The Poshmark NOligarchy Profile
T
R
U
S
T
E
D
Poshmark earns a NOligarchy Score of 89.32 out of 100 — a high mark driven largely by an absence of matched public-record data across the sources this project tracks, from Q3 2024 through Q2 2026 (8 quarters — the two-year tracking period). The insufficient-data flag on this profile means the score reflects what has and has not yet been linked to Poshmark in available public filings, not a confirmed finding of clean conduct.
Current Pillar Scores
Political Access
100.0
Wealth Extraction
69.2
Playing by the Rules
100.0
Score history — 23 quarters
Tier bands show where each quarter's score falls — no numeric y-axis needed. The dashed ring marks the year-over-year comparison point. Tap any quarter but the first to see its pillar breakdown.
•
Political Access Grade: 100/100. No federal lobbying filings, Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions, or executive donation records have been matched to Poshmark in the tracked sources during this period.
•
Wealth Extraction Grade: 69.48/100. No stock buyback or dividend data is recorded. The score reflects an estimated CEO-to-worker pay gap benchmarked against industry peers — a figure that cannot be verified from any Poshmark-specific public filing.
•
Playing by the Rules Grade: 100/100. No regulatory fines, violations, or public subsidy records have been matched to Poshmark across the tracked sources.
Poshmark ranks 4th out of 23 companies in the Clothing and Clothing Accessories Retailers sector. Its score of 89.32 sits above the sector average of 69.7 — but given the data coverage limitations noted throughout this profile, that gap should be read with caution rather than as a confirmed accountability achievement.
The Bottom Line: Matched Records Are Not Yet Available for This Company
Across every source this project tracks — federal lobbying filings, PAC disclosures, executive donations, CEO pay reports, stock buyback records, regulatory fines, and public subsidy grants — no data has been matched to Poshmark for the period from Q3 2024 through Q2 2026. That absence may mean Poshmark genuinely spent nothing, received nothing, and violated nothing during this span. It may equally mean that matching records exist under a parent entity, a different filing name, or a source not yet indexed here. The current state of available public records does not allow a conclusion either way. Poshmark’s revenue in its last publicly audited fiscal year reached $326 million — a company of that scale, operating in a sector with significant exposure to labor, data privacy, and cross-border commerce regulation, would ordinarily generate some footprint across these databases. The fact that none has surfaced is the most important thing this profile can currently report.
Not Yet Matched to Federal Political Filings
No federal lobbying filings have been matched to Poshmark in the Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA) database, and no PAC or executive-level individual contribution records appear under the company’s name in Federal Election Commission (FEC) data during this period. That may reflect genuine non-participation in federal political spending, or it may reflect that filings exist under Naver — the South Korean technology company that acquired Poshmark in January 2023 — or under another related entity not yet linked here.
EXHIBIT — THE RESERVED SEAT
$0 in lobbying · $0 in PAC money
Poshmark filed no federal lobbying and ran no corporate PAC in this window — the reserved seat at the witness table sits empty.
What is clear is that Poshmark’s sector peers include some of the more active lobbying operations in U.S. retail — companies that deploy former congressional staffers and agency officials to shape tax rules, labor law, data privacy standards, and customs treatment. Issues like sales tax collection on resale marketplaces, cross-border shipping regulations, and consumer data frameworks directly touch Poshmark’s business model. Whether the company has chosen to engage those debates through its parent or through channels not captured in these filings is not determinable from the current public record.
Pay Data Not Matched to Public Filings
No stock buybacks and no dividends are recorded for Poshmark during the two-year period, so no calculation can be made about what those funds could have delivered to workers — because no such funds have been matched in the data.
The pay gap between Poshmark’s top executive and its average worker is also not publicly disclosed. As a foreign-owned, privately held entity following the Naver acquisition, Poshmark is not required to file the CEO pay ratio disclosure that publicly traded U.S. companies must include in proxy statements. The best available stand-in comes from AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch industry benchmarks for comparable companies in this sector: 115:1, based on AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch industry benchmarks for comparable companies in this sector. That is a sector-wide estimate, not a Poshmark-specific disclosure — whether the company’s internal ratio sits above or below that benchmark is not determinable from any public filing, and that invisibility is itself the accountability gap.
Enforcement Records Not Yet Matched
No regulatory fines, documented violations, or public subsidy grants have been matched to Poshmark in the tracked sources during the period from Q3 2024 through Q2 2026. The Good Jobs First enforcement database, which aggregates penalty records from federal agencies and state regulators, shows no entries linked to the company during this span.
As with the political spending record, this absence cuts both ways. Poshmark operates a platform processing transactions between millions of individual buyers and sellers — an environment that has generated consumer protection actions, data-related settlements, and labor enforcement findings against other companies in this sector. The current state of publicly matched records shows nothing, but private settlements, arbitration outcomes, actions filed under a parent entity, and records not yet indexed here remain outside what this profile can report.