Coca-Cola
Coke has stated in op-eds and at a shareholders meeting that sponsors shouldn’t push a political agenda. In a rebuttal to the activist group Dream for Darfur, the company stated, “To criticize those who are helping thousands every day is more than ironic.”

General Electric
“The role of a sponsor isn’t to take up cause X, Y, and Z,” a G.E. representative says. “We commend Dream for Darfur for raising awareness of this tragic situation,” the rep told the New York Times, “but we strongly disagree with the organization’s approach.”

Johnson & Johnson
J&J defends itself against criticism: “Given the complexities of the tragedy,” a company spokesperson notes, “we are disappointed that Dream for Darfur has used such a narrow context by which to evaluate the company’s response.”

Kodak
Because Kodak is shifting to a business-to-business model, this is its last Olympic sponsorship. In February, Kodak sent letters to the U.N. and the International Olympic Committee demanding that they apply their influence to end the genocide in Darfur

McDonald’s
McDonald’s feels it deserves a break today. Its upbeat statement to the media about athletic glory includes this catchall disclaimer: “Concerning political issues, these need to be resolved by governments and international bodies such as the United Nations.”

Visa
In a statement issued to the media, Visa says it seeks “urgent resolution” of issues surrounding the Games. “Our hope...is that the Summer Games in Beijing will provide a means for increasing dialogue around a range of issues—certainly including human rights.”