Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhy Are Democrats Taking Money From Wal-Mart?
Where does a politician, or a political party, draw the line in the willingness to sacrifice principles for a few bucks? When we talk about the need to "change" the political environment and the culture of money and politics, isn't there some place where you can say, "right here, this is the perfect example and we aren't going to let this go on anymore"? I would argue that the place to draw the line is the relationship between the Democratic Party and Wal-Mart. And the time to draw the line is now.
I outline the facts in a moment. But, the premise for the need to draw the line now is this: There may be no corporation in American today that has been a more persistent, regular violator of the law than Wal-Mart. There may be no corporation in America that has been as virulently anti-union as Wal-Mart, firing workers repeatedly for trying to organize. There may be no corporation in America that has attacked the rights of workers and undercut the living standards of Americans more than Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart has at least 80 class-action lawsuitsin 41 states pending against it.
Wal-Mart illegally denied full rest or meal breaks in violation of state wage and hour laws--a violation that may cost the company $2 billion.
Wal-Mart abuses women, and is the defendants in the biggest sex discrimination case in history.
Wal-Mart is a habitual tax-dodger.
Wal-Mart's heirs buy expensive paintings but won't give their workers decent health care.
Wal-Mart sued a disabled women, demanding she give back money she won in a settlement.
Wal-Mart exploits children in Mexico.
Wal-Mart lead a global corporate lobbying campaign to block a very modest improvement in Chinese labor laws--because Wal-Mart's business model depends on exploiting cheap labor, here and abroad.
And that's just a sample. Why would any political leader, who represents him or herself to be a defender of the working person, want to be affiliated with such a company?
The answer is clear: money. The Democratic Party is almost even with the Republican Party in the money it receives from Wal-Mart, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Center's data, published in an article in today's Wall Street Journal (I'll come back to that article in a moment), shows that 12 years ago, Wal-Mart's PAC gave 98 percent of its money to Republicans. In the current cycle, Democrats have received 48 percent of Wal-Mart's PAC expenditures.
Here is the list just for the 2008 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the House, the list is breath-taking in its scope:
Altmire, Jason (D-PA) $12,000
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $10,000
Baird, Brian (D-WA) $2,500
Barrow, John (D-GA) $10,000
Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $6,000
Berry, Marion (D-AR) $6,000
Bishop, Sanford D Jr (D-GA)$5,000
Boren, Dan (D-OK) $7,500
Boswell, Leonard L (D-IA)$5,000
Boucher, Rick (D-VA) $6,000
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $6,500
Butterfield, G K (D-NC) $3,500
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $2,500
Chandler, Ben (D-KY) $2,500
Christian-Green, Donna (D-VI) $1,000
Clarke, Yvette D (D-NY) $1,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $1,000
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $6,000
Cohen, Stephen Ira (D-TN)$2,000
Cooper, Jim (D-TN) $5,000
Cramer, Bud (D-AL) $2,500
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $7,000
Davis, Artur (D-AL) $7,500
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) $5,000
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $5,000
Edwards, Chet (D-TX) $10,000
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $12,500
Etheridge, Bob (D-NC) $2,000
Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX)$6,000
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) $5,000
Green, Gene (D-TX) $3,500
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $10,000
Hinojosa, Ruben (D-TX) $5,000
Holden, Tim (D-PA) $2,500
Hooley, Darlene (D-OR) $1,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $6,000
Jackson Lee, Sheila (D-TX) $2,500
Johnson, Hank (D-GA) $1,000
Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI)$4,000
Kind, Ron (D-WI) $7,000
Klein, Ron (D-FL) $10,000
Larsen, Rick (D-WA) $2,500
Larson, John B (D-CT) $3,500
Lewis, John (D-GA) $2,500
Lofgren, Zoe (D-CA) $2,000
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY)$1,000
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $5,000
McDermott, Jim (D-WA) $1,000
McIntyre, Mike (D-NC) $1,000
Meek, Kendrick B (D-FL) $7,500
Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) $7,500
Melancon, Charles J (D-LA)$6,500
Moore, Dennis (D-KS) $3,500
Moran, Jim (D-VA) $2,500
Neal, Richard E (D-MA) $2,000
Oberstar, James L (D-MN)$1,000
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $3,000
Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $5,000
Payne, Donald M (D-NJ) $1,000
Peterson, Collin C (D-MN)$5,500
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $5,000
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY)$5,500
Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) $5,500
Richardson, Laura (D-CA)$2,000
Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX)$10,000
Ross, Mike (D-AR) $5,000
Ruppersberger, Dutch (D-MD)$4,500
Salazar, John (D-CO) $7,000
Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $5,500
Scott, David (D-GA) $5,000
Scott, Robert C (D-VA) $2,000
Shuler, Heath (D-NC) $10,000
Sires, Albio (D-NJ) $2,000
Skelton, Ike (D-MO) $3,000
Snyder, Vic (D-AR) $2,000
Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC)$1,000
Tanner, John (D-TN) $9,000
Tauscher, Ellen (D-CA) $5,000
Taylor, Gene (D-MS) $5,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS)$7,500
Thompson, Mike (D-CA) $4,500
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH)$2,500
Towns, Edolphus (D-NY) $3,000
Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $3,500
Waxman, Henry A (D-CA) $2,500
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $5,000
Wynn, Albert R (D-MD) $5,000
In the Senate:
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $7,000
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $5,000
Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR) $2,000
McCaskill, Claire (D-MO)$5,000
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $3,000
Salazar, Ken (D-CO) $2,000
Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In November 2005, I asked why Democrats were doing Wal-Mart's bidding, including helping block an important piece of labor legislation. Two years later, as the 2006 election drew near, Wal-Mart put on a big push to woo Democratic lawmakers, in particular, African-American and Hispanic representatives.
In one sense, this was inevitable in the culture of Washington politics: money flows to power. And, since 2006, Democrats are an equal power in the political power landscape.
Here is why the line must be drawn now and why this trend is particularly worrisome. The Wall Street Journal article reveals the background in a piece about Wal-Mart's internal political drive to organize its managers to vote Republican in the coming election as a strategy to defeat the Employee Free Choice Act, the single-most important legislative priority for organized labor:
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.
In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.
And...
"The meeting leader said, 'I am not telling you how to vote, but if the Democrats win, this bill will pass and you won't have a vote on whether you want a union,'" said a Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri. "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.
And...
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has made defeat of the legislation a top priority. In the past six months, it has flown state and local Chamber members to Washington to lobby members of Congress. On Thursday, the Chamber began airing a television ad in Minnesota and plans to run ads in other states as part of a broader campaign.
The bill was crafted by labor as a response to more aggressive opposition by companies to union-organizing activity. The AFL-CIO and individual unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers have promised to make passage of the new labor law their No. 1 mission after the November election.
First introduced in 2003, the bill came to a vote last year and sailed through the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, but was blocked by a filibuster in the Senate and faced a veto threat by the White House. The bill was taken off the floor, and its backers pledged to reintroduce it when they could get more support.
The November election could bring that extra support in Congress, as well as the White House if Sen. Obama is elected and Democrats extend their control in the Senate. Sen. Obama co-sponsored the legislation, which also is known as "card check," and has said several times he would sign it into law if elected president. Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, opposes the Employee Free Choice Act and voted against it last year.
Putting aside the important point about whether Wal-Mart's internal political electioneering is illegal under federal election law, the far bigger issue is that Wal-Mart is making it quite clear that it will spare no effort to defeat EFCA. Wal-Mart and the business community believe that the passage of EFCA will allow millions of workers who want to be in a union to be able to exercise their rights without intimidation and fear of losing their jobs.
To cut to the chase, Wal-Mart's PAC spending is aimed at one thing: to make sure EFCA does not pass and, if it does pass, to make sure that the bill that reaches the president's desk will be weakened (which, by the way, is what happened to labor law reform in the 1970s). Let's look at the possible scenarios, assuming Barack Obama is president in 2009:
1. A 2008 election brings Democrats a large majority in the House and even 60 seats in the Senate. EFCA comes to the House floor and passes largely intact. EFCA arrives to the Senate and, lo and behold, one or more Democratic Senators block the bill, not to kill it but to exact changes that gut the effectiveness of EFCA.
2. A 2008 election brings Democrats a large majority in the House and even 60 seats in the Senate. EFCA comes to the House floor and a large number of Democrats from the list above introduce a series of amendments that seriously weaken EFCA.
3. A 2008 election keeps Democrats in control of the House and Senate with larger numbers. In both chambers, EFCA will face significant attempts to change its basic thrust.
I have always been a bit skeptical about using the large numbers of legislators who have signed as co-sponsors of EFCA as a barometer of the chances for the legislation to pass--and pass in a form that changes the playing field for union organizing from one grossly tilted towards employers to one that gives workers the real right to choose a union.
The Wal-Mart contribution list above remind me of that scene in "The Untouchables" where Eliot Ness, sure of the evidence against Al Capone, finds out that the entire jury has been bought of. Of course, the movie ends with a happy resolution but we aren't in Hollywood when it comes to EFCA.
So, what should be done:
1. The Change To Win Coalition and the AFL-CIO should jointly send a letter to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer (head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Chris Hollen (head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) demanding that party members return every dime to Wal-Mart.
2. Both Federations should also write to every member of Congress declaring that any Democrat receiving or keeping Wal-Mart money can kiss any labor donations or labor support good-bye.
3. Both Federations should, then, send a letter to every supposed Democratic campaign consultant and make it clear: you work for us OR you work for Wal-Mart. You can't do both.
Jonathan Tasini is Executive Director of the Labor Research Organization, which publishes WorkingLife.org.
39 Comments so far
Show AllWhile I rarely shop at Walmart, many people do - if you don't believe me, just drop by the place and check out the parking lots! Lots of dems shop at Walmart; it is only natural for Walmart of support political candidates of all stripes; that is how they can favor and clout; did you not know this?
As long as Walmart is doing business in a legal manner, then your complaints are not valid. If you know for sure that they are engaging in illegal activities, then you need to make these activities known to the local authorities. Stop all this hyperventilating about Walmart - they aren't going away anytime soon. Business is just too good, especially in this time of recession.
"If you can't take their money, drink their whiskey, screw their women, and vote against 'em anyway, you don't belong in the Legislature"
Not my quote, but...
Um... because they can?
But the real question is why are Dems so inexpensive?
Why hasn't anyone asked about why walmart gives money to the dems? Some have hinted about it, they give money to both parties because the parties are two sides of the same coin.
But why would walmart give money to the dems when in another article on CD, they warn their managers about the perils of the dems?
Strange mixed messages are being sent out, almost like none of them quite know what they're doing...
Freemason George Washington was Plantation Slave owner so now you have your Banking/Corporate Plantation slave system in your Nation & around the planet.
More than likely both of your political parties are controlled by the New World Order so as the one poster stated, Obama or McCain get more of the same.
Both parties wrote your election laws so no other political party could serious challenge their dictatorial stranglehold on holding the seats of your govt. They've convinced most people through their brainwashing methods that both parties are your govt, but in reality they just hold the seats to your govt.
Siouxrose,
as usual hits the correct nerve-ending. $2500 here, $1000 there, like sprinkling salt on an open, festering wound. And the total wouldn't buy a decent mansion in Beverly Hills.
Even a welfare fraud expert was able to do that!?!
:)
Now, we are talking seriously stupid people. :(
Am I the only one who noticed the low price/figures? I mean if that's all it takes to buy a soul these days, Wallmart's finesse at forcing the bottom line has done THEM well.
The answer is simple.
Demublicans are taking money
from Wal-Mart because they
are capitalist business agents;
not elected representatives of
a healthy democracy, who sincerely
care about and represent the citizens
of a healthy democracy.
Most sincerely, Dwayne Chandler.
George W. Bush WRONG!
Why are we giving our hard earned dollars back to the same Corpirate Media that bashes us?
Seems silly to me to support your enemy while he's attacking you.
They're a million better ways to spend the money.
Build an alternative independent system.
Media or otherwise.
Pull the plug on the FAUX media and their house of cards will crumble just like the Faux Newspapers did.
Who reads this sh-t?
Give back to the poor communities and supply the elderly and handicapped transportation to the polls.
Get out the vote.
Go around their corrupt system.
Withdraw our support from the Corpirates.
They're hatchet men.
PARROTS
Media Prostitutes
PROPAGANDISTS!
They steal our rights, lie, spy on us and we are going to give them money?
It is wrong!
George W. Bush WRONG!
Publicly funded elections is THE ONLY solution to this problem. No loopholes, no exceptions for Progressives or people we like. Nothing but taxpayer dollars every April 15th. For those ignoramuses who rail about Government of any kind or complain about bought politicians, here is your chance to end legalized bribery. With the disparity of wealth which is only getting worse (as planned by the Radical Right and the corporations), the wealthy power brokers will only buy more Presidents and Congresses at an accelerated rate.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/01/10744/
Bribery works. The congress doesn't.
Oh, just shut up you progressives and vote for the Democrats. You think too much. Did we tell you to think? No, we didn't.
Audacity of hope. Audacity of rope. Aucacity of dope. Alacrity of nope. Barackracy of soap.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Here's your fucking republic .... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
You can't make change if you don't sell out your principles. Don't you understand how the political process works? By the way, where's your campaign check?
Money is speech. Money is speech. And the Supreme Court said. so.
Is this the greatest plutocracy on earth? Be proud.
Bribes in representative government are unavoidable. The only solution is to change the representative system to a direct democracy by using the referendum.
why? because they are out to stab the idiots who vote Democratic in the back, that's why.
are the lights coming on yet? better get out in the streets people! sept. 1. st. paul, mn.
Obama criticized Hillary for once being a Wal Mart Board Member. Now his economic plan is being crafted by a former Wal Mart executive.
This alone disqualifies Obama from being any kind of leader for real change.
This one appointment reveals Obama's true pro corporate, blame it all on the worker mentality.
Those who vote for this faker will have a lot to explain for when he screws us over as he will definitely do.
I have learned that the dems are as good for my portfolio as the reps. I just have to re adjust things every few years to the new crop of a holes that come in - othr than that everthing is smooth sailing.
"Why Are Democrats Taking Money From Wal-Mart?"
uh....because they are crack ho's and they have no ethics?
The title of the article is very dumb. Any monkey with half a brain knows why democrats are taking money from wal mart and why wal mart has, in the past several years, began to send nearly 50% of the lobby money to dem candidates.
I know at least three CD progressive readers here in my hometown that shop at wla-mart. They always belly-ache about big bus. big corp. etc., but when we bump into each other in the dog supply aisle..... lets just say it makes for a weird moment.
I bet there are some folks in CD bloging right now that have been to Wal mart within the past 24 hours.
What ought to be done with them?
Why shouldn't Democrats take money from the same sources as the Republicans? As roughly half of the bicameral one-party system they're equally entitled to it.
please cross out:
Wynn, Albert R (D-MD) $5,000
we got rid of him, and replaced him with donna edwards, a progressive.
now, what to do about "mr. compromise", hoyer, in my district...
"Them thats got the gold, makes the rules."
Excellent! And seems to hold true inside the beltway for sure.
This is a Prime Example of the "Golden Rule".
"Them thats got the gold, makes the rules."
I have postulated in the past that if you are dealing with "Master Prostitutes" then you have to "Pay the Way", outbid the competition; or the real American way---get rid of the competition.
If the American people are fed up with the conditions in Washington, they are the only ones who can change it. Since they "pay the way", with their income taxes--the one's who pay one anyway---- they can either outbid the other "johns" or put better controls on the money, which will make the other "johns" go elsewhere. The only logical way to do that is to apportion the income tax.
As this may seem that this is the simplest answer and therefore NOT worth considering, remember that each state, in order to comply with he US Constitution is required to apportion taxes. It seems then that it is the Federal Government that holds itself above the requirement of the Constitution that all taxes be an Apportioned Tax --------
As soon as the American people begin to move to make this a reality, the politicians will stop being prostitutes, and the corruption will need to seek other avenues.
Thanks for your time....
Restore the estate tax to where it was 30 years ago, and take almost all the Walton's money, when they die.
Thomas More: "Excuse me, isd there anyone that is not taking money from Walmart?"
Yes, the usual suspects, the Greens, Nader etc. Too bad, they could have used the walmart money to buy multimillion dollar ad campaigns to publicize the fact.
The Titanic must be fully submerged before all delusions of its invincibility are finally drowned.
Excuse me, isd there anyone that is not taking money from Walmart?
My senator:
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $7,000
Who knows why he's a Democrat?!!
Oh how I hope he loses.
More importantly, why are Democrats shopping at WalMart?
It's simple. They're keeping them off guard until it's time to go in for the kill. Seriously, though; two reasons. Bill Clinton made it somehow okay to take money from greedy capitalists who can give the appearance of being benign(like Sam Walton, Greedy Bastards Rotting In Hell Club). The second reason spring from right wing sophistry (translation: Bullshit): Wherein the donee serves warning on the donor by A) refusing the blood money, or B) sending it back, like John McCain just did with the Ted Stevens PAC money. And raising hell about it (Like we are today) may trigger that response. Don't we feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
I'd say we could start a movement that actually matters - IF - they counted out votes.
But of course they don't.
Some question! -- "Why are Democrats Taking Money from Walmart's?"
This is like asking why Al Capone took money from his underlings. ... BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS A MOUTHPIECE FOR CORPORATE INTERESTS!!!!!!!!
Sorry I can't find it in the archives, but a few weeks ago I read at this very commondreams.org site a report that Obama has selected as his top economic advisor some whiz-bang who praises the Wal-Mart's business model as "good for America." In other words, an economic advisor who just *loves* Wal-mart's.
The Democrats and the Republicans are two wings of one party -- The Business Party. It's a political duopoly.
The left wing of the Democratic Party is there to create the illusion that the Democratic Party is something essentially different than the Republican Party. It isn't.
The Democratic Party serves the interests of the economic elite by acting as a "safety valve" in times of political turmoil (such as now). When things begin to rumble and boil up on the left, the Democratic Party purports to represent the interests of those who are rumbling, that is to say, they purport to represewnt the interests of broad-based grassroots progressive movements.
They tell the public that there is no alternative to the Democratic-Republican duopoly, co-opt the passion and fervor of the broad-based, democratic-inspired movement, dilute it and, eventually betray it.
So why should it surprise anyone that the Democrats are taking money from Wal-Mart's? Hillary is in bed with Wal-Mart's. Obama is in bed with Wal-Mart's. The Republicans are in bed with Wal-Mart's. ... And why not? ... Corporatists of a feather flock together.
Here's something to think about, that I'd really like someone to offer their opinion on. ...
Let's say Nader got 5% of the vote in 2000. (Not an unreasonable possibility.) And then, say, he got 7% to 8% in 2004 -- and then, say, 10% to 12% this year.
Let's just say ...
And McCain won this year. Would you rather have McCain in the White House in 2008, but with a viabbe third party movement garnering 10% to 12% of the national vote -- in other words, a progressive force that the political establishment would HAVE to deal with ... or Obama in the White House, continuing to move the political consensus to the right?
I see Obama is missing from Wal-Mart contributions list, but I guess he didn't need to get direct handouts from them since he got so much indirectly through his wife:
"... And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart ...
According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals. She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company."
I know, old news, but it's relevant.
I wonder wxactly what Mrs. Obama did on that Treehouse board.
Great piece, but could use a little editing. Tasini is past president of the National Writers Union/UAW. :-]
It would be interesting to note how many of the bought legislators on the list belong to the right-wing, corporate-financed Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
While they do not show a full DLC list on their website, DLC-owned senators include Ken Salazar, Jim Webb, Charles Schumer, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, Sheldon Whitehouse and "DLC Leader" Hillary Clinton (who will be delivering the keynote speech at the Dem convention).
Reps owned and operated by the DLC include Democratic and DLC leader Rahm Emmanuel, Harold Ford Jr., Jennifer Mann, Adam Schiff, Gregory Meeks, Jim Cooper and Joe Crowley.
Here is the complete list from 2005: http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=110&contentid=253190
I would be surprised if either the AFL-CIO or CTW do what Tasini says should be done (even though it's exactly correct).
The writer is implying that somehow democrats have some sorta
Its America. Its the America that was built and maintained by the "two" parties.
Vote for Obama or McCain and get more of the same.
Z-zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Constituents pay tribute to their royals. The same hoods who've mismanaged and laid waste to our great nation are busy funding Barack's selection. It's worth repeating that there is no difference between D and R, they are both bought and sold.
My senator:
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $5,000
is a D by birth not by action.
Oh how I hope she loses.
Why Are Democrats Taking Money From Wal-Mart? Ask the corporatist DLC. Basically in order for the Democrats to collect money for their campaigns they must winnow their message away from their base constituents. i.e. Money still trumps message.