Correcting David Tovar

I am sure the unions always split their donations evenly between the parties.

Judge: GOP’s voter purge a ‘violation of federal law’Stephen C. Webster
Published: Monday October 13, 2008

Recently, the GOP chairman in Macomb County, Michigan, detailed a plan to use a list of foreclosed homes to challenge voters. His pronouncement drew an immediate backlash, with predictions that the plan would “backfire.”

It has.

The suit, aimed to protect voters whose registration cards were returned to government offices by post as ‘undeliverable.’ Judge Stephen J. Murphy of the U.S. District Court of Michigan’s Eastern District concluded that the program of eliminating these voters from rolls is in violation of federal law.

The voter purge program, better known to elections integrity experts as ‘voter caging,’ is a long-storied GOP TACTIC employed against minority, student and low-income voters. In September, the Obama campaign filed a lawsuit in Michigan challenging the illegal tactic.

“You essentially send a first-class letter to a hoursehold where you suspect that that person no longer lives there but where they’re still registered to vote,” explained Allen Raymond, a convicted GOP elections fraudster who spent time in prison after the discovery of a phone-jamming scheme during the 2002 elections. “That letter comes back. ... Somebody [at the local polling place] then challenges that vote if that person comes in to vote.”

“This is a very significant ruling for Michigan voters,” said Matthew Lund,a partner at Pepper Hamilton LLP who argued the case, in a release. “The court recognized – and repeated several times – that the state of Michigan is conducting unlawful voter purges that clearly violate the National Voter Registration Act. Michigan voters who were removed from the voting rolls for no reason other than failure to receive their ID card in the mail will now be allowed to vote in November.”

“More than 1,400 voters in that category have been disqualified so far in 2008,” reports the Associated Press. “The judge says it’s unclear how many cancellations actually are wrong but it’s a violation of federal law. Murphy says those people shouldn’t be prevented from voting if they can produce more proof of residency at the polls.”

“This program has a very detrimental impact in minority, low-income and student communities across Michigan”.  “These communities tend to be more transient and to live in multi-family housing.”

“This is a major victory for Michigan voters and the integrity of our democratic process,” said Meredith Bell-Platts, in a release. “Today’s decision brings us one step closer to restoring confidence in a electoral system that has been poisoned by illegal disfranchisement policies. As a result of the judge’s decision, fewer Michigan voters will be illegally purged and wrongly disfranchised – and that’s good for everyone.”~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A quick look through the donation data on waltoninfluence.com (pulled from opensecrets.org) shows that the Wal-Mart PAC has always given the vast majority of its money to Republicans and conservative causes. Wal-Mart likes to brag that in the 2008 cycle, it has given slightly more to Democratic House candidates ($456,700 for Dems compared to $418,500 for Republicans.) But its giving in the Senate more than compensates for this - and according the openssecrets.org the Wal-Mart PAC has given more total to the GOP candidates in the 2008 cycle (47% to Democrats, 53% to Republicans).”

And, who says that ANY company has to give EQUALLY to both parties?  Does the SEIU union give EQUALLY to both parties?  Do they even give 47% to the Republican Party?  It’s kind of like “The pot calling the kettle black” or, like the Democrats thinking their ideas are the only RIGHT ones!!

Wal-Mart Spends $1.4 Million on Lobbying Last Quarter:The Associated Press recently released an examination of Wal-Mart’s lobbying disclosure form for last quarter. Over a three month span, Wal-Mart lobbying expenditures reached $1.4 million, fighting legislation relevant to labor issues, cargo security, and health care. Wal-Mart brazenly fought against the Employee Free Choice Act – a bill which would give employees more leverage in the quest for fair wages and affordable health care. Even more egregious may be its combativeness towards the ADA Restoration Act – a pending piece of legislation which would clarify the rights of peoples with disabilities. See the full article from the Associated Press:

Wal-Mart spent $1.4M lobbying government in 2Q [Associated Press via MSN Money]

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, spent nearly $1.4 million in the second quarter lobbying the federal government on union matters, cargo security and other issues, according to a recent disclosure form.

The Bentonville, Ark.-based company, which has 1.3 million domestic employees, lobbied on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Wal-Mart and the Retail Industry Leaders Association mounted a successful legal challenge to a Maryland law that required companies with more than 10,000 workers to devote at least 8 percent of its payroll to paying for employee health insurance. The judge ruled that ERISA pre-empted the state requirements.

The Employee Choice Act, over which Wal-Mart has drawn criticism for having politically partisan sessions with employees, was also listed, as was the Family Medical Leave Act and the American with Disabilities Restoration Act, according to the form filed July 21 with the House clerk’s office.

Wal-Mart Vice President of Corporate Affairs Raymond Bracy is listed on the reporting form as the company’s lobbyist. The form shows he also lobbied regarding a variety of tax issues and on legislation regarding Chinese imports and China’s currency.

Though Wal-Mart draws customers from all walks of life, the company is quick to note that its core customers are poor — 20 percent of Wal-Mart shoppers don’t have checking accounts. The disclosure shows that Wal-Mart lobbied on a food stamps provision in an Agriculture Department bill. Bracy is listed as working to promote the company’s $4 prescriptions and other health-related aspects.

The company also lobbied on Medicaid coverage of prescription drugs.

Besides Congress, Wal-Mart lobbied the departments Health and Human Services, Commerce, Treasury and other agencies in the April-June period~~~~~~~~~~~~August,2008

401(k) Update: Wal-Mart Strikes Back Against 401(k) Lawsuit

Similar to other suits filed since 2006 against big employers (think Boeing, John Deere and General Dynamics), the 401(k) suit against Wal-Mart—Braden v. Wal-Mart was filed in March and is currently seeking class-action status—claims that the company breached its duties as a fiduciary by allowing its 401(k) plan participants to be charged “unreasonably expensive” fees. In its answer, Wal-Mart said disclosures about such things as “HOW investments options were selected” or “revenue sharing arrangements” are “demonstrably IMMATERIAL to ANY investment decision faced by participants.”

In addition, Wal-Mart accused the suit of disregarding the relation of the FEES to the overall COSTS of administering the plan and ignoring “the ECONOMICS of participant directed individual account plans.” WalMart pointed out that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does NOT call for plan fiduciaries to consider ONLY price when selecting investment options or select the least expensive options.

The case was filed on March 27, 2008, against Wal-Mart on behalf of the Wal-Mart Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleges that Wal-Mart and others, as fiduciaries of Wal-Mart’s retirement plan, FAILED to ACT SOLELY in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, and FAILED to exercise the required skill, care, prudence, and diligence in ADMINISTERING the Plan’s assets from January 31, 2002, through the present.

The complaint claims Wal-Mart selected and offered to Plan participants UNREASONABLY EXPENSIVE RETAIL funds, despite the ready availability of reasonably priced high-quality investment options. As a result, the plan SQUANDERED tens of millions of dollars of participants’ retirement savings in order to pay for overpriced mutual funds, which, on top of everything, significantly underperformed their benchmarks. This resulted in larger fees being spent on inferior products.

Based on conservative estimates, the Plaintiff in Braden estimated Wal-Mart’s actions have caused the plan to WASTE over $60 million of participants’ retirement savings on excessive fees and unreasonable expenses alone – and will CONTINUE to do so at the rate of $20 million per year iIFallowed to continue. In addition, the complaint describes at length what the Plan would have been worth had it made responsible investment choices – for example, at year end of 2007, the Plan Investment Options were worth $2.861 billion, while an investment in index funds would have been worth $3.002 billion, or $140 million more.

The suit is seeking Wal-Mart and defendants to “make good to such plan any losses to the plan,” as well as any other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate. The plaintiff is seeking the Court to adopt the measure of loss most advantageous to the Plan, putting the participants in the position they would have been had the plan been properly administered. This could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is believed this class action could number over 1,000,000 participants.

July 23, 2008~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NOTE: It would be of interest to know just WHAT retail funds were purchased at excessively high rates by WalMart for the employees retirements,AND from WHOM these funds were purchased. With the financial meltdown which occured AFTER this action was fioled, it is conceivable that the employees retirement funds have diminshed even further,to some degree depending upon what companies and with whom these funds were invested. The jury will have a field day with this case.