Whereas: Corporate political contributions have become an increased risk since the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allowed for greater corporate political expenditures involving “electioneering communications”;

Shareholders believe PayPal should minimize reputational risk regarding corporate and PayPal PAC political contributions;

PayPal’s website and Global Impact Report indicate that mitigating climate impact, inclusion and nondiscrimination, and privacy are priorities for our Company, yet our political action committee  has made contributions that may undermine those stated policies, values, and goals;

The League of Conservation Voters’ National Environmental Scorecard “provides objective, factual information about the most important environmental legislation considered and the corresponding voting records of all members of the second session of the 115th Congress.”  Despite PayPal’s stance on “recogniz[ing] it’s our responsibility to manage our environmental impact and act on global climate change,” the average score on the National Environmental Scorecard for PayPal PAC’s 2017-2019 funds recipients was 36% (out of 100%), with 30 recipients scoring below 20%;

The Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Congressional Scorecard ranks members of Congress on a 0-100 scale in terms of alignment with positions of supporting equality.  Of PayPal PAC’s contributions from 2017-2019, over 38% of the funds went to candidates that HRC rated a score of 0-49, indicating a low alignment with HRC’s positions on issues that would support or better encourage equality.  Numerous contributions went to members of Congress that were scored a 0 by HRC;

In the same timeframe, our PAC contributed to at least 9 members of Congress that either supported a piece of legislation that would overturn federal privacy protection rules related to the sharing of sensitive customer data or supported a bill that a critic said “jeopardizes Americans’ privacy [and] threatens human rights…”;

Shareholders recognize that conflicting issues may exist in the decision-making process of which political candidates to support. However, due to risks to shareholder value that may come from political missteps, shareholders seek the opportunity to weigh in on political contributions.

RESOLVED: Shareholders rebuke the Board of Directors at PayPal Holdings, Inc. for failing to have in place adequate measures to ensure that political contributions made by the Company or its PAC are in line with PayPal’s stated values and goals.

Supporting Statement:  “Expenditures for electioneering communications” means spending 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.  Such contributions may include financial support to political candidates, elected politicians, or 527 organizations.