On the Wal-Mart Money Trail

[NMMNG]

Some have asked "What is so bad about shopping at Wal-Mart?". Here is a good answer.



snip

The Walton family, too, has greatly increased its political giving; in 2004, for example, Alice donated $2.6 million to the influential Republican PAC Progress for America, which supported the sleazy Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and gave Bush a critical push in the election's final months.

snip

Much of Wal-Mart's philanthropy (as well as that of the Walton family) has been directed toward promoting anti-government politics, whether by lobbying against high taxes for the rich or contributing to Republican candidates, conservative think tanks and efforts to privatize education.

snip

Funny he should mention taxes: Wal-Mart and the Waltons have, after all, been notably reluctant to pay them. Not only has the company lobbied for tax breaks in communities all over the nation, the Waltons--the family that former Wal-Mart board member Hillary Clinton has called "the best America has to offer"--have campaigned vigorously against the estate tax. They have donated money to its opponents, Republicans like John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana, and enlisted one of Washington's top lobbying firms, Patton Boggs--a leading anti-estate tax lobbyist--to represent their interests.

snip

In addition to campaigning specifically against the estate tax, the Waltons also give money to groups that generally favor tax giveaways to the rich, like Americans for Tax Reform. And the Waltons have already reaped the benefits of tax policies enacted by the conservatives they helped put in office: This year Bush's dividend tax cut will save the family $51 million, according to Lee Farris, an estate-tax expert with the Boston-based United for a Fair Economy.


Much, much more at: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051121/featherstone

[sarcasmo]

1. Why can't some see the Evil of this Corporation.

[Orrex]

2. It's a matter of degree

If the profit generated from my $200 annual purchases at Wal*Mart contributes significantly to the $5 billion annual profit, then I'll believe that my boycotting of the company will make any difference at all.

If you somehow persuaded everyone you'll ever meet not to shop at Wal*Mart, then maybe you'll make a visible scratch in one quarter's bottom line.

But probably not.

The only way to hurt the beast is to attack it from the top: tighter controls on imports; an end to choose-your-own penalties for labor violations; strong legistlative sanctions against anti-unionization efforts; demand for living wages; demand for useful healthcare programs. It goes on and on, but none of these measures can be implemented even by a horde of individual shoppers.

Half-assed boycotts and juvenile hooliganism like that "fill a cart" bullshit make no difference at all and only hurt the lowest-end workers. I guarantee you that if Wal*Mart's BOD even heard of that dumb stunt, it bothered them not one bit.

Besides which, I have yet to hear a compelling argument re: why the average lower-middle-income consumer should pay 10+ percent more for merchandise at non-Wal*Mart retailers. Appeals to communal responsibility don't count for a lot when you have to buy formula for your baby, and this month's heating bill is twice your income. A viable alternative must be offered, without simply wailing about the evils of corporate greed.

All this "trickle up" consumer activism is just pissing into the ocean.

[chat_noir]

3. Wal-Mart should be a subject in the Research Forum (nt)