“Why shouldn’t we be chilled by this?” a federal judge remarked about President Trump’s imposing extraordinary penalties upon the Perkins Coie law firm. The firm represented Trump rival Hillary Clinton in 2016 and is now suing to challenge the president’s executive order.  Meanwhile, the firms of Paul Weiss and Skadden Arps have agreed to $40 million and $100 million respectively in pro bono work favorable to Trump causes in a deal for his dropping a similar order against them. In agreeing to the deal, Paul Weiss’s chairman and Skadden’s executive partner indicated they worried clients would be scared away for fear of  becoming White House targets. Since then, several other major law firms have followed suit.

When retribution from the Oval Office threatens the nation’s legal system, there is cause for worry in C-Suites across America. It is in companies’ self-interest to seek stability, predictability, and the rule of law, to compete and thrive. Dizzying executive orders, stop-and-start tariffs, stock market turbulence and unprecedented assaults such as the law firm orders instead create a climate of reeling uncertainty and risk.

Is there a way for business leaders to help protect their companies? We believe that by developing long-term frameworks for deciding whether, when, and how to spend millions of dollars to influence elections, companies can make a consequential difference in reducing the risks they face and demonstrate they are responsible corporate citizens.

If companies exert this leadership, they can install guardrails. Ours is a modest proposal; it will not suspend wholesale upheaval from Washington, but it will help companies cushion themselves against manageable harm in today’s dramatically changed political environment.

By their nature, companies are risk-averse, but not necessarily in writing checks to affect elections for national, state, and judicial posts across the country. They may say they’re simply seeking a seat at the policy-making table. But political spending is a kind of speech, and it can associate a company with elected officials and policies that conflict with a company’s public commitments or the beliefs of its shareholders, workers and consumers. It can bring political retaliation. It can associate a company with assaults on American democracy.

If a company has no, or loose, policies for its political spending, decisions may be made on an ad hoc basis. This is a formula for enterprise risk. A safer and smarter path forward is to follow a corporate code of conduct, a strategic framework for political spending. It can lead companies to know and publicly disclose where their contributions ultimately end up. In making political spending decisions, companies would consider societal interests and democracy that affect the broader business environment as well as getting a seat at the table.

Shareholders overwhelmingly support this idea, with 87 percent of retail shareholders surveyed by Mason-Dixon Polling & Strategy saying they believe corporations should be required to have a code of conduct to assess and govern their political spending. With more and more companies facing consumer boycotts – think Target, Amazon, and Walmart facing blowback over rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) measures – it’s not surprising that shareholders are wary.

Following a strong code of conduct builds upon a big corporate governance change by leading U.S. companies: In recent years they’ve made disclosure and accountability of their political spending a mainstream norm. Top S&P 500 companies now strive to earn the best scores for transparency and accountability in an annual scorecard from the nonprofit that one of us heads. This disclosure and board oversight must be a central principle in a broader code of corporate conduct.

Moreover, taking voluntary action like this is a workable step, not a giant leap. The chemical industry (where one of us worked in Washington), for example, subscribes to a “Responsible Care” initiative for safe handling of products and to involve the public in its decision-making processes.

A new governing era demands strategic responses by companies. They want to stay out of the crosshairs of political or cultural conflict. They want stability, predictability and the rule of law in which to compete and prosper. This change isn’t coming from Washington.

It’s up to companies to protect themselves from risk. With a long view and a robust framework for donating political dollars, they can navigate the political landscape, endeavor to protect their reputations, meet stakeholder expectations, and uphold their own values and democratic principles too.

This post comes to us from Bruce Freed, president of the Center for Political Accountability, and Peter Molinaro, former vice president for North American Government Affairs at Dow, Inc.