May, 13 2010, 11:10am EDT
Starbucks, Note: Most in Poll, Particularly Women, Don't Want Guns in Stores
A solid majority of Americans favor Starbucks and other retail
establishments establishing strict "no guns" policies for their retail
premises. The numbers are dramatically more pronounced among women who
say the current policy allowing guns makes them fear for their safety.
This data comes from a new poll conducted for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
WASHINGTON
A solid majority of Americans favor Starbucks and other retail
establishments establishing strict "no guns" policies for their retail
premises. The numbers are dramatically more pronounced among women who
say the current policy allowing guns makes them fear for their safety.
This data comes from a new poll conducted for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Details of the Starbucks related polling were released today in Seattle in partnership with Washington Ceasefire.
"Retailers - especially Starbucks - who allow guns in stores risk losing business," said Celinda Lake, President of Lake Research Partners, which conducted the national poll of 600 registered voters April 26-28.
Fifty-six
percent of those polled want Starbucks to adopt a "no guns" policy on
their premises while only 31 percent opposed such a policy. Of those
who support a "no guns" policy, 42 percent were strongly in favor.
Among
women, the results of the poll should be viewed as alarming for
Starbucks. Sixty-three percent of women favor Starbucks adopting a "no
guns" policy for their premises, including 69 percent of Democratic
women and 60 percent of rural women.
A full 47 percent of
women - and 57 percent of women who identify themselves as Democrats,
54 percent of older women and 52 percent of women of color - said they
were less likely to go to Starbucks because of the policy. About a
third of women (32 percent) said they were "much less likely" to go to
Starbucks because of the policy.
Among those polled, 37
percent are less likely to go to a Starbucks because of the chain's
current policy allowing the open carry of firearms, with only 15
percent more likely to go to Starbucks. Forty-six percent of
respondents said it would make no difference - but this includes people
who don't go to Starbucks, or don't even drink coffee.
"When
it comes to guns in its stores, Starbucks needs to wake up and smell
the coffee," said Dennis Henigan, Vice President for Law and Policy at
the Brady Center. "The public does not support the company's policy of
allowing guns in its stores and the feeling is especially strong among
women. When a third of women say that its gun-friendly policy makes
them 'much less likely' to visit Starbucks, the company is risking the
loss of a huge part of its market."
"These numbers validate
our original thinking that Starbucks' failure to stand up to the gun
groups is bad for business," said Ralph Fascitelli, President of the
Board of Washington Ceasefire. "Their timid response on this issue has
been disappointing to say the least."
Even gun owners support
a "no guns" policy for Starbucks. Forty-eight percent of gun owners
want Starbucks to prohibit guns, while 37 percent oppose such a
policy. Urban respondents favor a no guns policy by 27 points,
suburban respondents by 30 points, and even rural residents prefer it
by 18 points.
The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus four percent. Among the findings:
*
Republicans favor Starbucks barring guns 50-37; political independents
want a "no guns" policy at Starbucks 55-30; men favor a "no guns"
policy 48-34; rural residents favor "no guns" 52-33 and non-college
graduates favor a "no guns" policy at Starbucks 56-30.
* Fully
49 percent of non-gun owners and 47 percent of older Americans say they
are less likely to go to Starbucks because of the policy allowing guns.
And 65 percent of people who don't own a gun want Starbucks to change
its policy.
Yesterday, the Brady Center released additional information from the poll,
showing that more Americans feel unsafe knowing people can carry guns
openly in public than feel safer - and a third feel much less safe with
that knowledge. Half of those polled said that the open carrying of
guns in public make them feel less safe, with 31 percent saying they
feel much less safe. And 63 percent of women say open carry make them
feel less safe.
Paul Helmke, the Brady President, is
scheduled to speak to news media in Charlotte, North Carolina tomorrow
(Friday, May 14), the site of the National Rifle Association annual
meeting featuring speakers including Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.
The time and location of that press briefing will be announced
separately.
A broader set of the polling data is available at www.BradyCenter.org, and more will be added to the website Friday after the Charlotte, N.C. press briefing.
The
controversy about the open carrying of firearms began early this year
when groups of gun activists began gathering at coffee houses and
restaurants - primarily in California, and including Starbucks
locations - with openly visible guns strapped to their hips. While
some retail chains, including California Pizza Kitchen and Peet's
Coffee and Tea, responded by announcing firm "no guns" policies,
Starbucks officials said they would allow guns in the company's stores.
The Brady Campaign launched a petition online in February, in partnership with CREDO Action,
asking Americans to urge Starbucks to bar guns from its stores. So far
nearly 36,000 have signed. The Brady Campaign has also posted videos
related to the Starbucks issue on its YouTube page. View them at www.youtube.com/bradycampaign#p/a/u/0/aStG6cWyF2Y.
More information about "open carry," including which states allow it, is at www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/gunlobbybacked/opencarryguns.
Brady United formerly known as The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its legislative and grassroots affiliate, the Brady Campaign and its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence. We are devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Pick to Replace Lina Khan Vowed to End 'War on Mergers'
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said one antitrust attorney.
Dec 11, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Federal Trade Commission vowed in his job pitch to end current chair Lina Khan's "war on mergers," a signal to an eager corporate America that the incoming administration intends to be far more lax on antitrust enforcement.
Andrew Ferguson was initially nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as a Republican commissioner on the bipartisan FTC, and his elevation to chair of the commission will not require Senate confirmation.
In a one-page document obtained by Punchbowl, Ferguson—who previously worked as chief counsel to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)—pitched himself to Trump's team as the "pro-innovation choice" with "impeccable legal credentials" and "proven loyalty" to the president-elect.
Ferguson's top agenda priority, according to the document, is to "reverse Lina Khan's anti-business agenda" by rolling back "burdensome regulations," stopping her "war on mergers," halting the agency's "attempt to become an AI regulator," and ditching "novel and legally dubious consumer protection cases."
Trump announced Ferguson as the incoming administration's FTC chair as judges in Oregon and Washington state
blocked the proposed merger of Kroger and Albertsons, decisions that one antitrust advocate called a "fantastic culmination of the FTC's work to protect consumers and workers."
According to a recent
report by the American Economic Liberties Project, the Biden administration "brought to trial four times as many billion-dollar merger challenges as Trump-Pence or Obama-Biden enforcers did," thanks to "strong leaders at the FTC" and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division.
In a letter to Ferguson following Trump's announcement on Tuesday, FTC Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter wrote that the document obtained and published by Punchbowl "raises questions" about his priorities at the agency mainly "because of what is not in it."
"Americans pay more for healthcare than anyone else in the developed world, yet they die younger," they wrote. "Medical bills bankrupt people. In fact, this is the main reason Americans go bankrupt. But the document does not mention the cost of healthcare or prescription medicine."
"If there was one takeaway from the election, it was that groceries are too expensive. So is gas," the commissioners continued. "Yet the document does not mention groceries, gas, or the cost of living. While you have said we're entering the 'most pro-worker administration in history,' the document does not mention labor, either. Americans are losing billions of dollars to fraud. Fraudsters are so brazen that they impersonate sitting FTC commissioners to steal money from retirees. The word 'fraud' does not appear in the document."
"The document does propose allowing more mergers, firing civil servants, and fighting something called 'the trans agenda,'" they added. "Is all of that more important than the cost of healthcare and groceries and gasoline? Or fighting fraud?"
As an FTC commissioner, Ferguson voted against rules banning anti-worker noncompete agreements and making it easier for consumers to cancel subscriptions. Ferguson was also the only FTC member to oppose an expansion of a rule to protect consumers from tech support scams that disproportionately impact older Americans.
"Andrew Ferguson is a corporate shill who opposes banning noncompetes, opposes banning junk fees, and opposes enforcing the Anti-Merger Act," said Basel Musharbash, principal attorney at Antimonopoly Counsel. "Appointing him to chair the FTC is an affront to the antitrust laws and a gift to the oligarchs and monopolies bleeding this country dry."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Once Again, Tom Cotton Blocks Bill to Shield Journalists From Betraying Sources
Responding to the GOP senator's latest thwarting of the PRESS Act, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden vowed to "keep trying to get this bill across the finish line" before Republicans take control of the Senate next month.
Dec 10, 2024
Republican U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas on Tuesday again blocked the passage of House-approved bipartisan legislation meant to shield journalists and telecommunications companies from being compelled to disclose sources and other information to federal authorities.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) brought the Protect Reporters from Exploitative State Spying (PRESS) Act—which would prohibit the federal government from forcing journalists and telecom companies to disclose certain information, with exceptions for terroristic or violent threats—for a unanimous consent vote.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued Tuesday that passing the PRESS Act is "more important now than ever before when we've heard some in the previous administration talk about going after the press in one way or another," a reference to Republican President-elect Donald Trump's threats to jail journalists who refuse to reveal the sources of leaks. Trump, who has referred to the press as the "enemy of the people," repeatedly urged Senate Republicans to "kill this bill."
Cotton, who blocked a vote on the legislation in December 2022, again objected to the bill, a move that thwarted its speedy passage. The Republican called the legislation a "threat to national security" and "the biggest giveaway to the liberal press in American history."
The advocacy group Defending Rights and Dissent lamented that "Congress has abdicated their responsibility to take substantive steps to protect the constitutional right to a free press."
However, Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, noted ways in which Senate Democrats can still pass the PRESS Act before Republicans gain control of the upper chamber next month:
Senate Democrats had all year to move this bipartisan bill and now time is running out. Leader Schumer needs to get the PRESS Act into law—whether by attaching it to a year-end legislative package or bringing it to the floor on its own—even if it means shortening lawmakers' holiday break. Hopefully, today was a preview of more meaningful action to come.
Responding to Tuesday's setback, Wyden vowed, "I'm not taking my foot off the gas."
"I'll keep trying to get this bill across the finish line to write much-needed protections for journalists and their sources into black letter law," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judges Block Kroger-Albertsons Merger in 'Win for Farmers, Workers, and Consumers'
"We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement," said one advocate.
Dec 10, 2024
Antitrust advocates on Tuesday welcomed a pair of court rulings against the proposed merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons, which was challenged by Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan and multiple state attorneys general.
"The FTC, along with our state partners, scored a major victory for the American people, successfully blocking Kroger's acquisition of Albertsons," said Henry Liu, director of the commission's Bureau of Competition, in a statement. "This historic win protects millions of Americans across the country from higher prices for essential groceries—from milk, to bread, to eggs—ultimately allowing consumers to keep more money in their pockets."
"This victory has a direct, tangible impact on the lives of millions of Americans who shop at Kroger or Albertsons-owned grocery stores for their everyday needs, whether that's a Fry's in Arizona, a Vons in Southern California, or a Jewel-Osco in Illinois," he added. "This is also a victory for thousands of hardworking union employees, protecting their hard-earned paychecks by ensuring Kroger and Albertsons continue to compete for workers through higher wages, better benefits, and improved working conditions."
While Liu was celebrating the preliminary injunction from Oregon-based U.S. District Court Judge Adrienne Nelson, later Tuesday, King County Superior Court Judge Marshall Ferguson released a ruling that blocked the merger in Washington state.
"We're standing up to mega-monopolies to keep prices down," said Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson. "We went to court to block this illegal merger to protect Washingtonians' struggling with high grocery prices and the workers whose jobs were at stake. This is an important victory for affordability, worker protections, and the rule of law."
Advocacy groups applauding the decisions also pointed to the high cost of groceries and the anticipated impact of Kroger buying Albertsons—a $24.6 billion deal first announced in October 2022.
"American families are the big winner today, thanks to the Federal Trade Commission. The only people who stood to gain from the potential merger between Albertsons and Kroger were their wealthy executives and investors," asserted Liz Zelnick of Accountable.US. "The rest of us are letting out a huge sigh of relief knowing today's victory is good news for competitive prices and consumer access."
Describing the federal decision as "a victory for commonsense antitrust enforcement that puts people ahead of corporations," Food & Water Watch senior food policy analyst Rebecca Wolf also pointed out that "persistently high food prices are hitting Americans hard, and a Kroger-Albertsons mega-merger would have only made it worse."
"Already, a handful of huge corporations' stranglehold on our food system means that consumers are paying too much for too little choice in supermarkets, workers are earning too little, and farmers and ranchers cannot get fair prices for their crops and livestock," she noted. "Today's decision and strengthened FTC merger guidelines help change the calculus."
Like Wolf, Farm Action president and co-founder Angela Huffman similarly highlighted that "while industry consolidation increases prices for consumers and harms workers, grocery mergers also have a devastating impact on farmers and ranchers."
"When grocery stores consolidate, farmers have even fewer options for where to sell their products, and the chances of them receiving a fair price for their goods are diminished further," Huffman explained. "Today's ruling is a win for farmers, workers, and consumers alike."
Some advocates specifically praised Khan—a progressive FTC chair whom President-elect Donald Trumpplans to replace with Andrew Ferguson, a current commissioner who previously worked as chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and as Republican counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"Today's decision is a major win for shoppers and grocery workers. Families have been paying the price of unchecked corporate power in the food and grocery sector, and further consolidation would only worsen this crisis," declared Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens in a statement.
"FTC Chair Lina Khan's approach is the blueprint to deliver lower prices, higher wages, and an economy that works for everyone," Owens argued. "The rebirth of antitrust enforcement has protected consumers against the worst of corporate power in our economy and it would be wise to continue this approach."
Laurel Kilgour, research manager at the American Economic Liberties Project, called the federal ruling "a resounding victory for workers, consumers, independent retailers, and local communities nationwide—and a powerful validation of Chair Khan and the FTC's rigorous enforcement of the law."
"The FTC presented a strong case that Kroger and Albertsons fiercely compete head-to-head on price, quality, and service. The ruling is a capstone on the FTC's work over the past four years and includes favorable citations to the FTC's recent victories against the Tapestry-Capri, IQVIA-Propel, and Illumina-Grail mergers," Kilgour continued.
"The court also cites long-standing Supreme Court law which recognizes that Congress was also concerned with the impacts of mergers on smaller competitors," she added. "We applaud the FTC for securing one of the most significant victories in modern antitrust enforcement and for successfully protecting the public interest from harmful consolidation."
Despite the celebrations, the legal battle isn't necessarily over.
The Associated Pressreported that "the case may now move to the FTC, although Kroger and Albertsons have asked a different federal judge to block the in-house proceedings," and Colorado is also trying to halt the merger in state court.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular