For Immediate Release

Boston, MA – October 6, 2011. Citing concerns about the risks to Procter & Gamble’s brand, reputation, and shareholder value, NorthStar Asset Management Pension Plan is asking shareholders to weigh in on P&G political spending at the annual meeting on October 11.

Procter & Gamble, based in Cincinnati, has given $710,905 over the last 2 1⁄2 years to support political candidates and causes through The Procter & Gamble Good Government Fund, (P&G GGF), the corporation’s political action committee (PAC)[1]. According to the company website, “Guided by our Purpose, Values and Principles, P&G participates in the political process to help shape public policy and legislation that has a direct impact on the Company. This engagement ensures that the interests of our employees, consumers and shareholders are fairly represented at all levels of government around the world.”[2] P&G provides a broad range of protections for employees including protections for individuals on the basis of “…sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, marital status…or any other legally protected factor.”[3]

In light of diminished shareholder value and negative publicity surrounding the 2010 donation of $150,000 to Minnesota Forward by Target Corporation, a company with similar employee protections, NorthStar Asset Management of Boston carefully examined the political contributions of Procter & Gamble. “We are concerned that political spending of any kind connected to company name will come under increasing scrutiny. We believe that stated company values must be reflected in political spending decisions, or diminished shareholder value could result,” said Julie Goodridge, CEO of NorthStar.

NorthStar analysts examined the P&G’s PAC contributions for incongruence with P&G stated company values. “We focused on P&G protections for their GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] employees. We found that since 1997, when data was first publically reported, and through 2011,[4] P&G PAC contributions were incongruent with these protections,” said Goodridge.

According to records on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) website, P&G’s PAC has donated at least $201,500 (about 40% of the PAC’s political contributions) just since 2009[5] to federal officials opposed to hate crime protection, opposed to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and to senators sponsoring the “Marriage Protection Amendment,” which would eliminate same- sex marriage in all states. P&G’s PAC contributions since 2009 include $5,000 to David Vitter, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment,[6] $12,500 to Rob Portman, whose views opposing gay adoption and same-sex marriage caused more than 100 University of Michigan law graduates to walk out of his commencement speech in May this year,[7] and $6,000 to Geoffrey Davis, a Representative rated 0% by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) for voting “no” on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation and his complete opposition to GLBT rights.[8] Ohio Congressman, Steve Chabot, has received 22 direct contributions from P&G’s PAC since 1998. Chabot supports an amendment to the U.S. Constitution which would ban and prevent same-sex marriage, supports banning gay adoptions, and voted to continue job discrimination based on sexual orientation.[9]

“The voting record of 40% of the officials supported by P&G’s PAC is in direct violation of the P&G commitment to non-discrimination. We are concerned that this inconsistency with stated company values will cause harm to shareholders. As fiduciaries, we don’t think that putting company values aside when engaging in political giving is in the best interest of shareholders, which is precisely why we have asked for shareholder input on this issue,” said Goodridge. In response to the NorthStar resolution which will be voted on by shareholders on Tuesday, P&G states that “company policy is to not use corporate funds to influence federal and state elections for office, including political contributions to trade associations for that purpose.” P&G does not comment on its PAC contributions.

The Federal Election Commission has very specific rules regarding corporate political contributions and expenditures. The Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits corporations from using their general treasury funds to make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections. However, the Commission does permit companies to set up political committees [PACs], which may make contributions to and expenditures on behalf of federal candidates.[10]

Since the Citizens United decision, companies have come under increasing pressure to disclose their political spending.[11] In a recent New York Times article, companies like Facebook and Google are turning to the formation of PACs in an effort to engage in electioneering contributions.[12]

“We believe that political contributions from corporate funds or a corporate PAC which are incongruent with stated company values can call into question a company’s brand and reputation. We do not want to see our shares of P&G drop precipitously because management has violated the trust of employees and consumers by supporting candidates or causes that work at cross purposes. The last thing shareholders need is a boycott and demonstrations,” Goodridge said.

NorthStar Asset Management, Inc., based in Boston, is a wealth management company with a focus on socially responsible investing.

Contact:

Julie Goodridge, NorthStar Asset Management, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts

617-522-2635

jgoodridge@northstarasset.com

Footnotes:

[1] Federal Election Committee data, 2009-July 2011

[2] “Our Political Involvement” Procter & Gamble website

[3] P&G Nondiscrimination Policy

[4] Federal Election Committee

[5] 41.46% of $486,000 in P&G’s “PAC Contributions To Other Committees” disclosed in detail on the fec.gov website in compliance with federal law, which is a partial listing of the $710,905 in the PAC’s total contributions since 2009.

[6] please see: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cancomsrs/?_10+C0006869 and http://query.nictusa.com/cgi- bin/cancomsrs/?_12+C00068692 for citation

[7] “ANN ARBOR: 100-plus University of Michigan law graduates walk out of Ohio Senator Rob Portman’s speech at Senior Day” Ann Arbor Journal. 8 May 2011

[8] On the Issues

[9] Steve Chabot on Vote Match.

[10] “CFR-2011-title11-vol1.pdf.” The FEC and Federal Campaign Finance Law

[11] “Accountability after Citizens United: The Role of the Federal Election Commission” April 29, 2011; “Much Corporate Spending Remains Hidden” LA Times. 23 April 2011

[12] “In Turn to Politics, Facebook Starts a PAC.” 26 September 2011