Adding to what we discussed might happen in West Virginia, with that state lowering its corporate income tax rate, here are a couple additional nuggets we’ve found for your reading pleasure.

First, in Kentucky, State Reps. Bill Farmer of Lexington and David Floyd of Bardstown are suggesting that now is the time to eliminate the state’s corporate and individual income taxes. Its a funny suggestion on its surface, since, well, lots of states are having a hard time paying for much of anything these days. But there is a method to the madness, and here it is:

The legislation drafted by Reps. Bill Farmer of Lexington and David Floyd of Bardstown would replace the income tax by spreading the sales tax to a host of services that are currently exempt, including plumbing, roofing and other contracting work, and some consulting work. Another huge chunk of change would roll into the state’s bank account by charging 5 percent tax on rent paid for commercial — but not residential — real estate space, according to the 66-page bill.

Since Wal-Mart rents a lot of its properties to...wait for it...itself, could this mean Wal-Mart could potentially be taxed on its own rental fees? Possible, but there would be one sure tax Wal-Mart would have to worry about - under the proposal, Kentucky would collect taxes on charges that stores such as Kroger and Wal-Mart impose on product makers to have special displays at the end of their aisles. The legislation in question is viewed as unlikely to pass this session, but even Democrats in Kentucky have admitted the proposals are something to consider.

House Republicans draft tax reform proposal [Lexington Herald-Leader]

In North Dakota, Wal-Mart is lobbying hard for a bill to repeal a law that requires, with few exceptions, pharmacies be owned at least 51 percent by pharmacists. A repeal of that law would of course open the door for Wal-Mart and other chain pharmacies to waltz right in and start peeling off local drug stores.

Pharmacists and others called “North Dakotans for Prescription Facts” want the law retained, saying it will kill small town pharmacies and hurt personalized service. “North Dakotans for Affordable Health Care,” funded in large part by Wal-Mart and Walgreen’s, wants the law repealed.

N.D. legislative session will have plenty of bread-and-butter issues [Grand Forks Herald]

Blanche Lincoln, the senior Democratic Senator from the state of Arkansas, has a dilemma on her hands. While the House of Representatives is firmly in Democratic control, the Senate is divided. With an ambitious legislative agenda, every vote matters. Which brings us to the Employee Free Choice Act. This act represents a chance for workers to obtain fair wages and benefits through unionization. Given the state of our economy, it is clear that workers need help and we cannot trust business leaders to do the right thing at this time.

Sen. Lincoln, a moderate Democrat from a conservative state, is facing pressure from both sides of the aisle. First introduced in the Senate in early 2007, Sen. Lincoln voted to send the bill to floor discussion, but it could not survive a Republican filibuster. With a vote coming once again, Sen. Lincoln now feels the legislation is not necessary. What could make her change her mind? Could it be she resides in the same state as anti-EFCA Wal-Mart?

According to our calculations, the Wal-Mart PAC for Responsible Government has given Sen. Lincoln and her leadership PAC over $44,000 since 2000 - and this number does not include money from Wal-Mart executives. All Wal-Mart has to do is influence a few key Senators to prevent EFCA from coming to the floor and it seems like Sen. Lincoln is a great target. Katie Laning Niebaum, the spokesperson for Sen. Lincoln said,

“She believes the bill should go through the normal legislative process and she will not be taking a position until that time. So, to be clear, she remains undecided on the bill.”

Let’s hope Sen. Lincoln does the right thing and votes to improve the rights of workers, not increase the wealth of the Walton family. 

New York’s Governor called for a host of new fees and taxes yesterday, including an “iPod tax” that taxes the sale of downloaded music and other “digitally delivered entertainment services.”

The Governor’s new budget for 2009 includes 88 new fees plus a bunch of other new taxes on anything from soda, beer, wine and cigars to movie tickets, taxi rides, and massages. According to the NY Daily News, It would also extend sales taxes to cable and satellite TV services and remove the tax exemption for clothes costing less than $110. So no more grabbing a box of stogies and hitting the local cinaplex for me, I guess...well, assuming I lived in New York. Which I don’t.

That the “iPod tax” actually refers to Apple’s popular product by name would cause one to infer that Governor Paterson has it out for frequenters of the iStore. In actuality, however, MacWorld points out that the title is a little misleading.

It’s not a tax on iPods, but rather the levying of state and local sales taxes for “digitally delivered entertainment services.” The iTunes Store would seem to be a prime target there, but Amazon, Wal-mart, and other retailers would take a hit from the proposed tax as well.

We’ll see if Wal-Mart and the rest flex their mighty lobbying muscles on this. While at least 16 states plus DC already have taxes of this nature, California shot down a similar proposal earlier this year.

New York governor proposes digital download tax [MacWorld]

Read the rest of this story ...

Looks like Wal-Mart fired James Hirni just in time. Three weeks ago, Wal-Mart terminated its top GOP lobbyist after being indicted in the Jack Abramoff scandal. Today he plead guilty to “honest services fraud” in D.C. - which included some of your classic Abramoff-style illegal-gifts-in-exchange-for-legislative-favors, as well as a more complicated scheme to convince states to rent their construction equipment, not buy, and only from companies with ‘large dollar amounts of liability insurance coverage.’

Hirni faces the possibility of five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

It’s a fine sort that Wal-Mart keeps as company. Think they’ll keep his office ready for him when he gets out of prison?

Ex-GOP aide with Abramoff ties pleads guilty [Roll Call]:

James Hirni, a former congressional aide-turned-lobbyist with ties to Jack Abramoff, pleaded guilty Friday to one count of honest services fraud in D.C. district court.

The plea came just three weeks after Hirni was fired by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., where he worked as a director of Republican outreach. The charge stems from his time at Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal and is unrelated to Hirni’s work for the chain.

Read the rest of this story ...

According to Good Jobs First and The Wall Street Journal, a large chunk of sales tax revenue gets redirected to retailers like Wal-Mart, a company that pockets an estimated $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.

At least that is the finding of a report released today by Good Jobs First, a nonprofit research group here in Washington:

Most of us don’t realize that in a majority of states with a sales tax, a portion of the money actually goes into the pocket of the retailer under programs set up by state and local governments. In this first-ever comprehensive national analysis of the subject, Good Jobs First finds that the public sector is losing more than $1 billion a year through these sales-tax diversions. A large share of revenue gets redirected to giant retailers such as Wal-Mart, a company we estimate pockets more than $70 million a year in sales tax revenues.

The state laws discussed in the report allow retailers to keep a portion of sales-tax revenue to offset the cost of collecting the funds in the first place, a reasonable enough excuse (especially since state governments are so flush with cash at the present). But does anyone really, and I mean REALLY, believe that Wal-Mart spends $60 million a year collecting sales tax? In this age of computer everything and electronic money transfers, I have a hard time believing it costs more than a fraction of that.

As it stands, many states have calculated a vendor compensation rate, which can be applied to a percentage of sales tax revenue to determine how much a retailer gets to keep for its trouble. As the WSJ reports, Good Jobs First has identified 13 states that impose no ceiling on the total amount retailers can keep. In states such as Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania and Colorado that vendor compensation rate can be applied to the full amount of sales tax a company collects, resulting in substantial returns for companies like Wal-Mart. Good Jobs First has estimated the givebacks in these states - Illinois ($126 million), Texas ($90 million), Pennsylvania ($72 million), and Colorado ($69 million). Jesse Drucker at the WSJ kindly puts some perspective on those numbers - for example, the $90 million Texas gives away by not capping vendor compensation would cover the $82 million price-tag needed to fund that state’s primary pre-kindergarten program.

For what its worth, the Illinois Revenue Department was quoted as saying the state has tried to cap the compensation program, but relentless lobbying by the retail industry has so far kept legislators from making changes.

Skimming the Sales Tax: How Wal-Mart and Other Big Retailers (Legally) Keep a Cut of the Taxes We Pay on Everyday Purchases [Good Jobs First, November 2008]

Read the rest of this story ...

Kim Morrison writes a nice piece in the NW Arkansas Morning News today about Wal-Mart Watch’s new website - waltoninfluence.com.

We’re glad to see that a Wal-Mart spokesman was asked by media to comment on the new site. Unsurprisingly, spokesman David Tovar had no comment. What he did say, however, was that Wal-Mart gives near-evenly to Democrats and Republicans.

That, of course, is laughable.

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 what about this year’s donations to non-candidate political groups? The top 5 and the vast majority are all Republican groups:

Washington State Republican Party: $50,000
Mitch for Governor Campaign Committee: $48,000
National Republican Congressional Committee: $30,000
National Republican Senatorial Committee: $30,000
Republican National Committee: $30,000

But regardless, Wal-Mart’s giving in 2008 is the exception to rule. Kim Morrison quickly points out that Democrats have received 22% of less of Wal-Mart’s support in the previous two elections. And if you look further and further back, you’ll see a company whose giving to Democrats moves closer and closer to zero percent.

The point is that Wal-Mart has seen turning of the political tide, and has decided to make a one-time handout to the party on the rise. What it is, is a shrewd (and probably wise) political move, what it isn’t is a sign of a bipartisan company.

Group tracks Wal-Mart’s political involvement [NW Arkansas Morning News]

Curbing carbon emissions is a crucial part of environmentalism, but its an issue which Wal-Mart has been slow to address. In 2005, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott announced plans to reduce Wal-Mart’s massive carbon footprint, with the ultimate goal of carbon neutrality from the company. Carbon offset programs – methods of shifting the burden of carbon elimination to a third-party – were an imperative part of that plan.

To better implement these carbon offset programs – and to avoid misleading marketing claims about the process – the Federal Trade Commission began work standardizing offsets and regulating the process. Wal-Mart, however, had other ideas about the process.

Herein lays the scandal: Despite the company’s “green” initiatives, Wal-Mart is actively lobbying against the clarification of offset guidelines. The company’s hypocritical stance on the issue came to light last week in a hearing of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is attempting to modernize the “Green Guides,” guidelines issued for corporations defining acceptable marketing claims regarding environmental products and initiatives. In response to the FTC’s solicitation of retailer comment to guide the process, Wal-Mart’s Director of Energy Regulation, Angela Beehler, expressed Wal-Mart’s firm opposition towards the clarified scope and definition of carbon offsets:

Wal-Mart’s Comments to U.S. Federal Trade Commission (PDF)

Although some may urge otherwise, the Commission should resist the temptation to define what constitutes an eligible offset or REC. Doing so would require the Commission to resolve highly technical environmental debates that are beyond its expertise…

The Commission should recognize that in the absence of a governmental definition or a widespread consensus about the precise contours of what constitutes a carbon offset or a REC, there may be multiple ways to establish a reasonable basis for such claims.

Beehler’s words reveal Wal-Mart refuses to endorse even a proper definition of a “carbon offset,” and it follows that the corporation is uninterested in the transparency necessary to ensure the legitimacy of its environmental claims.

Wal-Mart’s attempt to keep offsets guidelines vague shows the company is more interested in marketing potential than actual environmental change. Unspecific standards would allow the retailer to ‘commit’ to carbon-neutrality, without providing much real documentation. A responsible, sustainable corporation would place the necessity of carbon-offset clarification and oversight in front of the bottom-line.

Read the rest of this story ...

Last Monday, one of our commenters mentioned a PBS article entitled “Wal-Mart and China: A Joint Venture.” The article - which is quite interesting - quoted a lawyer named Tom Travis who works for the law firm Sandler, Travis and Rosenberg, which lobbies on behalf of Wal-Mart. Apparently, Mr. Travis wasn’t happy about his portrayal in PBS’s piece, because he sent us a very angry letter asking us to take down the mere mention of it.

Click the image above to read the full letter. Try to govern yourselves accordingly.