. Rozic

025

$500.00

Assm. Angelo L. Santabarbara

111

$500.00

Assm. Judy A. Gri n

021

$500.00

Assm. Albert A. S rpe, Jr.

127

$500.00

Assm. Daniel A. Rosenthal

027

$500.00

Assm. Michael V. Lawler

097

$500.00

Assm. Carl E. Heas e

083

$1,000.00

MAYOR

May. Eric L. Adams

$1,000.00

NORTH CAROLINA

US HOUSE

Rep. George Kenneth Bu er eld, Jr.

001

$4,500.00

Rep. Richard Lane Hudson, Jr.

010

$5,000.00

Rep. Patrick Timothy McHenry

010

$3,500.00

Rep. Deborah K. Ross

005

$2,000.00

NORTH DAKOTA

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

US HOUSE

Rep. Kelly M. Armstrong

001

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Doug Burgum

Up in ‘24

$1,000.00

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

Hon. Jon Godfread

Up in ‘24

$1,000.00

OHIO

US HOUSE

Rep. Joyce Bea y

003

$1,000.00

Rep. Bill L. Johnson

006

$1,500.00

Rep. David Patrick Joyce

014

$1,500.00

Rep. Robert E. La a

005

$5,000.00

Steve S vers

015

$5,000.00

Rep. Brad R. Wenstrup

002

$2,500.00

Rep. Troy Balderson

012

$2,500.00

Rep. Timothy John Ryan

013

$1,000.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Mike DeWine

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Niraj J. Antani

Up in ‘24

006

$350.00

Sen. Nickie J. Antonio

023

$350.00

Sen. Hearcel Ford Craig

015

$300.00

Sen. Ma hew J. Dolan

Up in ‘24

024

$500.00

Sen. Theresa A. Gavarone

Up in ‘24

002

$350.00

Sen. Robert D. Hacke

Up in ‘24

010

$350.00

Sen. Jay Ho nger

031

$500.00

Sen. Ma Hu man

Up in ‘24

012

$1,000.00

Sen. Terry A. Johnson

Up in ‘24

014

$350.00

Sen. George F. Lang

Up in ‘24

004

$350.00

Sen. Mark J. Romanchuk

Up in ‘24

022

$350.00

Sen. J. Kirk Schuring

029

$350.00

Sen. Cecil Thomas

009

$300.00

Sen. Steve Wilson

007

$350.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Kenny Yuko

025

$300.00

Sen. Robert McColley

001

$350.00

Sen. Timothy O. Scha er

Up in ‘24

031

$350.00

Sen. Kris na Daley Roegner

027

$350.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Cindy Abrams

029

$350.00

Rep. Thomas E. Brinkman, Jr.

027

$350.00

Rep. Rick Carfagna

068

$350.00

Rep. Robert R. Cupp

004

$1,000.00

Rep. Alessandro Cutrona

059

$350.00

Rep. Mark D. Fraizer

071

$350.00

Rep. Timothy Edward Ginter

005

$500.00

Rep. Adam Holmes

097

$350.00

Rep. Don Jones

095

$350.00

Rep. Kris Jordan

067

$350.00

Rep. P. Sco Lipps

062

$750.00

Rep. Susan Manchester

084

$500.00

Rep. Phil Plummer

040

$350.00

Rep. Bill Roemer

038

$350.00

Rep. Allison Russo

024

$300.00

Rep. William F. Seitz

030

$350.00

Rep. Jason C. Stephens

093

$350.00

Rep. Brian Stewart

078

$350.00

Rep. Emilia Strong Sykes

034

$300.00

Rep. Terrence Upchurch

010

$300.00

Rep. Thomas E. West

049

$500.00

Rep. Andrea J. White

041

$350.00

Rep. Tom Young

042

$350.00

Rep. Shane Wilkin

091

$350.00

Rep. Brian Lampton

073

$350.00

Rep. Jessica Miranda

028

$300.00

Rep. Jon Cross

083

$350.00

OKLAHOMA

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

US HOUSE

Rep. Thomas Je ery Cole

004

$2,500.00

Rep. Markwayne Mullin

002

$3,000.00

Rep. Kevin R. Hern

001

$2,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Chuck Hall

020

$500.00

Sen. Brent Howard

038

$500.00

Sen. Paul Rosino

Up in ‘24

045

$500.00

Sen. Brenda Stanley

042

$500.00

Sen. Zack Taylor

028

$500.00

Sen. Darrell Weaver

024

$500.00

Sen. John Haste

036

$500.00

Sen. Darcy A. Jech

026

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Mickey Dollens

093

$250.00

Rep. Ronny Johns

025

$500.00

Rep. Chris Kannady

091

$1,000.00

Rep. Cyndi Munson

085

$500.00

Rep. Ajay Pi man

099

$250.00

Rep. Collin Walke

087

$500.00

Rep. Josh West

005

$500.00

Rep. Melissa Provenzano

079

$250.00

Rep. Trish Ranson

034

$250.00

Rep. Kevin W. Wallace

032

$1,000.00

Rep. Danny J. Sterling

027

$500.00

Rep. Marcus L. McEn re

050

$500.00

OREGON

US HOUSE

Rep. Kurt Schrader

005

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Lynn P. Findley

Up in ‘24

030

$1,000.00

Sen. Fred F. Girod

Up in ‘24

009

$1,000.00

Sen. William S. Hansell

Up in ‘24

029

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Betsy Johnson

016

$1,000.00

Sen. Tim R. Knopp

Up in ‘24

027

$1,000.00

Sen. Rob Wagner

019

$1,000.00

Sen. Lee Beyer

006

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Daniel G. Bonham

059

$1,000.00

Rep. Shelly Boshart Davis

015

$1,000.00

Rep. Vikki Breese-Iverson

055

$1,000.00

Rep. Janelle S. Bynum

051

$1,000.00

Chris ne Drazan

039

$1,000.00

Rep. Paul L. Evans

020

$1,000.00

Rep. Cedric R. Hayden

007

$1,000.00

Tina Kotek

044

$1,000.00

Rep. Rick Lewis

018

$1,000.00

Rep. Raquel Moore-Green

019

$1,000.00

Rep. Nancy L. Nathanson

013

$1,000.00

Rep. Ronald H. Noble

024

$1,000.00

Rep. Daniel A. Ray eld

016

$2,000.00

Rep. E. Werner Reschke

056

$1,000.00

Rep. David Brock Smith

001

$1,000.00

Rep. Gregory Vincent Smith

057

$1,000.00

Rep. Barbara Smith Warner

045

$1,000.00

Rep. Marty L. Wilde

011

$1,000.00

Rep. Brad K. Wi

031

$1,000.00

Rep. Mark W. Meek

040

$1,000.00

Rep. Julie Fahey

014

$1,000.00

Rep. Jason S. Kropf

054

$1,000.00

Rep. David Gomberg

010

$1,000.00

Rep. Bobby Levy

058

$1,000.00

PENNSYLVANIA

US HOUSE

Rep. Brendan Francis Boyle

002

$3,000.00

Rep. Chris na J. Houlahan

006

$2,500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. G. Mike J. Kelly

016

$2,500.00

Rep. Guy L. Reschenthaler

014

$2,500.00

Rep. Ma hew A. Cartwright

008

$1,000.00

Rep. Lloyd K. Smucker

011

$2,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Lisa Baker

020

$500.00

Sen. Michele Brooks

050

$500.00

Sen. Patrick M. Browne

016

$1,000.00

Sen. Jacob D. Corman, III

034

$1,500.00

Sen. Jay Costa, Jr.

Up in ‘24

043

$1,000.00

Sen. Vincent J. Hughes

Up in ‘24

007

$500.00

Sen. Robert B. Mensch

024

$1,000.00

Sen. Ka e J. Muth

044

$500.00

Sen. Kris n Lee Phillips-Hill

028

$1,000.00

Sen. Judith F. Ward

030

$1,000.00

Sen. Kim L. Ward

Up in ‘24

039

$1,000.00

Sen. Eugene Yaw

Up in ‘24

023

$500.00

Sen. John M. DiSanto

015

$500.00

Sen. John R. Gordner

027

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Kerry A. Benningho

171

$1,000.00

Rep. Ma hew D. Bradford

070

$500.00

Rep. Tim P. Briggs

149

$500.00

Rep. Bryan D. Cutler

100

$1,500.00

Rep. Valerie S. Gaydos

044

$500.00

Rep. Seth M. Grove

196

$500.00

Rep. Jordan A. Harris

186

$500.00

Rep. Mark A. Longie

007

$500.00

Rep. Joanna E. McClinton

191

$1,000.00

Rep. Steven Cur s Mentzer

097

$500.00

Rep. Donna R. Oberlander

063

$1,000.00

Rep. Tina L. Picke

110

$500.00

Rep. Kathy L. Rapp

065

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Stanley E. Saylor

094

$1,000.00

Rep. Melissa L. Shusterman

157

$500.00

Rep. Mar na A. White

170

$500.00

Rep. Barbara J. Gleim

199

$500.00

Rep. George S. Dunbar

056

$500.00

RHODE ISLAND

US HOUSE

Rep. David Nicola Cicilline

001

$5,000.00

SOUTH CAROLINA

US SENATE

Sen. Timothy Eugene Sco

$5,500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. James Enos Clyburn

006

$5,000.00

Rep. Tom Rice

007

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Sen. Mia S. McLeod

$1,000.00

Gov. Henry Dargan McMaster

$3,500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. James H. Lucas

065

$1,000.00

Rep. J. Todd Rutherford

074

$1,000.00

Rep. Russell L. O

093

$500.00

SOUTH DAKOTA

STATE SENATE

Sen. R. Blake Curd

012

$500.00

Sen. Lee A. Schoenbeck

005

$500.00

Sen. Wayne H. Steinhauer

009

$500.00

Sen. Erin Tobin

021

$500.00

Sen. Troy E. Heinert

026

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Sydney Davis

017

$250.00

Rep. Kent S. Peterson

019

$1,000.00

Rep. Jennifer Healy Keintz

001

$250.00

Rep. Paul R. Miskimins

020

$250.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Taylor Rae Rehfeldt

014

$250.00

Rep. Erin K. Healy

014

$500.00

TENNESSEE

US SENATE

Sen. Marsha Wedgeworth

Blackburn

Up in ‘24

$1,500.00

Sen. Bill Hagerty

Up in ‘26

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Bill Lee

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Paul Bailey

015

$500.00

Sen. Richard Briggs

007

$1,000.00

Sen. Rusty Crowe, II

003

$500.00

Sen. Ferrell Haile

Up in ‘24

018

$1,000.00

Sen. Joey Hensley

Up in ‘24

028

$1,000.00

Sen. Jon C. Lundberg

Up in ‘24

004

$1,000.00

Sen. Randy McNally, III

005

$1,500.00

Sen. Shane Reeves

Up in ‘24

014

$1,500.00

Sen. Art Swann

Up in ‘24

002

$1,000.00

Sen. Bo Watson

011

$500.00

Sen. Ken Yager

Up in ‘24

012

$1,000.00

Sen. Je Yarbro

021

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Clark Boyd

046

$1,000.00

Rep. Michael G. Curcio

069

$500.00

Rep. Ron M. Gant

094

$500.00

Rep. Mark Hall

024

$500.00

Rep. David B. Hawk

005

$500.00

Rep. Patsy Hazlewood

027

$1,000.00

Rep. Esther Helton

030

$500.00

Rep. Gary W. Hicks, Jr.

009

$500.00

Rep. Cur s G. Johnson

068

$1,000.00

Rep. Kelly T. Keisling

038

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Sabi Kumar

066

$500.00

Rep. William G. Lamberth

044

$1,000.00

Rep. Pat Marsh

062

$1,000.00

Rep. Cameron Sexton

025

$1,500.00

Rep. Mike Stewart

052

$500.00

Rep. Bryan Terry

048

$1,000.00

Rep. Kevin Vaughan

095

$1,000.00

Rep. Mark White

083

$1,000.00

Rep. Sam Whitson

065

$1,000.00

Rep. Iris Rudder

039

$1,000.00

Rep. Robert L. Ramsey

020

$500.00

Rep. Greg Vital

029

$500.00

TEXAS

US HOUSE

Rep. Jodey Cook Arrington

019

$1,000.00

Rep. Kevin Patrick Brady

008

$5,000.00

Rep. Michael Cli on Burgess

026

$2,500.00

Rep. Daniel Crenshaw

002

$2,500.00

Rep. Henry Roberto Cuellar

028

$1,000.00

Rep. Veronica Escobar

016

$1,000.00

Rep. Sylvia R. Garcia

029

$1,000.00

Rep. Vicente Gonzalez

034

$3,000.00

Rep. Marc A. Veasey

033

$1,000.00

STATE TREASURER

Hon. Glenn Hegar

$5,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Cesar Blanco

029

$1,000.00

Sen. Donna Campbell

025

$1,000.00

Sen. C. Brandon Creighton

004

$1,000.00

Sen. Joan Hu man

017

$1,500.00

Sen. Nathan Johnson

016

$1,500.00

Sen. Lois W. Kolkhorst

018

$1,500.00

Sen. Jose Menendez

026

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Borris L. Miles

013

$1,000.00

Sen. Beverly Powell

010

$1,000.00

Sen. Judith Za rini

021

$1,000.00

Sen. Carol Alvarado

006

$1,000.00

Sen. Charles Schwertner

005

$1,000.00

Sen. Juan Hinojosa

020

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Steve Allison

121

$1,000.00

Rep. Rafael Anchia

103

$500.00

Rep. Trenton E. Ashby

057

$1,000.00

Rep. Greg Bonnen

024

$1,000.00

Rep. Elizabeth Campos

119

$500.00

Rep. Giovanni Capriglione

098

$1,000.00

Rep. Mary E. Gonzalez

075

$1,000.00

Rep. Jus n Holland

033

$500.00

Rep. Donna Howard

048

$1,000.00

Rep. Ann Johnson

134

$500.00

Rep. Julie Johnson

115

$1,000.00

Rep. Tracy O. King

080

$500.00

Rep. Stephanie Klick

091

$1,000.00

Rep. Je Leach

067

$1,000.00

Rep. John Lujan

118

$500.00

Rep. Joseph E. Moody

078

$500.00

Rep. Tom Oliverson

130

$1,000.00

Rep. W. Four Price

087

$1,000.00

Rep. Richard Pena Raymond

042

$1,000.00

Rep. Toni Rose

110

$1,000.00

Rep. Carl O. Sherman, Sr.

109

$500.00

Rep. Reggie Smith

062

$500.00

Rep. Lynn Stucky

064

$500.00

Rep. Senfronia Thompson

141

$1,000.00

Rep. Chris Turner

101

$1,000.00

Rep. Hubert Vo

149

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Gene Wu

137

$500.00

Rep. John H. Bucy, III

136

$500.00

Rep. Will Metcalf

016

$1,000.00

Rep. Erin Zwiener

045

$1,000.00

Rep. John Kuempel

044

$500.00

Rep. Brooks Landgraf

081

$500.00

Rep. David Spiller

068

$500.00

Rep. Nicole Collier

095

$1,000.00

Rep. Charlie Geren

099

$500.00

Rep. Dade Phelan

021

$5,000.00

Rep. Gina Hinojosa

049

$1,000.00

Rep. Ernest Bailes

018

$500.00

Rep. Kyle J. Kacal

012

$500.00

UTAH

US SENATE

Sen. Michael Shumway Lee

$4,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. John R. Cur s

003

$8,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. J. Stuart Adams

022

$750.00

Sen. Cur s S. Bramble

Up in ‘24

016

$500.00

Sen. Kirk A. Cullimore, Jr.

009

$500.00

Sen. Wayne A. Harper

Up in ‘24

006

$500.00

Sen. Michael S. Kennedy

Up in ‘24

014

$500.00

Sen. Sco D. Sandall

017

$500.00

Sen. Evan J. Vickers

028

$750.00

Sen. Chris H. Wilson

Up in ‘24

025

$500.00

Sen. Jacob L. Anderegg

Up in ‘24

013

$500.00

Sen. Keith Grover

015

$500.00

Sen. Daniel McCay

011

$500.00

Sen. Todd Weiler

Up in ‘24

023

$500.00

Sen. Lincoln Fillmore

Up in ‘24

010

$500.00

Sen. Karen Mayne

005

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Sen. Luz Escamilla

Up in ‘24

001

$500.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. James A. Dunnigan

039

$500.00

Rep. Steven Eliason

045

$250.00

Rep. Brian S. King

028

$250.00

Rep. Kelly B. Miles

011

$500.00

Rep. Calvin R. Musselman

009

$250.00

Rep. Mike Schultz

012

$500.00

Rep. Robert Spendlove

049

$500.00

Rep. Steve Waldrip

008

$250.00

Rep. Raymond Ward

019

$250.00

Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox

007

$250.00

Rep. Brad R. Wilson

015

$750.00

Rep. Mike Winder

030

$250.00

Rep. Joel Ferry

001

$500.00

Rep. Timothy D. Hawkes

018

$250.00

Rep. Cheryl K. Acton

043

$250.00

Rep. Jen Dailey-Provost

024

$250.00

Rep. Stephen G. Handy

016

$250.00

Rep. Candice B. Pierucci

052

$500.00

Rep. Karianne Lisonbee

014

$250.00

Rep. Brady Brammer

027

$250.00

Rep. Stewart E. Barlow

017

$250.00

Rep. Jordan Teuscher

042

$250.00

VIRGIN ISLANDS

US HOUSE

Rep. Stacey Elizabeth Plaske

001

$1,000.00

VIRGINIA

US SENATE

Sen. Timothy Michael Kaine

Up in ‘24

$500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. H. Morgan Gri th

009

$1,000.00

Rep. Benjamin L. Cline

006

$500.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

GOVERNOR

Gov. Glenn Youngkin

$25,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. George L. Barker

Up in ‘23

039

$1,000.00

Sen. Siobhan S. Dunnavant

Up in ‘23

012

$1,000.00

Sen. Janet Denison Howell

Up in ‘23

032

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

Sen. Lynwood W. Lewis, Jr.

Up in ‘23

006

$1,500.00

Sen. Mamie E. Locke

Up in ‘23

002

$1,500.00

Sen. L. Louise Lucas

Up in ‘23

018

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

Sen. Stephen D. Newman

Up in ‘23

023

$750.00

Sen. Thomas K. Norment, Jr.

Up in ‘23

003

$750.00

Sen. Mark J. Peake

Up in ‘23

022

$750.00

Sen. Todd E. Pillion

Up in ‘23

040

$750.00

Sen. Richard L. Saslaw

Up in ‘23

035

$1,000.00

Sen. William M. Stanley, Jr.

Up in ‘23

020

$750.00

Sen. Sco A. Surovell

Up in ‘23

036

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Del. Dawn M. Adams

068

$1,500.00

Lashrecse D. Aird

063

$1,500.00

Del. Je M. Bourne

071

$1,000.00

Del. Kathy J. Byron

022

$1,000.00

Del. Carrie Emerson Coyner

062

$1,000.00

Del. Karrie K. Delaney

067

$1,000.00

Del. Eileen Filler-Corn

041

$2,000.00

Del. C. Todd Gilbert

015

$750.00

Del. C.E. Cli Hayes, Jr.

077

$1,000.00

Del. Christopher T. Head

017

$1,000.00

Del. Charniele L. Herring

046

$1,000.00

Del. M. Keith Hodges

098

$1,000.00

Del. Patrick A. Hope

047

$1,000.00

Del. Terry G. Kilgore

001

$1,000.00

Del. Michael P. Mullin

093

$750.00

Del. Robert D. Orrock, Sr.

054

$750.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Del. Margaret Bevans Ransone

099

$1,000.00

Del. Roxann L. Robinson

027

$1,000.00

Del. Mark D. Sickles

043

$2,000.00

Del. Marcus B. Simon

053

$1,000.00

Del. Richard C. Sullivan, Jr.

048

$1,000.00

Del. Luke E. Torian

052

$1,000.00

Del. R. Lee Ware, Jr.

065

$1,000.00

Del. Rodney T. Wille

073

$1,000.00

Anne Ferrell Tata

082

$1,000.00

WASHINGTON

US SENATE

Sen. Patricia Lynn Murray

$7,500.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Suzan Kay DelBene

001

$1,000.00

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers

005

$7,500.00

Rep. Marilyn Strickland

010

$4,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. John E. Braun

Up in ‘24

020

$1,000.00

Sen. Kevin Van De Wege

Up in ‘24

024

$1,000.00

Sen. Keith L. Wagoner

Up in ‘24

039

$1,000.00

Sen. Judith Warnick

013

$1,000.00

Sen. Jesse Salomon

042

$1,000.00

Sen. Je Holy

006

$1,000.00

Sen. Marko Liias

021

$1,000.00

Sen. Shelly Short

007

$1,000.00

Sen. Pa y Kuderer

048

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Michelle Caldier

026

$1,000.00

Rep. Jeremie Dufault

015

$1,000.00

Rep. Roger E. Goodman

045

$1,000.00

Rep. Paul Harris

017

$1,000.00

Rep. Laurie Jinkins

027

$1,000.00

Rep. Nicole Macri

043

$1,000.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

• • • • • • • •

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January

2021

December

2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

Rep. Jacquelin Maycumber

007

$1,000.00

Rep. Joe Schmick

009

$1,000.00

Rep. Vandana Sla er

048

$1,000.00

Rep. Larry S. Springer

045

$1,000.00

Rep. Drew Stokesbary

031

$1,000.00

Rep. Monica Jurado Stonier

049

$1,000.00

Rep. Pat Sullivan

047

$1,000.00

Rep. My-Linh Thai

041

$1,000.00

Rep. Amy Walen

048

$1,000.00

Rep. J.T. Wilcox

002

$1,000.00

Rep. Dan Bronoske

028

$1,000.00

Rep. Greg Gilday

010

$1,000.00

Rep. Alex Ybarra

013

$1,000.00

Rep. Marcus Riccelli

003

$1,000.00

WEST VIRGINIA

US SENATE

Sen. Joseph Manchin, III

Up in ‘24

$5,000.00

US HOUSE

Rep. Carol Devine Miller

003

$1,500.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. David C. Sypolt

014

$1,000.00

Sen. Tom Takubo

017

$1,000.00

Sen. Eric J. Tarr

004

$1,000.00

Sen. Charles S. Trump, IV

015

$1,000.00

Sen. Michael Thomas Azinger

003

$1,000.00

STATE HOUSE

Del. Vernon Criss

010

$1,000.00

Del. Roger Glen Hanshaw

033

$1,000.00

Del. Eric Lee Householder

064

$1,000.00

Del. Ma hew Alan Rohrbach

017

$1,000.00

Je rey Pack

028

$1,000.00

WISCONSIN

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Winner

Non-Par san

Debt-Re rement

Facility

US HOUSE

Rep. Ronald James Kind

003

$2,000.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Tony S. Evers

$1,000.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Janet Bewley

025

$500.00

Sen. John Jagler

013

$500.00

Sen. Devin LeMahieu

009

$500.00

WYOMING

US HOUSE

Rep. Elizabeth Cheney

001

$2,500.00

GOVERNOR

Gov. Mark Gordon

$750.00

SECRETARY OF STATE (STATE LEVEL)

Hon. Edward A. Buchanan

$300.00

STATE SENATE

Sen. Stephan Pappas

007

$200.00

Sen. Bill Landen

027

$200.00

Sen. Drew A. Perkins

029

$200.00

Sen. Ogden Driskill

001

$200.00

STATE HOUSE

Rep. Landon J. Brown

009

$200.00

Rep. Shelly Duncan

005

$200.00

Rep. John Eklund, Jr.

010

$150.00

Rep. Mike Greear

027

$200.00

Rep. Bill Henderson

041

$200.00

Rep. Lloyd Charles Larsen

054

$200.00

Rep. Sandy Newsome

024

$200.00

Rep. Jared Olsen

011

$200.00

Rep. Tom Walters

038

$200.00

Rep. Cyrus Western

051

$200.00

Rep. Dan Zwonitzer

043

$200.00

TOTAL – CANDIDATE COMMITTEES

$427,900.00

$779,075.00

TOTAL CANDIDATE COMMITTEES – PAC AND CORPORATE COMBINED

$1,206,975.00

State/O ce

Win

Full Name

Facility

Debt

Re rement

Future

Elec on

Party

District

Corp

PAC

•

Pfizer Political Contributions Recipients

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Leadership PACs,

Trade Associations, and

Party Committees

January 2021 – December 2021

zer PAC

Leading the Conversation.

Corporate Affairs

Government Relations

Pfizer

Non-Par san

CALIFORNIA

BioCom PAC

$4,000.00

California Democra c Party (Non-Federal)

$35,000.00

California Life Sciences

$0.00

California Life Sciences Associa on PAC (CLSA PAC)

$6,000.00

Conference of Western A orneys General (CWAG)

$25,000

Democrats Reshaping America (DREAMPAC) (Rep. Linda T.

Sanchez)

$4,000.00

Majority Commi ee PAC--Mc PAC (Rep. Kevin Owen

McCarthy)

$2,500.00

PAC To the Future (Rep. Nancy Pelosi)

$1,000.00

Pharmaceu cal Research & Manufacturers Associa on of

America PAC (PhRMA PAC)

$8,100.00

Suppor ng House Problem Solvers - Shp PAC (Rep. Sco H.

Peters)

$5,000.00

Susan Eggman for Senate 2020 O ceholder Account (Sen.

Susan Talamantes Eggman)

$2,000.00

Victory By Inves ng Building And Empowering (VIBE) PAC

(Rep. Tony Cardenas)

$2,000.00

COLORADO

Coloradans for Western Values Leadership PAC (Sen. Larry

G. Liston)

$525.00

Joann Ginal for Colorado Leadership PAC (Sen. Joann Ginal)

$200.00

Liberty Leadership PAC (Sen. Dennis Hisey)

$400.00

Lundeen Leadership Fund (Sen. Paul Lundeen)

$625.00

Majori es Ma er! (Sen. Rob Woodward)

$625.00

NOCO Leadership PAC (Rep. Hugh McKean)

$625.00

Pu ng Colorado First (Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer)

$200.00

Senate Majority Fund (527)

$10,000.00

Values First Colorado

$10,000.00

CONNECTICUT

Connec cut Democra c State Central Commi ee

$5,000.00

Connec cut Republican Party

$5,000.00

Nutmeg PAC (Sen. Richard Blumenthal)

$5,000.00

DELAWARE

First State PAC (Sen. Thomas Richard Carper)

$5,000.00

DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA

Across The Aisle PAC

$5,000.00

Alliance for Regenera ve Medicine

$0.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

• • •

•

Non-Par san

Aspire PAC

$5,000.00

Biosimilars Forum

$0.00

Biotech Industry Associa on

$0.00

Biotechnology Innova on Organiza on PAC (BIO PAC)

$5,000.00

Business Roundtable

$0.00

Chamber Of Commerce Of The United States Of America PAC

(US CHAMBER PAC)

$5,000.00

CHC BOLD PAC

$5,000.00

Congressional Black Caucus PAC

$5,000.00

DCCC

$15,000.00

Democra c Governors Associa on (DGA)

$15,000.00

Democra c Legisla ve Campaign Commi ee (DLCC)

$25,000.00

DNC Services Corpora on/Democra c Na onal Commi ee

$15,000.00

DSCC

$15,000.00

DSCC (Building Fund)

$25,000.00

DSCC (Recount and Legal Fund)

$5,000.00

Elect Democra c Women

$5,000.00

Equality PAC

$5,000.00

Healthcare Leadership Forum

$0.00

Lgbtq Victory Fund Federal PAC

$2,500.00

NAM

$0.00

Na onal Associa on Of Manufacturers PAC (NAM-PAC)

$5,000.00

New Democrat Coali on Ac on Fund

$5,000.00

NRCC

$15,000.00

NRSC

$15,000.00

NRSC (Building Fund)

$30,000.00

Pharmaceu cal Research & Manufacturers of America

(PhRMA)

$411,577

Pharmaceu cal Research & Manufacturers Of America Be er

Government Commi ee

$5,000.00

Republican A orneys General Associa on (RAGA)

$50,000.00

Republican State Leadership Commi ee (RSLC)

$260,000.00

U.S. Chamber

$0.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

• • • • •

• • •

• •

•

Non-Par san

FLORIDA

Building on Your Dreams Poli cal Commi ee (Sen. Jim Boyd)

$2,000.00

Building the Bay PC (Sen. Janet R. Cruz)

$1,500.00

Ci zens for Solu ons (Sen. Jason T. Brodeur)

$500.00

Conserva ves for a Be er Florida (Rep. Daniel Anthony Perez)

$5,000.00

Ethics and Honesty in Government (Sen. Ana Maria Rodriguez)

$2,000.00

Florida 2020 (Sen. Loranne Ausley)

$2,000.00

Florida House Republican Campaign Commi ee

$20,000.00

Florida Republican Senatorial Commi ee

$10,000.00

Friends of Colleen Burton (Rep. Colleen Burton)

$2,000.00

Friends of Ed Hooper (Sen. Ed Hooper)

$2,000.00

Friends of Ron DeSan s

$5,000.00

Honest Leadership (Rep. Sam Garrison)

$2,000.00

Living Life With Purpose (Rep. Thomas J. Leek)

$2,000.00

Republican Party of Florida (Non-Federal)

$10,000.00

GEORGIA

Building Bridges PAC

$5,000.00

Democra c Party of Georgia (Non-Federal)

$1,000.00

Georgia Senate Democra c Caucus

$2,500.00

HAWAII

Pineapple PAC (Sen. Mazie Keiko Hirono)

$5,000.00

IDAHO

Freedom Fund (Sen. Michael Dean Crapo)

$5,000.00

PNW PhRMA PAC

$3,000.00

ILLINOIS

Perimeter PAC (Sen. L. Tammy Duckworth)

$5,000.00

INDIANA

Oorah! Poli cal Ac on Commi ee (Sen. Todd Christopher

Young)

$5,000.00

IOWA

Jobs Opportunity And New Ideas PAC (Sen. Joni Kay Ernst)

$3,500.00

KANSAS

Defend Our Conserva ve Senate PAC (DOC’S PAC) (Sen. Roger

W. Marshall)

$5,000.00

Free State PAC (Sen. Jerry W. Moran)

$2,500.00

Liberty First Project

$2,000.00

Li up Kansas PAC

$5,000.00

KENTUCKY

Bluegrass Commi ee (Sen. Mitch McConnell)

$5,000.00

House Republican Caucus Campaign Commi ee

$5,000.00

Republican Party of Kentucky (Non-Federal)

$5,000.00

Senate Republican Caucus Campaign Commi ee

$5,000.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Non-Par san

LOUISIANA

Con nuing America’s Strength And Security PAC (Sen. William

Cassidy)

$3,500.00

Louisiana Republican Legisla ve Delega on Campaign

Commi ee

$7,500.00

MAINE

House Republican Majority Fund

$3,000.00

Maine Senate Republican Majority

$10,000.00

One Maine (Rep. Kathleen Rose J. Dillingham)

$1,000.00

S ll Fed Up With Taxes PAC (Sen. Je rey L. Timberlake)

$2,000.00

Taking Care of Maine Business PAC

$1,000.00

MARYLAND

AMERIPAC The Fund for a Greater America (Rep. Steny

Hamilton Hoyer)

$5,000.00

Blue Dog Poli cal Ac on Commi ee

$5,000.00

Future Forum PAC

$1,000.00

Maryland Senate Republican Caucus Commi ee

$2,000.00

MASSACHUSETTS

Fair Shot PAC (Rep. Katherine M. Clark)

$5,000.00

Massachuse s Democra c State Commi ee

$5,000.00

The Madison PAC (Rep. Richard Edmund Neal)

$5,000.00

MICHIGAN

Bizon Majority Fund (Sen. John Bizon)

$500.00

Building Experience Now PAC (Rep. Ben Frederick)

$1,000.00

EMBOLDEN PAC (Rep. Kyra Bolden)

$500.00

Hauck Majority Fund (Rep. Roger Hauck)

$500.00

Joe Tate Leadership PAC (Rep. Joseph Tate)

$250.00

Kahle Majority Fund (Rep. Bronna Kahle)

$1,000.00

McCann for Michigan (Sen. Sean A. McCann)

$500.00

Motor City PAC (Sen. Gary Charles Peters)

$5,000.00

Nesbi Majority Fund (Sen. Aric Nesbi )

$1,000.00

VanderWall Majority Fund (Sen. Curt VanderWall)

$1,000.00

VanWoerkom Solu ons PAC (Rep. Greg VanWoerkom)

$500.00

Wentworth Majority Fund (Rep. Jason Wentworth)

$1,000.00

Witwer for Michigan (Rep. Angela Witwer)

$250.00

MINNESOTA

House Republican Campaign Commi ee

$5,000.00

Minnesota D Senate Caucus

$2,500.00

Minnesota House D Caucus

$2,500.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Non-Par san

Senate Victory PAC

$5,000.00

MISSOURI

Missouri United (Rep. Dean Plocher)

$2,500.00

Uni ng Missouri PAC

$5,000.00

MONTANA

Big Sky Opportunity PAC (Sen. Steve David Daines)

$1,500.00

Montana Democra c Legisla ve Campaign Commi ee

(MDLCC)

$1,000.00

Montana Democra c Party

$1,000.00

Montana Red (Sen. Steve David Daines)

$3,000.00

Montana Republican Legisla ve Campaign Commi ee

(MRLCC)

$1,500.00

Montana Republican Party

$1,500.00

Treasure State PAC (Sen. Jon Tester)

$5,000.00

NEBRASKA

Sensible American Solu ons Suppor ng Everyone PAC (Sen.

Benjamin Eric Sasse)

$3,500.00

NEVADA

All For Our Country Leadership PAC (Sen. Catherine Cortez

Masto)

$5,000.00

Assembly Republican Caucus PAC

$2,500.00

Senate Republican Leadership Conference

$2,500.00

Smart Solu ons PAC (Sen. Jacky Rosen)

$5,000.00

NEW

HAMPSHIRE

Commi ee to Elect House Republicans

$2,000.00

Granite Values PAC (Sen. Margaret Wood Hassan)

$1,000.00

New Hampshire Senate Democra c Caucus

$5,000.00

New Hampshire Senate Republicans Poli cal Ac on

Commi ee

$5,000.00

NEW JERSEY

New Jobs

$1,000.00

New Millennium PAC (Sen. Robert Menendez)

$5,000.00

Senate Republican Majority

$500.00

NEW MEXICO

LOBO PAC (Sen. Mar n Heinrich)

$5,000.00

NEW YORK

AVAC

$0.00

Democra c Assembly Campaign Commi ee

$2,500.00

$5,000.00

Democra c Assembly Campaign Commi ee Housekeeping

Account

$2,000.00

Hudson Valley PAC (Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney)

$3,000.00

IMPACT (Sen. Charles E. Schumer)

$5,000.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Non-Par san

New York State Democra c Commi ee (Non-Federal)

$5,000.00

NYS Democra c Senate Campaign Commi ee

$2,500.00

$5,000.00

NYS Democra c Senate Campaign Commi ee - Housekeeping

$2,000.00

NYS Senate Republican Campaign Commi ee

$1,500.00

Republican Assembly Campaign Commi ee

$1,500.00

NORTH

CAROLINA

Together Holding Our Majority PAC (Sen. Thomas Roland Tillis)

$3,500.00

NORTH DAKOTA

Dakota PAC (Sen. John Henry Hoeven, III )

$1,000.00

North Dakota House Republican Leadership Fund

$5,000.00

OHIO

Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC

$5,000.00

Ohio House Democra c Caucus Fund

$350.00

Ohio Republican Party (Non-Federal)

$1,000.00

Republican Senate Campaign Commi ee

$800.00

OKLAHOMA

Leadership And Accountability Are Na onal Keys PAC (Sen.

James Paul Lankford)

$4,500.00

OREGON

Three Rivers Poli cal Ac on Commi ee (Rep. Kurt Schrader)

$5,000.00

Votevets

$5,000.00

PENNSYLVANIA

Campaign for Compassion

$500.00

House Democra c Campaign Commi ee (HDCC)

$1,000.00

House Republican Campaign Commi ee (HRCC)

$1,500.00

Keystone America PAC (Sen. Robert P. Casey, Jr. )

$2,500.00

Senate Democra c Campaign Commi ee

$1,000.00

Senate Republican Campaign Commi ee (SRCC)

$1,500.00

SOUTH

CAROLINA

Building Rela onships In Diverse Geographic Environments

PAC (BRIDGE PAC) (Rep. James Enos Clyburn)

$5,000.00

Tomorrow Is Meaningful PAC (Sen. Timothy Eugene Sco )

$2,000.00

SOUTH DAKOTA

Heartland Values PAC (Sen. John Randolph Thune)

$5,000.00

House GOP PAC

$1,000.00

Senate Republican Campaign Commi ee

$1,000.00

TENNESSEE

Making A Responsible Stand For Households In America PAC

(Sen. Marsha Wedgeworth Blackburn)

$2,500.00

Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry PAC

$1,000.00

TEXAS

Alamo PAC (Sen. John Cornyn, III )

$5,000.00

Making America Prosperous PAC (Rep. Kevin Patrick Brady)

$2,500.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Non-Par san

TOTAL LEADERSHIP PACS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND PARTY COMMITTEES – PAC AND CORPORATE COMBINED

$1,530,527.00

Manufacturers PAC of Texas

$1,000.00

VERMONT

Green Mountain PAC (Sen. Patrick Joseph Leahy)

$5,000.00

The Campaign Research Center

$2,000.00

VIRGINIA

Common Ground PAC (Sen. Timothy Michael Kaine)

$5,000.00

Forward Together PAC (Sen. Mark Robert Warner)

$5,000.00

WASHINGTON

M-PAC (Sen. Patricia Lynn Murray)

$5,000.00

The Jackson Legacy Fund

$2,000.00

The Reagan Fund

$1,000.00

Washington State Democra c Central Commi ee

$5,000.00

WEST VIRGINIA

Wild And Wonderful PAC (Sen. Shelley Moore Capito)

$5,000.00

WISCONSIN

Commi ee to Elect a Republican Senate

$7,000.00

Republican Assembly Campaign Commi ee (RACC)

$7,000.00

WYOMING

Common Values PAC (Sen. John Anthony Barrasso)

$5,000.00

Grand Total

$1,465,100.00

$553,850.00

TOTAL – LEADERSHIP PACS, TRADE ASSOCIATIONS, AND PARTY COMMITTEES

$976,677.00

$553,850.00

Total – Candidate Commi ees

$427,900.00

$779,075.00

Total – Leadership PACs, Trade Associa ons and Party Commi ees

$976,677.00

$553,850.00

Total 2021 Poli cal Contribu ons

$1,404,577.00

$1,332,925.00

Summary of 2021 Poli cal Contribu ons

Corp

PAC

TOTAL PAC AND CORPORATE POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS IN 2021

$2,737,502.00

State

Commi ee Name

Party

Corp

PAC

Leadership

PAC's,

Trade

Associations

and Party Committees

January 2021 -

December 2021

•

Financial Statements

January 2021 – December 2021

zer PAC

Leading the Conversation.

Corporate Affairs

Government Relations

Pfizer

P zer Inc. PAC

Combined Statement of Assets and Liabili es

Arising from Cash Transac ons

Assets

2021

Cash

$644,758.83

Net Assets

$644,758.83

See accompanying notes to the combined nancial statements

Revenues: Contribu ons

Payroll Deduc ons

1,167,773.04

Checks

23,020.00

Credit Cards

1,122.00

Refunds from Candidates

6,000.00

Other (Ret Checks Prior Cycle)

14,180.00

Total Revenues

1,212,095.04

Expenditures: Support of Candidates

Federal

431,000.00

State & Local

348,075.00

Poli cal Par es & Other PAC’s

553,850.00

Fundraising Expense

0.00

Interest & Other

100.00

Expenditures

1,333,025.00

Excess of Support over Expenditures

($120,929.96)

Fund Available: Cash Balance

Beginning of Year

$765,688.79

End of Year

$644,758.83

See accompanying notes to the combined nancial statements

Combined Statement of Revenues & Expenditures

Arising from Cash Transac ons

Financial Statements

January 202

1 -

December 2021

P zer Inc. PAC

Disbursements

Support of Candidates:

2021

Contribu ons to:

U.S. Senate Candidates

83,000.00

U.S. House Candidates

348,000.00

State & Local Candidates

348,075.00

$779,075.00

Other Expenditures:

Poli cal Par es & Other PAC’s

553,850.00

Fundraising Expense

0.00

Interest & Other

100.00

553,950.00

Total Expenditures

$1,333,025.00

Financial Statements

January 202

1 -

December 2021

P zer Inc. PAC

Notes to the Financial Statements

1. FUND DESCRIPTION

The P zer Inc. PAC (the Fund) was formed by P zer Inc. (the Company) to solicit and receive voluntary

poli cal contribu ons from employees and stockholders of the Company and certain subsidiaries to

assist candidates for elec ve o ce. The Fund was registered with the Federal Elec on Commission in

April 1976.

2. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

Basis of Presenta on

The combined nancial statement ac vi es of the Fund include several poli cal ac on commi ees which

were formed to comply with certain state laws. The accounts of the Fund are maintained on a cash basis.

All administra ve costs of the Fund are borne by the Company in accordance with federal law.

Tax Status

The Fund is registered as a poli cal organiza on and, as such, is subject to tax on non-exempt func on

income, which includes interest income, if any.

3. EXTERNAL FINANCING

The Fund may borrow cash, as necessary, to contribute to candidates in an cipa on of employee

contribu ons. The fund did not have any borrowings during the period January 2021 – December 2021.

Financial Statements

January 202

1 -

December 2021

www.pfizer.com/about/corporate_governance/political_action_committee_report

235 East 42nd Street,

New York, NY 10017

Corporate Affairs

Government Relations

zer PAC

Leading the Conversation.

Pfizer

EXHIBIT D

(see attached)

We expect the following proposal (Item 5 on the proxy card) to be presented by shareholders at the Annual Meeting. The company is not

responsible for any inaccuracies this shareholder proposal may contain. As explained below, the Board unanimously recommends that you

vote “AGAINST” this shareholder proposal.

Item 5 – Report on Political Expenditures Congruency

National Center for Public Policy Research, 20 F Street NW Suite 700, Washington DC 20001, which represents that it owns at least

$2,000 worth of Pfizer common stock, has notified Pfizer that it will present the following proposal at the 2022 Annual Meetin

The Shareholder’s Resolution

RESOLVED:

Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency of political and electioneering expenditures

during the preceding year against the company's fundamental purpose and publicly stated company values and policies.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The Pfizer Inc. Board's Governance and Sustainability Committee is responsible for "maintain[ing] an informed status on the Company's

issues related to public policy, including political spending policies and practices, through ...periodic reports from management; and [for]

monitor[ing] emerging issues potentially affecting the reputation of the pharmaceutical industry and the Company." Company pol

icy

states that "political contributions are made to support the election of candidates, political parties and committees that sup

port public

policies important to the industry, such as innovation and access to medicines."

However, Pfizer's politically focused expenditures appear to be misaligned with the company's purpose, values, and interests.

•

Pfizer's fundamental purpose and legal duty, as a Delaware business corporation, are to maximize long-term shareholder value

by deft development, production, and sale of pharmaceuticals. Yet it has supported many candidates who support government-

run single-payer or universal health-care programs that will stifle innovation and resources that support research and

development, all while increasing taxes exponentially.

This will undermine Pfizer's long-term prospects.

•

Pfizer's non-discrimination policy states that "[a]ll workplace decisions are made without regard to personal characteristics

protected under applicable laws and Pfizer policy, including race, age, gender, religion, etc. We do not tolerate discriminat

on,

harassment, or retaliation of any kind."

Yet it has supported many candidates and advocacy organizations that support

legislation and regulation that would force Pfizer and other companies into facial discrimination against white and male

employees, while demeaning the talents and responsibility of other employees.

•

Pfizer opposes the "use of all forms of forced, bonded, indentured, or compulsory labor," and recognizes that "the risks of

modern slavery are particularly likely where our business partners rely upon migrant workers," but it supports many candidat

who have failed to support legislation that would end Uyghur forced labor and who fuel the vulnerable migrant worker problem

here by opposing sensible border security.

•

Pfizer recognizes "the rights to a healthy environment,

health, water and sanitation, and standard of living," but it supports

many candidates who oppose even minimal, common-sense pro-life policies to protect society's most vulnerable members.

Proponents believe Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize risk to the firm's reputation and br

and by

addressing possible missteps in corporate electioneering and political spending that contrast with its fundamental fiduciary p

urpose and

stated policy objectives.

Proponents recommend that the report also contain management's analysis of risks to our company's brand, reputation, or shareholder

value of expenditures in conflict with publicly stated company values. "Expenditures for electioneering communications" means

spending,

from the corporate treasury and from PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year, which are reasonably

interpretable as in support of or opposition to a specific candidate.

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/investors/corporate/2019-2020_Pfizer_PAC_and_Corporate_Political_Contributions_Report.pdf; https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-

committees-pacs/pfizer-inc/C00016683/candidate-recipients/2020; https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/cosponsors; https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/

files/Reforming-Americas-Healthcare-System-Through-Choice-and-Competition.pdf; https://www.heritage.org/health-care-reform/report/the-real-price-public-health-plan-less-

innovation-and-lower-quality; https://bigthink.com/videos/government-regulation-stifles-innovation; https://americansforprosperity.org/government-option-is-the-wrong-

approach-to-health-care-at-the-wrong-time/; https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2424.html.

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/about/Human-Rights-Policy-Aug-2020.pdf.

https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/1/rubio-merkley-colleagues-re-introduce-uyghur-forced-labor-prevention-act; https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/

opinion/the-new-guard-of-the-democratic-party-absolutely-supports-open-borders; https://www.huffpost.com/entry/decriminalizing-border-crossing-

democrats-2020_n_5d15884ee4b03d6116392906.

Pfizer

2022 PROXY STATEMENT

Shareholder

Proposals

Item

Report

Political

Expenditures

Congruency

life,

■

EXHIBIT E

(see attached)

Shareholder

Proposals

Item

Shareholder

Proposal

Regarding

Political

Spending

Report

Item

5 -

Shareholder Proposal Regarding Political Spending

Report

Tara

Health Foundation, 47 Kearny Street,

San

Francisco, CA 94108, which represents that it owns no

less

than 1,840

Pfizer

common stock,

has

notified Pfizer that it will present the following proposal at the 2021 Annual Meeting:

The Shareholder's Resolution

Whereas:

The

Pfizer

Inc.

Board's Governance and Sustainability Committee

responsible

for

"maintain[ing]

informed status on the Company's

issues

related to public policy, including political spending policies and practices, through .

periodic reports from management; and [for)

monitor[ing] emerging

issues

potentially affecting the reputation

the pharmaceutical industry and the Company." Company policy

states that "political contributions are made

support the election

candidates, political parties and committees that support public

policies important to the industry,

such

innovation and

access

to medicines. "

However, Pfizer's politically focused expenditures appear

misaligned with the company's values and interests.

•

Pfizer

has

stated that "Expanded

access

health insurance coverage will help ensure that patients

with

under-diagnosed and

undertreated conditions are able to address them; and that those

who

will benefit from Pfizer medicines are better able to have

access

them." Yet the report Conflicted Consequences revealed that

2018, Pfizer was a

top

contributor

a 527 organization

that

has

been leading efforts to strike down the Affordable Care Act, which

has

made prescription drugs more accessible for millions

Americans.

•

Pfizer manufactures contraceptives and a drug commonly prescribed

for

use

abortifacient. Yet the above-cited report notes that

Pfizer was a

top

contributor

a 527 organization that funds state legislators' efforts

implement extreme anti-abortion measures.

The

2019 report Funding the

Bans

estimated

that

Pfizer donated more than $50,000

politicians

six

states responsible

for

that

year's wave

abortion bans.

The

proponent estimates that

the last three election

cycles,

Pfizer and its employee

PACs

have made

political donations totaling at least $8.4 million

politicians and political organizations working

weaken women's

access

reproductive health care.

•

Pfizer

has

committed to achieving science-based greenhouse

gas

reduction targets, yet

a member

the

U.S.

Chamber

Commerce, which

has

consistently lobbied to roll back specific

climate regulations and promote regulatory frameworks that would

slow the transition towards a

low

GHG

emissions energy mix.

This

raises

questions about whether Pfizer

also supporting

electioneering efforts that conflict with its environmental commitments.

Proponents believe

that

Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize

risk

the firm's reputation and brand

addressing possible missteps

corporate electioneering and political spending

that

are

contrast

its stated healthcare and

environmental objectives.

Resolved

Pfizer publish

annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency

political and electioneering expenditures during the

preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies.

SUPPORTING

STATEMENT

Proponents recommend that

such

report

also

contain management's analysis

risks

our company's brand, reputation, or shareholder

value

expenditures

conflict

with

publicly stated company values. "Expenditures

for

electioneering communications" means spending,

from the corporate treasury and from the

PACs,

directly or through a third party, at any time during the year, on printed, internet

broadcast communications, which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation

support

or opposition to a specific candidate.

■

pfizer

2021

PROXY

STATEMENT

EXHIBIT F

(see attached)

Delaware

(State

other

jurisdiction

incorporation)

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORMS-K

CURRENT REPORT

PURSUANT TO SECTION

15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date

report (Date

earliest event reported): April 28, 2022

PFIZER INC.

(Exact name

registrant as specified in its charter)

1-3619

(Commission File

Number)

235 East 42nd Street 10017

New

York,

New

York (Zip Code)

(Address

principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:

(212) 733-2323

Not

Applicable

(Former name

former address,

changed since last report)

13-5315170

(I.RS

. Employer

Identification

Check the appropriate box below

the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the obligation

the registrant under any

the following

provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

□

Written communication pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17

CFR

230.425)

□

Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17

CFR

240.14a-12)

□

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17

CFR

240.14d-2 (b))

□

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule l 3e-4( c) under the Exchange Act ( 17

CFR

240. l 3e-4( c))

Securities registered P.Ursuant to Section 120!).

the Act:

Title

each class

Common Stock, $.05

par

value

1.000% Notes due 2027

TradingJ?Y.mbolW.

PFE

Name

each exchange on which registered

New

York Stock Exchange

PFE27

New

York Stock Exchange

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405

the Securities Act

1933 (§230.405

this

chapter) or Rule 12b-2

the Securities Exchange Act

1934 (§240.12b-2

this chapter).

Emerging growth company

□

an emerging growth company, indicate

check mark

the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new

or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a)

the Exchange Act.

□

Item 5.07 Submission

Matters to a Vote

Security Holders

(a) The Pfizer Inc. (the "Company") Annual Meeting of Shareholders was held on April 28, 2022.

(b)

Shareholders voted on the matters set forth below.

The nominees for election to the Company's Board

Directors set forth in Item 1 to the Company's Proxy Statement filed with the U.S.

Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2022 were elected to hold office until the Company's next Annual Meeting

Shareholders,

based upon the following votes:

Nominee

Votes For

Votes Against

Abstentions

Broker non-vote

Ronald

Blaylock

3,701,357,646

97,026,302

10,925,480

Albert Bourla

3,577,655,169

204,869,446

26,783,357

Susan Desmond-Hellmann

3,744,546,772

54,872,805

9,887,325

Joseph

Echevarria

3,315,350,

611

483,108,900

10,848,394

Scott Gottlieb

3,775,202,986

23,651 ,

661

10,414,283

Helen

Hobbs

3,704,020,993

95,742,430

9,505,507

Susan Hockfield

3,773,537,829

25,701,939

10,029,162

Dan R. Littman

3,741,506,546

57,146,873

10,615,511

Shantanu Narayen

3,766,994,058

31,021,763

,292,326

Suzanne Nora Johnson

3,605,854,757

193,599,113

9,854,277

James Quincey

3,729,849,039

68,041,486

,406,359

James C. Smith

3,694,497,573

103,133,820

,676,754

2. The proposal to ratify the selection

KPMG LLP as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm for the 2022

fiscal year was approved based upon the following votes:

Votes for approval

Votes against

Abstentions

Broker non-votes

4,440,636,499

204,291,133

14,009,991

n/a

849,628,501

849,628,

501

849,628,

501

849,628,

501

849,628,501

3. The proposal to approve, on

advisory basis, the compensation

the Company's Named Executive Officers was approved based

upon the following votes:

Votes for approval

Votes against

Abstentions

Broker non-votes

3,509,

011

,827

275,230,428

25,057,788

849,628,501

4. The shareholder proposal regarding amending proxy access was not approved based upon the following votes:

Votes for approval

Votes against

Abstentions

Broker non-votes

1,096,172,490

2,686,465,588

26,655,147

849,628,501

5. The shareholder proposal regarding report on political expenditures congruency was not approved based upon the following votes:

Votes for approval

393,729,907

Votes against

3,387,577,521

Abstentions

27,996,591

Broker non-votes

849,628,501

6. The shareholder proposal regarding report on transfer

intellectual property to potential COVID-19 manufacturers was not

approved based upon the following votes:

Votes for approval

Votes against

Abstentions

Broker non-votes

1,023,141,083

2,714,524,824

71,640,637

849,628,501

The shareholder proposal regarding report on board oversight

risks related to anticompetitive practices was not approved based

upon the following votes:

Votes for approval

Votes against

Abstentions

Broker non-votes

1,138,551,810

2,600,688,619

70,069,294

849,628,501

8. The shareholder proposal regarding report on public health costs

protecting vaccine technology was not approved based upon the

following votes:

Votes for approval

Votes against

Abstentions

Broker non-votes

325,762,383

3,415,442,745

68,096,240

849,628,501

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements

the Securities Exchange Act

1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned

hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: May 2, 2022

PFIZER INC.

By:

Isl

Margaret M. Madden

Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary

Chief Governance Counsel

Sanford Lewis & Associates

PO Box 231

Amherst, MA 01004-0231

413 549-7333

sanfordlewis@strategiccounsel.net

January 17, 2023

Via electronic mail

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Shareholder Proposal to Pfizer Inc. Regarding Political Contributions Congruency by

Tara Health Foundation

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Tara Health Foundation has submitted a shareholder proposal (the “Proposal”) to Pfizer Inc.

(the “Company”). We have been asked by the Proponent to respond to the letter dated December

16, 2022 ("Company Letter") sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission by Margaret M.

Madden, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary. In that letter, the Company contends

that the Proposal may be excluded from the Company’s 2023 proxy statement.

We have redacted personal information consistent with the Staff's guidance. A copy of this

letter is being emailed concurrently to Margaret M. Madden at margaret.m.madden@pfizer.com.

SUMMARY

The Proposal requests that the Company issue a report analyzing the congruency of its

political expenditures against its own publicly stated company values, including its stated goal to

“end discrimination against women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to

reproductive health.” The Supporting Statement further recommends that the report contain an

analysis of the risk posed to the Company brand, reputation, or shareholder value in making

political expenditures that conflict with the Company’s publicly stated goals and values. The full

proposal is appended.

Following the

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

decision and the enablement

of state laws prohibiting access to abortion, the proposal notes that it appears that Pfizer’s

political contributions are in stark conflict with its stated goal to “ensure… access to

reproductive health.” This should be of concern to the Company’s investors as Pfizer is donating

to extremist politicians and committees undertaking policy initiatives in conflict with the

Company’s publicly stated values, product offerings, and reputation. The “instruments of

shareholder democracy,” here, seeking disclosure of how the board is navigating these

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 2 of 12

incongruities, are the critical tool reserved for protection of shareholder risk management and

free speech interests.

The Company Letter asserts that the Proposal has been substantially implemented under

Rule 14a-8(i)(10) and constitutes an excludable resubmission of previous proposals under Rule

14a-8(i)(12).

However, the Proposal has not been substantially implemented. The Company’s existing

actions have met neither the guidelines nor the essential purpose of the Proposal. Although the

Company does some reporting on its analysis of congruency of contributions to trade

associations, that analysis does not focus on the focal issue of the Proposal and further there is no

analysis of the congruency of Pfizer’s political donations. Year after year, Pfizer has apparently

donated to candidates that conflict with the Company’s interests, particularly candidates who

have actively worked to eliminate women’s rights to reproductive healthcare. Yet, there is no

analysis provided regarding the congruency of supporting these political candidates, several of

whom have led the fight to constrain reproductive rights in their states.

Further, the Proposal does not constitute resubmission under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) because it

focuses on a materially different subject matter than previous shareholder proposals voted upon

at the Company. The prior proposals were not focused principally on congruency of political

contributions with the Company’s stake in the issue of reproductive rights. The distinguishing

importance of the focal issue of this contributions congruency proposal is evidenced by the

dramatically different votes on prior proposals due to the dramatically different focal issues in

the background statements, with the 2021 proposal receiving 47% support and the 2022 proposal

receiving only 10% support. It is evident that investors recognize the difference between the

prior proposals and that it is entirely appropriate to allow them the opportunity to vote on the

subject matter of the current Proposal.

ANALYSIS

In the 2010 Citizens United ruling, the Supreme Court declined to support a ban on

electioneering spending by corporations and trade associations despite the “[g]overnment's asserted

interest in protecting shareholders from being compelled to fund corporate speech.” The ruling suggested

that that disclosure and shareholder democracy are sufficient to defend the risk management and free-

speech rights of shareholders. Disclosure of political spending, Justice Kennedy wrote, “can

provide shareholders…with the information needed to hold corporations…accountable,” and “to

react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way.”

Thus, corporate support of politicians through PACs, and via dark money organizations

enabled by the Citizens United decision, has elevated the importance of shareholder oversight of

corporate political spending. The courts have recognized the interest of investors in using the

instruments of shareholder democracy, including transparency and voting on proposals like the

present one, to ensure accountability on corporate political spending. Of particular concern is the

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 3 of 12

prospect that a corporate board or management might use the corporate treasury or PAC to

support personal favorite politicians or organizations that support extremist positions out of line

with the company’s interests and professed values, and also out of line with the company’s own

consumer’s perspectives.

In June of 2022, the Supreme Court overturned longstanding precedent in

Roe v. Wade

and

the subsequent patchwork of state laws has shifted the legal landscape for reproductive health.

Pfizer has a proactive commitment to women’s rights and health, and produces products that

are used in medication abortions, yet it has apparently supported numerous politicians that are

leading or supporting legislative efforts to restrict reproductive rights.

The Proposal focuses on this issue. As noted in the background section of the Proposal,

Pfizer’s political donations appear to contradict its stated goal to “ensure… access to

reproductive health.” The Proposal notes that Pfizer’s political donations also appear to

contradict its own interests. Pfizer manufactures contraceptives and a medication commonly

prescribed for medication abortion. However, since the start of the 2020 election cycle, the

Proponent estimates that Pfizer and its employee PACs have donated at least $5 million to

politicians and organizations that are actively working to weaken access to reproductive health.

In the South, Pfizer donated to anti-choice state candidates at a ratio of 3:1 to its donations to

other candidates and to anti-choice federal candidates at a ratio of 2:1. The Company continues

to donate to politicians who are working to make access to Pfizer’s product more difficult or

even illegal. For example, Pfizer contributed to multiple sponsors of 2022 bills in Tennessee and

Louisiana which restrict access to medication abortion.

This apparent incongruence has been scrutinized by publications such as STAT, Bloomberg

News, Huffington Post, The Minnesota Daily, CQ ESG Briefing, Agenda (a Financial Times

publication) and Forbes.

Accountability is necessary where the board and management appear to be supporting

politicians who are advancing major policy initiatives that are contrary to the Company’s

interested and articulated values. The failure of the board or management to explain why these

incongruities are acceptable to the Company is a strong impetus for investors to support the

current Proposal and to clarify whether and why the board and management may believe that

maintaining support for such political leaders is consistent with investor interests.

The Proposal has not been substantially implemented.

In order for the Company to meet its burden of proving substantial implementation pursuant

to Rule 14a-8(i)(10), it must show that its activities meet the guidelines and essential purpose of

the Proposal. The Staff has noted that a determination that a company has substantially

In addition, Pfizer was a top contributor to a 527 organization that lead the effort to strike down the

Affordable Care Act, which has made prescription drugs, such as the ones manufactured by Pfizer, more accessible

for millions of people. Pfizer also contributes to PhRMA, which donates to numerous organizations which oppose

the congressional efforts to reform drug pricing.

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 4 of 12

implemented a proposal depends upon whether a company’s particular policies, practices, and

procedures compare favorably with the guidelines of the proposal.

Texaco, Inc.

(Mar. 28, 1991).

Substantial implementation under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) requires a company’s actions to have

satisfactorily addressed both the proposal’s guidelines and its essential objective. See, e.g.,

Exelon Corp.

(Feb. 26, 2010).

Thus, when a company can demonstrate that it has already taken actions that meet most of

the guidelines of a proposal and meet the proposal’s essential purpose, the Staff has concurred

that the proposal has been “substantially implemented.” In the current instance, the Company has

substantially fulfilled

neither

the guidelines nor the essential purpose of the Proposal.

The essential objective of the proposal, Pfizer’s political contribution congruency

related to its own stated goals, especially regarding reproductive rights, has not been

addressed by the Company.

The Company argues that it has substantially implemented the Proposal and it describes the

Proposal’s “essential objective” as being “to obtain a report from Pfizer on how its political

expenditures align with Pfizer’s stated values and policies.” This distorts the Proposal’s essential

objective. The Resolved Clause itself requests a report on congruency of political expenditures

specifically against Pfizer’s stated goal to “end discrimination against women, ensure equal

opportunities for leadership and access for reproductive health.

”

The background section of the Proposal also speaks to the primacy of reproductive rights as

an essential focus of the Proposal. All of the background information provided focuses on

women’s rights and reproductive healthcare. It appears from available information that Pfizer’s

political donations are not congruent with its stated goal to “end discrimination against women,

ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access for reproductive health.” Existing

disclosures referenced by the Company do not appear to provide an assessment of the

congruency of its political contributions in support of politicians that are leading the effort to

restrict reproductive rights.

As explained in the Proposal, Pfizer has donated to an organization which led efforts to

strike down the Affordable Care Act, to politicians and organizations who worked to limit

women’s access to reproductive healthcare, and even disproportionately donated to anti-choice

candidates in the South.

Pfizer manufactures contraceptives and a drug commonly prescribed for use as an

abortifacient. The contradictory and potentially self-defeating impact of Pfizer’s support for anti-

choice politicians has been noted in media coverage.

The Sustainable Investments Institute (“SI2”) found that Pfizer was a top funder of anti-

abortion candidates in states banning abortion with $357,699 in donations in the last two election

https://www.businessinsider.com/healthcare-corporations-and-pharma-give-big-to-anti-abortion-movement-

2022-5

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 5 of 12

cycles. SI2 also found that Pfizer was a top contributor to five attorneys general who played key

roles in the effort to ban abortion.

In the last two election cycles, Pfizer’s expenditures in the South and Midwest have been

largely in favor of anti-choice candidates. 74% of Pfizer’s political donations in the South and

66% of its donations in the Midwest went to anti-choice politicians.

The above review of numerous unexplained political contributions which are in direct

contrast to company policies and values demonstrates the need for investors to demand

accounting from the board on its apparent failure to evaluate and manage significant

incongruencies in political contributions.

The Company’s current disclosures are insufficient to satisfy the request of the

Proposal.

While the Company argues substantial implementation, it admits throughout the no-action

letter that its Congruency Report addresses only trade associations. Pfizer implemented this

Congruency Report after a previous shareholder proposal received significant support from

shareholders. However, this report does not satisfy the request of the Proposal because there is

no discussion of the congruency of the $1,333,025 Pfizer donated to candidates and political

committees.

Instead, for donations to candidates and political committees, the Company publishes only

the Pfizer PAC and Corporate Contributions Report (the “Political Contributions Report”). This

is distinct from the Congruency Report because it focuses on the amounts given to individual

candidates, but it does not address the incongruence of donations. The Company argues that this

report explains Pfizer’s rationale and motivation for making such political expenditures.

First, the report does not actually provide the rationale and motivation for any particular

candidate and instead gives broad rationale such as “candidates of both political parties who

support state and federal policies that impact [Pfizer’s] purpose: Breakthroughs that change

patients’ lives.” This statement of the company’s internal policy for deciding how to direct

political contributions is not equivalent to a statement by management explaining glaring

incongruities in donations, some of which might threaten to overwhelm the benefits to the

company associated with company donations.

As important as the decision to donate money to a candidate is, the discernment involved in

recognizing the congruency and in deciding to halt donations to candidates because their actions

do not align with the Company’s stated goals and policies is equally important. While the

Company may support politicians who advance company-supportive policies on some matters, if

those same politicians are well known as leaders of policy initiatives that directly undercut

Divided States of America - Heavily Tilted Company Support for State Abortion Ban Politicians (October 17,

2022) Heidi Welsh,

https://siinstitute.org/reports.html

Id.

Pfizer’s PAC and Corporate Political Contributions Report, available at https://cdn.pfizer.com

/pfizercom/investors/corporate/2021_Pfizer_PAC_and_Corporate_Political_Contributions_Report.pdf at Page 58.

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 6 of 12

company interests or values, investors may appropriately ask for an explanation of whether

support for those individuals is appropriate and congruent and can reasonably, through this

Proposal, seek explanation from management.

Investors have a right to transparency when Pfizer chooses to donate money to a candidate or

committee which makes decisions that harm Pfizer’s publicly stated goal and its own product

offerings.

The existing reports from the Company do not analyze the incongruence of the donations to

politicians. Proponents believe that Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that

minimize risk to the firm's reputation and brand by providing an accounting of any possible

missteps in corporate electioneering and political spending in the prior year that are in contrast to

its stated healthcare and environmental objectives, and ensuring midcourse corrections when

needed.

Under the framework of the Proposal, it does not rest with the Proponent to determine which

donations were incongruent; rather it rests with the company to explain the incongruence of

specific donations, and what overriding considerations cause it to provide donations despite

incongruent voting records of some donation recipients.

The Proponent believes that these examples illustrate that while the Company may have put

in place evaluation procedures in advance of making political contributions, the Company has

not published an analysis explaining its assessments of congruency and whether and where it is

making exceptions in contributions between its stated values priorities and the contributions to

political candidates and campaigns.

Review of Staff precedents confirms that failure to publish a core analysis requested

by a Proposal, especially on political contributions, precludes substantial implementation.

The Staff has confirmed repeatedly that proposals will not be excluded despite a claim

of substantial implementation if a core analysis requested by the proposal has not been

performed and published.

The courts have long acknowledged the challenges posed by the corporate form that board

and management might use the corporate treasury to advance their own political predilections,

and therefore the right of shareholders to weigh in and demand transparency. For instance,

Medical Committee for Human Rights v. SEC,

432 F.2d 659 (D.C. Cir. 1985) in which the

D.C. Circuit Court found that shareholder proposals are proper (not ordinary business) when they

raise issues of corporate social responsibility or question the unaccountable exercise of

“political and moral predilections” of board or management in the management of the company.

In more recent years, this responsibility and right of shareholders was amplified and echoed

by Justice Anthony Kennedy in

Citizens United

, who described the need and potential for

shareholders to hold their companies accountable for misdirected corporate political spending.

The

Citizens United

majority wrote that the rights of shareholders dissenting

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 7 of 12

to political spending by board and management would be protected “through the procedures of

corporate democracy.”

Citizens United

, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Since

Citizens United,

institutional and individual investors and coalitions have recognized

their responsibility to monitor political spending transparency and to demand disclosure across

all publicly traded companies. A rulemaking petition to the SEC for standardized mandatory

disclosure of corporate political spending, including disclosure of trade association funding and

other lobbying initiatives, received a record level of support: more than 1.2 million comment

letters have been submitted on the petition, the vast majority in support of the proposed rule.

A key staff precedent is

CVS Health Corporation

(February 9, 2015, recon denied, March 23,

2015) where the company made similar assertions on a very similar proposal requesting a report

on congruency between the corporate values and electioneering contributions. CVS had asserted

that the Company's existing disclosures of amounts contributed to candidates would allow

shareholders to assess for themselves the issues of congruency should they choose

to.

Proponents successfully argued that since the essential purpose of the Proposal is for the

management to publish its own analysis of the congruency of its donations and to explain the

exceptions made, the Company's actions fail to constitute substantial implementation for

purposes of Rule 14a-8(i)(10).

The same is true in the present instance.

Strict scrutiny of substantial implementation in proposals on political contributions

The Staff has utilized rigorous standards in assessing substantial implementation on

proposals relating to political contributions and lobbying, because these are issues that are of

major concern to many investors, and implicated by

Citizens United

as issues meriting

engagement through the “instruments of shareholder democracy.”

Investors have frequently asserted in recent years that in light of the Supreme Court ruling

Citizens United

and ongoing public backlash against corporate political spending, disclosure

of how companies are managing these issues and risks of merits rigorous and comparable

disclosure for shareholders to assess potential exposure to risks caused by our future

electioneering contributions.

Numerous efforts by companies to claim substantial implementation of political spending

disclosure proposals when the companies had only done disclosure that partially fulfilled the

request have been rejected by the Staff. For example, see

NextEra Energy, Inc.

(February 24,

2020);

Exxon Mobil Corp.

(April 2, 2019);

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(March 14, 2013

); EQT

Corp.

(January 23, 2013);

Nike, Inc.

(July 5, 2012);

Southwestern Energy Co.

(March 15,

2011);

The Boeing Co.

(February 14, 2011);

Citigroup Inc.

(March 9, 2007);

Bristol-Myers

Squibb Co.

(February 18, 2005);

Exxon Mobil Corp.

(March 5, 2004);

Wells Fargo

Co.

(February 11, 2004). For instance, in

Nike, Inc.

(July 5, 2012) the company’s failure to

provide a breakdown of itemized political contributions, as was requested in that proposal, led

the SEC Staff to find that the company had not substantially implemented the proposal.

In addition, numerous other company attempts to exclude proposals under Rule 14a-8(i)(10)

have failed where the company has provided public disclosure of some, but not all, of the

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 8 of 12

elements of reporting requested. See for instance

Marathon Oil Corporation

(January 22,

2013);

Dominion Resources, Inc.

(February 28, 2014),

Nike, Inc.

(July 5, 2012) (requesting

reports on lobbying or political contributions and expenditures).

Internal assessment without disclosure of core requested elements does not constitute

substantial implementation

A request for publication of an assessment, even if the assessment may have been conducted

internally but not published, does not yield substantial implementation on a proposal seeking

reporting. For instance, in

McDonalds Corp.

(March 14, 2012) the proposal requested the board

issue a report assessing the company's policy responses to growing evidence of linkages between

fast food and childhood obesity, diet related diseases and other impacts on children's health. The

proposal also specified that the report should include an assessment of the potential impacts of

public concerns and evolving public policy on the company's finances and operations. The

company's substantial implementation argument was rejected, even though the company may

have internally or implicitly conducted some of the assessments requested by the Proposal. Its

reporting to shareholders did not fulfill the guidelines of the Proposal in disclosure of an

assessment.

II.

The Proposal is not an excludable resubmission because it does not deal with the same

subject matter as previous shareholder proposals at the Company.

Rule 14a-8(i)(12), the resubmission exclusion, provides that a shareholder proposal may be

excluded from a company’s proxy materials if it “addresses substantially the same subject matter

as a proposal, or proposals, previously included in the company’s proxy materials within the

preceding five calendar years if the most recent vote occurred within the preceding three years,”

and the proposal received “[l]ess than 15 percent of the votes cast if previously voted on twice.”

The Company argues that current Proposal addresses substantially the same subject matter as

the 2021 Proposal, also filed by Tara Health, and the 2022 Proposal, filed by the National Center

for Public Policy Research.

In 2022, the proposal submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research received

10.41% of the vote, a stark contrast to the 47.2% vote of the 2021 Tara Health (current

proponent) proposal that Pfizer argues addresses substantially the same subject matter.

Each of the three Proposals are distinct. The 2021 Proposal requested a congruency report on

Pfizer’s political contributions due to the Company’s apparent misalignment in contributions and

its publicly stated values and interests including the Affordable Care Act, Pfizer’s contraceptive

and abortifacient medications, and its commitment to greenhouse gas reduction targets.

In contrast, the 2022 Proposal requested a congruency report based on that proponent’s

argument that Pfizer’s contributions were misaligned because of allegations that supporting

universal health-care programs would stifle innovation and resources; that Pfizer’s

nondiscrimination policy would force the company to discriminate against white and male

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 9 of 12

employees; that Pfizer’s contributions went to candidates who did not support legislation to end

Uyghur forced labor or “sensible border security”; and finally, that Pfizer supports candidates

“who oppose even minimal, common-sense pro-life policies to protect society’s most vulnerable

members.” For most of these issues, the 2021 and 2022 Proposals take completely opposing

stances on major topics - which is the best available explanation for the dramatic shift in voting

support among shareholders.

While the 2021 and 2022 Proposals share the same resolved clause, the 2023 Proposal has a

distinct resolved clause to reflect the core focus of the Proposal. Looking at the background

section of the three proposals shows even more contrast, with the 2023 Proposal focusing

entirely on reproductive health. In response to the significant

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health

Organization

decision, the Proponent in the 2023 Proposal is requesting that Pfizer provide

transparency to its shareholders on how it is ensuring that its political contributions align with its

publicly stated goal to “ensure . . . access to reproductive health.” This subject matter is distinct

from the previous proposals.

Unlike the current Proposal, in the precedents cited by the Company, the resubmitted

proposals focused on the same substantive core concerns. For example, in

Exxon Mobil

Corporation

(March 15, 2022), the proposals at issue were so similar that the Company was able

to create a chart showing that the only edits to the proposals were minor additions or deletions

and the four proposals all had identical resolved clauses. Similarly, in

Alphabet Inc.

(April 16,

2019), the proposals at issue were virtually identical, with only minor additions or edits, in both

the resolved clause and supporting statements. In

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

(January 27, 2017),

the proposals at issue were so similar that the proponent even stated in this proposal, “this

resolution drew scant support last year.” It is clear that these proposals had the same substantive

concerns because the proposals shared nearly identical language. That is not the case here

because the proposals have different resolved clauses and the background sections of the current

Proposal raises a unique subject matter concern.

In another precedent cited by the Company,

Apple Inc.

(November 20, 2018), the proposals

addressed the same policy concern regarding human rights implications of the Company’s

operations in China. In contrast, the current Proposal addresses a different policy concern than

the previously submitted proposals.

The shareholders in the cited precedent had multiple years to vote on the nearly identical

proposals and they made their lack of interest in the proposals obvious. In contrast, this Proposal

provides an opportunity for investor support on the hot button issue of the Company’s

incongruent political expenditures that undermines reproductive rights.

The Proponent further notes the twisted effect that would result from the Company’s

argument – a proponent could effectively stifle the voice of a future proponent with a different

perspective by filing a shareholder proposal on an issue that is peppered with arguments that are

counter to prevalent perspectives of investors and therefore fails miserably. The point of the

resubmission rule is to maintain efficiency by preventing yearly resubmissions of a proposal that

clearly does not evoke shareholder interest. It would be counterproductive to prevent submission

of a new proposal which contains an entirely different subject matter and perspective.

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 10 of 12

The purpose of the resubmission rule as articulated by the Staff is to relieve the management

of the necessity of including proposals which have been previously submitted to security holders

without evoking any substantial security holder interest therein. This purpose is not served by

excluding the 2023 proposal. Based on the drastic contrast in shareholder support, it is evident

that shareholders recognize the difference between the two previous proposals, and that

regardless, the current proposal with its focus on congruency of company contributions affecting

reproductive rights is a substantially different core focus from both of the prior proposals

submitted at the Company in the past five years and therefore it is not eligible for exclusion.

CONCLUSION

The Company has not met its burden that the Proposal is excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(10)

or Rule 14a-8(i)(12). Therefore, we request that the Staff inform the Company that the SEC

proxy rules require denial of the Company’s no-action request. Please call me at (413) 549-7333

with respect to any questions in connection with this matter, or if the Staff wishes any further

information.

Sincerely,

Sanford Lewis

Brittany Blanchard Goad

cc: Margaret M. Madden

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 11 of 12

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS MISALIGNMENT

Whereas:

Pfizer has stated “political contributions are made to support the election of

candidates, political parties and committees that support public policies important to the

industry, such as innovation and access to medicines,” and “[w]e aim to end

discrimination against women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to

reproductive health.”

However, Pfizer’s political expenditures appear to be misaligned with the company’s stated

values and interests.

Pfizer has stated that “Expanded access to health insurance coverage will help ensure

that patients with under-diagnosed and undertreated conditions are able to address them;

and that those who will benefit from Pfizer medicines are better able to have access to

them.” Yet in 2018, Pfizer was a top contributor to a 527 organization leading efforts to

strike down the Affordable Care Act, which has made prescription drugs more accessible

for millions, and contributes to PhRMA, which donates to numerous organizations

opposing congressional efforts to reform drug pricing.

Pfizer manufactures contraceptives and a drug commonly prescribed for medication

abortion. Yet the proponent estimates that since the beginning of the 2020 election cycle,

Pfizer and its employee PACs have donated at least $5 million to politicians and political

organizations working to weaken women’s access to reproductive health care. In the South

during this period, Pfizer’s contributions to anti-choice state candidates exceeded those to

other candidates by a ratio of 3:1, and its contributions to anti-choice federal candidates

exceeded those to other candidates by a ratio of 2:1. For example, Pfizer contributed to

multiple sponsors of bills passed in 2022 in Tennessee and Louisiana that will restrict access

to medication abortion.

This pattern spending has drawn scrutiny from STAT, Bloomberg News, Huffington Post, The

Minnesota Daily, CQ ESG Briefing, Agenda (a Financial Times publication) and Forbes.

Proponents believe Pfizer should establish policies and reporting systems that minimize risk

to reputation and brand by addressing possible missteps in corporate electioneering and political

spending that contrast with its stated healthcare objectives.

Resolved: Pfizer publish an annual report, at reasonable expense, analyzing the congruency

of political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures during the preceding year against publicly

stated company values and policies, including Pfizer’s stated goal to “end discrimination against

women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.” Such a

Office of Chief Counsel

January 17, 2023

Page 12 of 12

report should list and explain any instances of incongruent expenditures, and state whether the

identified incongruencies have led to a change in future expenditures or contributions.

Supporting Statement:

Proponents recommend that such report contain management's analysis of risks to our

company's brand, reputation, or shareholder value of expenditures in conflict with publicly

stated company values. “Electioneering expenditures" means spending, from the corporate

treasury and from the PACs, directly or through a third party, at any time during the year

which are reasonably susceptible to interpretation as in support of or opposition to a

specific candidate.

Margaret M. Madden

Pfizer Inc. – Legal Division

Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary

235 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017

Chief Governance Counsel

Tel 212 733 3451 Fax 646 563 9681

margaret.m.madden@pfizer.com

BY EMAIL

(shareholderproposals@sec.gov)

January 24, 2023

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Division of Corporation Finance

Office of Chief Counsel

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

RE:

Pfizer Inc. – 2023 Annual Meeting

Supplement to Letter dated December 16, 2022

Relating to Shareholder Proposal of

Tara Health Foundation and Louise Davis

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We refer to our letter dated December 16, 2022 (the “No-Action Request”), pursuant

to which we requested that the Staff of the Division of Corporation Finance (the “Staff”) of

the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) concur with our view that the

shareholder proposal and supporting statement (the “Proposal”) submitted by Tara Health

Foundation (“Tara Health”) and co-filed by Nia Impact Capital, on behalf of Louise Davis,

may be excluded from the proxy materials to be distributed by Pfizer Inc., a Delaware

corporation (“Pfizer”), in connection with its 2023 annual meeting of shareholders (the “2023

proxy materials”). Tara Health and Ms. Davis are collectively referred to as the

“Proponents.”

This letter is in response to the letter to the Staff, dated January 17, 2023, submitted

on behalf of Tara Health (the “Proponents’ Letter”), and supplements the No-Action Request.

In accordance with Rule 14a-8(j), a copy of this letter also is being sent to the Proponents.

The Proponents’ Letter argues that the Proposal is not an excludable resubmission

under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) because it does not deal with the same subject matter as the 2022 and

2021 proposals voted on by Pfizer’s shareholders (together, the “Prior Proposals”). The

Proponents’ Letter also claims that the Proposal has not been substantially implemented by

Pfizer and thus may not be excluded under Rule 14a-8(i)(10). Neither argument is

persuasive.

Office of Chief Counsel

January 24, 2023

Page 2

The Proposal Deals with Substantially the Same Subject Matter as the Prior

Proposals.

In arguing that the Proposal does not address substantially the same subject matter as

the Prior Proposals, the Proponents’ Letter mischaracterizes the Proposal as “focus[ed]

entirely on reproductive health.” This characterization requires ignoring the plain text of the

Proposal.

The Proposal, seeking a report on the congruency of Pfizer’s political expenditures

with Pfizer’s stated values and policies, references at least six different “stated values and

policies” of Pfizer. Alongside the discussion of (1) reproductive health, the Proposal

references Pfizer stated values such as (2) “innovation,” (3) “access to medicines,” (4)

“end[ing]discrimination against women,” (5) “ensur[ing] equal opportunities for leadership”

and (6) “[e]xpand[ing] access to health insurance coverage.” The Proposal text clearly

conveys that Pfizer has a number of publicly stated values and policies and provides no basis

to conclude that the Proposal focuses on a single publicly stated value or policy to the

exclusion of other publicly stated values and policies.

The variety of publicly stated values and policies referenced in the Proposal is

entirely consistent with the Proposal’s resolved clause, which not only does not contain any

limitation on the analysis to a single publicly stated value or policy but sets forth as examples

three different publicly stated values and policies to be included in any analysis – “publicly

stated company values and policies, including Pfizer’s stated goal to ‘end discrimination

against women, ensure equal opportunities for leadership and access to reproductive health.’”

Moreover, this resolved clause remains substantively unchanged from the Prior Proposals,

simply adding an “including” clause to provide examples of publicly stated values and

policies (three examples, to be precise). Like the Prior Proposals, the Proposal is not focused

on a single policy issue and the decision to append an “including” clause does nothing to

limit the substantive concern of the Proposal to the congruency of Pfizer’s political

expenditures exclusively with one of the three examples set forth in the “including” clause.

As described in the No-Action Request, where proposals address the same substantive

concern, the Staff has concluded that the proposals cover substantially the same subject

matter. Here, all three proposals express the same substantive concern, namely “the

congruency of [Pfizer’s] political . . . expenditures” with “publicly stated company values

and policies.” The fact that the Staff determined, and Tara Health acknowledged, less than a

year ago that a proposal nearly identical to the current Proposal was substantially duplicative

of the 2022 proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(11) is further indication of the substantial similarity

between the Proposal and the 2022 proposal. To accept the Proponents’ argument that the

Proposal is unique and only about reproductive health would require the Staff to ignore the

actual text of the Proposal and its own prior determination regarding the substantial overlap

between two of the proposals under consideration.

The Proponents’ Letter also attempts to draw a conclusion regarding the “drastic

contrast in shareholder support” received by the Prior Proposals as definitive evidence that

Office of Chief Counsel

January 24, 2023

Page 3

the two Prior Proposals are substantially different. This conclusion is not only baseless, but

it ignores the most logical explanation – shareholders became less concerned about this topic

following Pfizer’s responsive actions to the vote on the 2021 proposal. Regardless of

investors’ motives for voting differently in 2022, shifting levels of shareholder support does

not alter the language of the proposals, each of which expresses the same concern with

consistency between Pfizer’s political expenditures and its stated values and policies.

Because the Proposal and the Prior Proposals address substantially the same subject matter,

and the shareholder vote on the 2022 proposal was less than 15% of the votes cast, the

Proposal is excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) for failing to receive the requisite

shareholder support.

II.

Pfizer Has Substantially Implemented the Proposal.

The Proponents’ Letter also misinterprets the Staff’s view on the substantial

implementation basis for exclusion. The Proponents’ Letter details the perceived

shortcomings of Pfizer’s extensive disclosures regarding the alignment of its political

expenditures with its stated values and policies, claiming that “strict scrutiny of substantial

implementation” is warranted where proposals relate to political contributions and lobbying.

This view has no basis in either law or Staff no-action decisions. The substantial

implementation test under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) does not require differing levels of scrutiny

depending on subject matter. As noted in the No-Action Request, a company may exclude a

proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(10) if the company has already substantially implemented

the proposal. Applying this standard, the Staff consistently has permitted the exclusion of a

proposal when it has determined that the company’s policies, practices and procedures or

public disclosures compare favorably with the guidelines of the proposal. Moreover, as

demonstrated in countless no-action determinations, the Staff also has permitted exclusion

under Rule 14a-8(i)(10) where a company already addressed the underlying concerns and

satisfied the essential objectives of the proposal, even if the proposal had not been

implemented exactly as proposed by the proponent. As elaborated above, the substantive

concern of the Proposal is disclosure about political expenditure congruency generally, and

not with respect to any one particular value or policy issue.

Accordingly, the appropriate

inquiry is whether Pfizer’s political expenditure congruency disclosures as a whole—not

solely those disclosures with respect to reproductive rights—compare favorably with the

disclosures requested in the Proposal. As described in the No-Action Request, Pfizer has

satisfied the Proposal’s essential objective of providing disclosure regarding political

expenditure congruency, and given the nature and extent of Pfizer’s reporting, such

We note the Proponents’ Letter discussion of the Supreme Court’s decision in

Citizens United

. To the

extent that the Proponents are concerned with Pfizer’s contributions to 527 Issue Organizations, as stated in

the No-Action Request, Pfizer discloses in its Political Contributions Report that (i) it traditionally does not

make contributions to 527 Issue Organizations, and if such a contribution is requested, such expenditures

must be reviewed and approved by the Political Contributions Policy Committee and subsequently

disclosed and (ii) it has determined that it will not make any direct independent expenditures. The Political

Contributions Report also notes that the decision to refrain from making direct independent expenditures

has been discussed at the executive level as well as with the Governance & Sustainability Committee of

Pfizer’s Board.

Office of Chief Counsel

January 24, 2023

Page 4

disclosures compare favorably with those requested by the Proposal. Accordingly, the

Proposal is excludable under Rule 14a-8(i)(10).

For the reasons stated above and in the No-Action Request, we respectfully request

that the Staff concur that it will take no action if Pfizer excludes the Proposal from its 2023

proxy materials.

Should the Staff disagree with the conclusions set forth in this letter, or should any

additional information be desired in support of Pfizer’s position, we would appreciate the

opportunity to confer with the Staff concerning these matters prior to the issuance of the

Staff’s response. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (212) 733-3451 or Marc S. Gerber

of Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP at (202) 371-7233.

Very truly yours,

Margaret M. Madden

Enclosures

cc:

Shelly Alpern

Director of Corporate Engagement

Meredith Benton

Sanford Lewis & Associates

PO Box 231

Amherst, MA 01004-0231

413 549-7333

sanfordlewis@strategiccounsel.net

February 6, 2023

Via electronic mail

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Supplemental Response Regarding Shareholder Proposal to Pfizer Inc.

Regarding Political Contributions Congruency by Tara Health Foundation

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Tara Health Foundation has submitted a shareholder proposal (the “Proposal”) to

Pfizer Inc. (the “Company”). We previously responded to the Company’s No-Action

Request of December 16, 2022 on January 17, 2023.

We have been asked by the Proponent to respond to the letter dated January 24, 2023

("Company Supplemental Letter") sent to the Securities and Exchange Commission by

Margaret M. Madden, Senior Vice President and Corporate Secretary. In that letter, the

Company supplements its No-Action Request provided on December 16, 2022 (the “No-

Action Request”). A copy of this letter is being emailed concurrently to Margaret M.

Madden at margaret.m.madden@pfizer.com.

We are grateful for the opening provided by the Supplemental Letter to add

additional information to the decision-making record on this No-Action Request.

Prompted by the Supplemental Letter, we re-examined the record of the company’s

actions and the requests of the proposal. We stand by our original arguments, and

appreciate the opportunity to provide additional analysis for the Staff’s consideration.

The Company’s original letter and supplement assert that its existing actions

implement the Proposal. But further examination of the Company’s actions demonstrates

Office of Chief Counsel

February 6, 2023

Page 2 of 9

that there is no support for the idea that the current proposal is substantially implemented

- the Company has not conducted the actions requested by the guidelines of the proposal.

The clear and compelling evidence for lack of substantial implementation also

demonstrates clearly that the

subject matter of the proposal

is not the same as prior

submitted proposals on which the company bases its resubmission argument.

In this instance,

the Proposal’s clear focus on the element of women’s

reproductive and economic rights

resoundingly rebukes both the substantial

implementation and resubmission arguments. There is no evidence provided by the

Company that it implemented the focal question raised by the proposal in assessing

congruency of either trade association or political contributions on the issue of

reproductive rights, and as we will show further below, there is ample evidence of the

need for such an assessment.

Substantial Implementation

The Proposal requests that the Company publish an annual report, at reasonable

expense, analyzing the congruency of political, lobbying, and electioneering expenditures

during the preceding year against publicly stated company values and policies, including

Pfizer’s stated goal to “end discrimination against women, ensure equal opportunities for

leadership and access to reproductive health.” Such a report should list and explain any

instances of incongruent expenditures, and state whether the identified incongruencies

have led to a change in future expenditures or contributions.

Congruency with rights to contraception and reproductive health not evaluated in

existing reporting

The Supplemental Letter from the Company which alleged that shareholder

support previously declined for the 2022 congruency proposal due to the Company’s

“responsive actions.” Further evaluation demonstrates that it certainly does not

implement the current Proposal, because it was not prepared with an eye toward the

current proposal’s focal issue which includes reproductive rights. We can find no

evidence whatsoever of any action by the company that would appear to evaluate the

congruence of contributions against the request of the proposal to assess against Pfizer’s

stated goal to “ensure … access to reproductive health.”

Office of Chief Counsel

February 6, 2023

Page 3 of 9

Pfizer produces and sells one of the leading birth control products, the injectable

product, Depo-Provera. The apparent incongruence in its support for politicians that have

opposed contraception rights makes the Proposal’s request for ongoing reporting on this

issue a necessity.

In its 2021 ESG report, the Company touts its role as is a producer of contraceptive

products, including Sayana® Press, Pfizer’s long-acting, injectable and reversible

contraceptive. As the Company notes in the report, page 21:

The all-in-one prefilled, single-use, auto-disable system eliminates the need to

prepare a needle and syringe. It also allows the contraceptive to be administered

by a health worker outside of a clinical setting, or it can be self-injected if

approved locally and after health care worker instruction.

Notably, the Company website highlights the manner in which this product improves

contraceptive access, particularly for low income women:

Because of its unique contraceptive delivery technology – enabling the product to

be compact, discreet, and easily transportable – Sayana® Press can be provided in

low- resource, non-clinic settings, potentially transforming the way in which

women can access and receive their preferred method of contraception.

Despite these important products, the Company’s existing disclosures did not entail

any congruency analysis regarding the fact that Pfizer's PAC donated to numerous

politicians

who opposed and blocked the federal Right to Contraception Act, which

Also, this is a substantial and touted initiative of the company on contraception:

Pfizer completed its investment in 2021 to establish a new automated filling line for the UnijectTM

injection system, which delivers the contraceptive. In total, Pfizer allocated $39 million from the bond

proceeds to fund the capital expense. Once operational, this new filling line will allow for capacity to scale

from 23 million units per year to up to 30 million units per year. The new automated filling line will undergo

process validation and EU regulatory review in 2022, and is expected to enter into commercial production in

2023.

Pfizer’s PAC and Corporate Political Contributions Report lists that the PAC donated $3,500 to "Jobs

Opportunity And New Ideas PAC (Sen. Joni Kay Ernst)." Senator Ernst blocked efforts to pass the Right to

Contraception Act in the Senate. https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2022/07/27/ernst-blocks-bill-guaranteeing-right-to-

birth-control/

The Report also lists PAC donations to the following Congress members who voted against the Act in the

House: $2,500 to Rep. Kelly Armstrong; $1,000 to Rep. Jodey Cook Arrington; $2,500 to Rep. Troy Balderson;

$2,500 to Rep. Andy Barr; $6,500 to Rep. Gus Michael Bilirakis; $5,000 to Rep. Kevin Patrick Brady; $10,000 to

Rep. Vernon Gale Buchanan; $2,500 to Rep. Kenneth Buck; $8,000 to Rep. Larry Dean Bucshon; $2,500 to Rep.

Michael Clifton Burgess; $1,000 to Kenneth Calvert; $1,500 to Rep. Earl L. B. Carter; $500 to Rep. Benjamin L.

Cline; $2,500 to Rep. Thomas Jeffrey Cole; $2,500 to Rep. Daniel Crenshaw; $8,500 to Rep. John R. Curtis; $2,500

to Rep. Thomas Earl Emmer, Jr.; $1,500 to Rep. Ron Estes; $7,500 to Rep. A. Drew Ferguson; $1,000 to Rep.

Office of Chief Counsel

February 6, 2023

Page 4 of 9

would have established a federal right to contraception, from passing in Congress last

year.

This Act was particularly important compared to other bills about contraception

because it would protect the right to access and use contraception even if the Supreme

Court overturns the constitutional right to contraception and state laws are enacted to

restrict or ban birth control.

Such concern regarding the right to all forms of birth control have been placed at risk

by the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs. As one expert noted in a recent article:

“Over the years, some abortion opponents have put forth a narrative about

contraceptives that is not consistent with medical and scientific consensus,” she told

us. “So the question is who gets to decide if a particular product induces abortion? We

see language in this decision about letting the states decide. Can a state label

something as an abortifacient even if the science said it is not? This decision has

opened up uncertainty and could well mean that companies have shot themselves in

the foot.”

The crux of the lack of substantial implementation is that there is no evidence that the

Company has performed and published an analysis of incongruency on this issue of

support for contraception and other reproductive rights. The potential threat directly to

the company’s own contraception products is an issue which is expected to deepen in

coming years and creates a compelling argument for the current proposal. For Pfizer this

is recognized by media as a major point of controversy and congruency with the

company’s business needs, as demonstrated by the STAT coverage headlined:

‘A slippery

slope’: Pfizer sells a contraceptive and donated to political groups that could come after the

company.

Generally speaking, a company would not want to contribute to a politician whose

actions could hurt its sales. But one of the biggest drugmakers may have set itself up for

Michael Garcia; $1,000 to Rep. H. Morgan Griffith; $5,000 to Rep. S. Brett Guthrie; $2,500 to Rep. Kevin R. Hern;

$5,000 to Rep. Richard Lane Hudson; $1,500 to Rep. Bill Johnson; $1,500 to Rep. David Patrick Joyce; $10,000 to

Rep. Darin LaHood; $5,000 to Rep. Robert E. Latta; $1,500 to Rep. Jacob LaTurner; $1,500 to Rep. Nicole

Malliotakis; $1,500 to Rep. Tracey Robert Mann; $3,500 to Rep. Patrick Timothy McHenry; $2,500 to Rep. John

Moolenaar; $3,000 to Rep. Markwayne Mullin; $2,500 to Rep. Gregory J. Pence; $2,500 to Rep. Guy L.

Reschenthaler; $2,500 to Rep. Tom Rice; $7,500 to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers; $2,500 to Rep. Stephen Joseph

Scalise; $1,000 to Rep. Jason Thomas Smith; $2,500 to Rep. Adrian Michael Smith; $2,500 to Rep. Lloyd Smucker;

$1,000 to Rep. Victoria Spartz; $2,500 to Rep. Elise Stefanik; $5,000 to Rep. Ann Louise Wagner; $1,500 to Rep.

Jacqueline Walorski; $2,500 to Rep. Brad Wenstrup; $2,500 to Rep. Stephen Allen Womack.

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2022385

https://www.help.senate.gov/chair/newsroom/press/republican-senator-blocks-bill-to-codify-americans-

right-to-contraception-

https://www.politicalaccountability.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/STAT-Contraceptive-makers-

donated-to-political-groups-that-could-target-them-7.1.22.pdf

Office of Chief Counsel

February 6, 2023

Page 5 of 9

that kind of dichotomy. Since 2018, Pfizer contributed to three groups that, in turn,

played a notable role in overturning Roe v. Wade through their support of elected

officials. And a future item on the politically conservative agenda may be contraceptives

sold by the company, a scenario that could suggest they acted against its own financial

interest.

In addition, although we have not conducted a comprehensive review of trade

association positions related to reproductive rights we note that a proposed national

comprehensive data privacy bill quite relevant to current reproductive rights

controversies was opposed by the US Chamber of Commerce and is not described in the

Company’s congruency report on trade associations. The bill would have helped to

ameliorate the threat to reproductive healthcare posed by sensitive individual consumer

data. Under the legislation, consumer consent would be required prior to data being

shared with data brokers and, potentially, with law enforcement. Companies would not be

able to provide law enforcement with certain sensitive data as they would be prohibited

from retaining it in the first place. Finally, individuals would be entitled to request to

delete data that may implicate them in abortion-related prosecutions, as for instance,

information about abortion medication that was legally obtained in a jurisdiction that

does not criminalize the procedure. In opposing this legislation, the Chamber undercut

the implementation of additional protections that would have strengthened the privacy of

persons seeking abortions, including through the use of Pfizer’s own products.

The specificity of the current proposal on the controversial topic of reproductive

health -

as it affects the company’s own customers

, in particular, is neglected by the

company’s purported congruency analysis. The Chamber publicly opposed the bipartisan

American Data Privacy and Protection Act (“ADPPA”).

The ADPPA would support

reproductive rights by providing a nationwide comprehensive consumer privacy

framework that would protect personal data such as reproductive and sexual health

information.

Information protected under the Act includes: (1) any information that

describes or reveals the past, present, or future physical health, mental health, disability,

diagnosis, or healthcare condition or treatment of an individual; (2) biometric

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2022/07/01/abortion-contraception-pfizer-political-donations

See

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/09/bipartisan-privacy-proposal-is-unworkable-chamber-of-

commerce-says.html

;

Pfizer Proposal

Prompt to Clone This Pfizer Proposal

Apply this example's core structure, strategic pacing, and structural hierarchy directly to your own topic.

What are you generating today?