0 comments

---

Here are what the voices on the Internet are saying about Wal-Mart’s support of employer-mandated health care...not surprisingly, it hasn’t taken long for most to deduce that Wal-Mart is hardly acting in an altruistic way.

Number one on Wal-Mart’s hit list? Easy. Target. Because small businesses would either be exempt from the mandate or face a less-strenuous requirement, it would be Wal-Mart’s large competitors (and more specifically those who have to this point been better at managing health care costs than Wal-Mart) that would feel the brunt of the hurt.

Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic:

I don’t want to make too much of this: Wal-Mart may chicken out once the specifics of an employer mandate end up on the table. Even if they don’t, they may not lift a finger to help. And, make no mistake, Wal-Mart is acting--as it always does--out of pure self-interest.

My undestanding is that, after all of these years, Wal-Mart has suddenly found itself in the same situation its competitors once did: Dealing with unpredictable health costs and facing new competition from businesses that have found ways to spend even less on employee health benefits. Is there some justice there? You bet.

Reihan Salam with the National Review:

There is another way of looking at this. As a large, powerful, deep-pocketed firm, Wal-Mart can sustain regulatory burdens that mom-and-pops and new entrants can’t. And so burdensome regulations are invariably Wal-Mart’s ally. Jonathan Rauch explained this dynamic brilliantly in his book Government’s End. It makes perfect sense for Wal-Mart to back a regulatory initiative that hurts its bottom line as long as it hurts its competitors more.

Megan McArdle for The Atlantic:

Wal-Mart is always going to have a seat at the table when employer mandates are discussed, because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest private employer.  Target and Macy’s probably won’t have a seat at the table.  So Wal-Mart can influence the rules in ways that benefit Wal-Mart at the expense of the competition.

Jeffrey Young in The Atlantic:

Based on the axiom that nobody in business or politics acts strictly out of altruism, it’s safe to assume that Duke and Wal-Mart’s board of directors concluded that backing the employer mandate would provide the company with some kind of competitive advantage. When I originally reported the story, it wasn’t immediately clear to me what that might be, though I suspected it must have had something to do with Wal-Mart’s calculation of how much money the mandate would cost them relative to other retailers.

Michael Cannon, for the Cato Institute:

A couple of years ago, I shared a cab to the airport with a Wal-Mart lobbyist, who told me that Wal-Mart supports an “employer mandate.” An employer mandate is a legal requirement that employers provide a government-defined package of health benefits to their workers...But it all became clear when the lobbyist explained the reason for Wal-Mart’s position: “Target’s health-benefits costs are lower.”

I have no idea what Target’s or Wal-Mart’s health-benefits costs are.  Let’s say that Target spends $5,000 per worker on health benefits and Wal-Mart spends $10,000.  An employer mandate that requires both retail giants to spend $9,000 per worker would have no effect on Wal-Mart.  But it would cripple one of Wal-Mart’s chief competitors.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce, quoted nearly everywhere (here courtesy again, of Mr. Jeffrey Young):

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce took a pretty nasty swipe at Wal-Mart when I emailed them for a comment. Here’s the statement the Chamber’s press office sent me, attributed to James Gelfand, its senior manager for health policy: “Some businesses make the decision to use the government as a weapon against their competition. We do not agree with this method.” Ouch.

18 comments

---

Senator Blanche Lincoln has made it clear where she stands. Over the past few weeks, she has turned her back on Wal-Mart workers, and stood up to fight for the Walton Family.

Just one month ago, on March 14th, Vice President and prominent Employee Free Choice Act supporter Joe Biden stood hand in hand with Senator Blanche Lincoln and praised her hard work in Arkansas and Washington. Biden made the trip to help Lincoln raise $800,000 for her 2010 reelection campaign, but also to convince her to support the bill. What a difference a month makes.

On April 6th, Lincoln finally betrayed Wal-Mart workers. While saying out of one corner of her mouth that she “consider[ed] both the labor and the business communities” to be her friends, she unequivocally stated she could not support Employee Free Choice in its current form.

But Lincoln was hardly done cowing to the Walton Family. Last week Lincoln took a step that shows where her loyalty truly lies: she partnered with Republicans and called for increasing the exemption on the Estate Tax from $5 to $10 million, which would stand to help the extremely wealthy more cheaply pass inheritance to their family. We can think of a lot of Wal-Mart executives and Walton Family members who are in the business of passing along millions in inheritance, but we sure can’t think of any workers who are in that situation.

And while all workers might not donate thousands to her campaign like the Waltons do, there will surely be a lot more of them to cast ballots next November.

One might say that Lincoln is merely repaying some of her prime donors: the Waltons as individuals together donated about $6,000 in 2008 to her election fund.

It’s not for ‘gazillionaires’ [Arkansas News]

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln said I knew better than that.

I’d merely wondered whether she pushed a reduction in estate taxes to save millions for her richest constituents, the Arkansas Waltons, with whom she’s long been tight.

These “gazillionaires,” as she called them, don’t give a hoot about a marginal reduction in inheritance taxes, she argued. She said they’ve already attended to orderly reduction and protection of their inheritances with expert estate planning.

Indeed, an advocacy group that the Waltons help finance has fought to eliminate estates taxes, not reduce them.

Read the rest of this story ...

13 comments

---

Allegations of campaign violations are rising in the Big Sky State, and a recently-released decision on a 2006 complaint might lead to changes in Montana’s campaign finance law.

Complaints of violations flowing in at the rate of about 30 per day to the state’s Commissioner or Political Practices, have of which are coming from Ravalli County in southwestern Montana. According to the Ravalli Republic:

The state’s most pressing investigation in Ravalli County concerns the Higher Ground Foundation, a nonprofit group that is urging voters to repeal the county’s growth policy in an effort to prevent zoning and streamside setback regulations from being adopted later.

The group formed as an “incidental committee,” which are defined as a group that makes political contributions but whose primary purpose isn’t to influence elections. But it has become clear to many that Higher Ground has a higher purpose than simply contributing funds, and is instead directly promoting the repeal of the county’s growth policy. Complainants are urging the state to force the group disclose the sources of its funding, and its expenditures.

So how does this tie into Wal-Mart? Well, just over a week ago, Montana Commissioner of Political Practices Dennis Unsworth released his opinion regarding a 2006 complaint against a group called Ravalli County Citizens for Free Enterprise. The group supported construction of a Wal-Mart Supercenter and the successful repeal of a zoning ordinance that blocked big-box stores. Unsworth ruled that RCCFE was nothing more than a Wal-Mart front-group that violated financial reporting and record-keeping laws. He said that Wal-Mart appeared to have bought a campaign in order to influence an election, and that the case could lead to Third party campaigning is growing in the state [The Missoulian]” title="changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws">changes in Montana’s campaign finance disclosure laws. It turned out that only $90 of the PAC’s money came from local residents, whereas $115,000 came from Wal-Mart.

“It’s absolutely critical,” Unsworth said, “that voters know who’s behind these groups, in order to make informed decisions.”

Read the rest of this story ...

6 comments

---

Yesterday, Leslie Dach, Wal-Mart’s executive vice president of corporate affairs, told reporters that Wal-Mart is “relentlessly non-partisan.” His claim does not make sense when you look at the facts.

While it is true that in the latest election cycle, Wal-Mart’s PAC is giving more money away to House Democrats than House Republicans by a $456,700 to $418,500 margin, Wal-Mart overwhelmingly supports conservative causes and groups. Released just a few weeks ago, our Walton influence website clearly shows how the Walton family and Wal-Mart both support a right wing agenda. In fact, Wal-Mart’s PAC is giving more money to Senate Republicans and more money to conservative PACs by a significant margin. In addition to PAC giving, Wal-Mart’s lobbying skews conservative. By lobbying against port security to save money on shipping costs, lobbying against country-of-origin labeling to shroud its supply chain in secrecy, and lobbying against the Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act, Wal-Mart shows its true colors.  After the release of the 3rd quarter lobbying numbers, Wal-Mart’s in-house lobbying expenditures jumped to $5.22 million dollars – a 3629% increase since 1999. And let’s not forget the Employee Free Choice Act. An August story in the Wall Street Journal shows just how far Wal-Mart will go to prevent an Obama victory and unionization in its stories.

The Walton family is no different. The family, which controls 43% of Wal-Mart’s stock, is consistently pushing a right wing agenda. Worth over $100 billion dollars, the Walton family is free to spend their billion on causes like the school voucher movement. Public school supporters worry that the Walton family exerts a disproportionate level of influence in this area. Since 2000, the Walton Family Foundation donated over $47 million to the Children’s Educational Opportunity Foundation, a lobbying organization devoted to weakening the public school system in America by “providing research and publications to school choice groups and submitting amicus curie briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court on voucher issues.” The Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), which promotes the voucher movement to African-American families, received over $3.8 million from the Walton Family Foundation since 2002. 

Sounds like Wal-Mart and the Walton family are relentlessly partisan to us. 

8 comments

---

The National Journal’s Under The Influence Blog brings our attention to a new 501(c)6 group called the “Workforce Fairness Institute,” whose sole purpose is to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The National Journal tells us:

Packer would not identify the WFI’s funders. But sources familiar with its creation speculate that such big retailers as Wal-Mart and Home Depot—a which are high-profile opponents of EFCA—are likely among the group’s donors. One source says the WFI is trying to raise as much as $10 million for its operations.

Presumably, Wal-Mart and other companies are spending early while preparing for a possible Obama administration and strong Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate - which are expected to make a push for the legislation which, of course, would make it easier for Wal-Mart workers to form unions and negotiate contracts for higher wages and better benefits.

The WFI website is savetheelection.org, and the featured video is a fake news broadcast which for the first minute or so openly implies that the presidential election is being taken away. Halfway through it tells us we’re talking about a possible change in unionization rules.

But - the website reminds us that WFI (just like Wal-Mart!) is “NOT anti-Union.” Which is reassuring.

We’ll do our best to investigate WFI’s funding disclosure laws, and Wal-Mart’s role in the venture. As usual....we’ll be watching. 

2 comments

---

Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.

This week’s issue centers on a new website launched by Wal-Mart Watch which details the retailer’s political contributions, positions on specific legislation, and spending on lobbyists and industry trade groups. The website, Walton Influence, also includes similar information on the Walton family and the family’s related enterprises.

In addition, you’ll read about a number of legal issues, the most important of which could be affecting the health of millions of Americans. Bloomberg News and the San Francisco Chronicle, among others, are reporting on how tests of several of the best-selling brands of bottled water (including Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club private label brands) have been found to contain mixtures of at least 38 different pollutants, including bacteria, fertilizer, and industrial chemicals. These findings could result in a lawsuit against the retail giant.

And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. You’ll read about how Maryland’s closing of certain corporate tax loopholes has resulted in millions of dollars in increased state funds, and why employees in Illinois are protesting Wal-Mart’s electioneering activities.

Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [October 16, 2008]

12 comments

---

Wal-Mart Watch has launched a new website - http://www.waltoninfluence.com - which analyzes and tracks the Walton family’s and Wal-Mart’s growing influence on American politics.

Although Sam Walton believed his company should stay out of politics and stick to retailing, Wal-Mart’s strategy changed immensely after his death. From 1999 to 2007, Wal-Mart’s lobbying expenditures for outside firms increased 7425%. Although Wal-Mart attempts to tout its bipartisanship, the Wal-Mart PAC has given the vast majority of its over $7.5 million in the past decade to the Republican Party and other conservative groups.

With more than $12 billion in profits last year, Wal-Mart is the biggest and arguably most powerful corporation in America. Sam Walton’s heirs, the majority owners of the company, are worth over $100 billion - making them the wealthiest and certainly one of the most influential families in America.

During the past year, Wal-Mart Watch conducted an analysis of public lobbying and political contribution records for the Walton family and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in order to determine how this influence is used to affect politics and policy. The conclusion is clear: Wal-Mart and the Walton family spend millions of dollars every year to fund an extreme right wing corporate agenda that is often directly at odds with the interests of Wal-Mart’s workers and shoppers.

Read the rest of this story ...