A new study on whether the nation's 100 largest publicly traded companies are adequately disclosing their political spending gives high marks to several energy companies.

Others don't fare so well.

The nonprofit Center for Public Accountability and the University of Pennsylvania's Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research conducted the study published Friday.

SPECIAL REPORT

Who's lobbying to influence energy and climate legislation in the 112th Congress? E&E examines the players and the money being spent on energy and environmental policy. Click here to view the report.

"This is the first time we've really taken a look at what companies were doing, and that's why we were pleasantly surprised," said CPA President Bruce Freed in a telephone interview.

The survey reviewed whether corporations disclose: contributions made to candidates and political committees; independent expenditures, such as an ad calling for the express election or defeat of a candidate; payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups used for political activity; contributions related to ballot measures; the titles of managers who make political spending decisions; and whether those companies archive records of their political spending or trade association spending.

CPA said the survey is the first of its kind since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010, which ruled that corporations have a free speech right to spend unlimited amounts of money on television and radio ads in support of candidates.

Freed touted the study's finding that more than half of the 100 companies report their direct political spending -- support of candidates or campaigns -- on their websites, and have adopted standards about how they will fund political activities.

Additionally, two of those companies, Colgate-Palmolive and IBM, prohibit any political spending, the report states.

Fourty-three of the companies reported information about their indirect spending -- political spending made via donations to trade associations or 501(c)4 groups -- and 17 of those corporations provide only limited information.

"These are the influential companies, and when you have that many doing it, it's moving toward becoming a corporate governance standard," Freed said. "It means that you go to companies and you can say to them, 'Look a preponderance of companies are doing it. You're not doing it, that means you're an outlier.'"

Utilizing a 100-point scale, the survey ranks companies into four tiers based on how much information each discloses.

Colgate-Palmolive ranked a perfect 100-point score, as did drugmaker Merck & Co., and Chicago-based Exelon Corp., a power generation company.

"Exelon is gratified to have received a perfect score in the recent study of companies' political spending disclosure and management," said Exelon spokesman Paul Elsberg. "Exelon intends to be a leader in corporate governance, social responsibility and corporate citizenship, and disclosure of political spending enhances our reputation for good governance and transparency."

Also among the 16 companies that ranked in the top tier are Houston-based National Oilwell Varco and Washington-based Weyerhaeuser, which scored 78 and 76 points, respectively.

In the second tier, oilfield services provider Schlumberger scored 72 points, both ConocoPhillips and General Electric Co. scored 64 points, and Dow Chemical, DuPont, E.I. de Nemour, Entergy Corp and the Williams Cos. Inc. each scored 56 points.

At the bottom of the scale are three energy companies: Devon Energy Corp., Haliburton Co. and Baker Hughes Inc., all of which scored a zero. Occidental Petroleum received 8 points.

"All of this is important because it shows companies are weighing much more seriously the risk that political spending poses to them and how do we manage this risk," Freed said.

And Freed said the risks include more than the possibility of public backlash when a corporation takes a potentially unpopular stance -- such as Target did in 2010 when it donated $150,000 to a Minnesota pro-business group in support of a gubernatorial candidate who had backed a constitutional amendment barring civil unions.

"Companies don't want the arm put on them for contributions and put on them in a way where they really feel that they are being pressured," Freed said.