FLAGSTAFF, AZ
Strong Arm Politics
Wal-Mart overwhelms opponents with money and vicious campaign tactics
IN THE MEDIUM-SIZED COMMUNITY, Arizona Wal-Mart funneled $371,975 through a front group named “Protect Flagstaff’s Future,” to defeat a referendum that would have responsibly limited the size of big-box stores.1 Protect Flagstaff’s Future used Wal-Mart’s campaign cash to fund an egregious ad campaign that compared the efforts of referendum supporters to Nazis and those who oppose the freedom of religion.2 Wal-Mart was forced to apologize for its activities,3 but managed to eke out a 51% win thanks to last-minute dirty tricks after many voters had already cast their ballots by mail.4
In September, 2004, the Flagstaff City Council adopted an ordinance that required retail stores larger than 75,000 square feet to apply for a special permit from the city and limited retail space to 125,000 square feet.5 Additionally, big-box retailers were prohibited from devoting more than 8% of their floor space to groceries.6
Wal-Mart, which already had a store in Flagstaff, vehemently opposed the measure because it would have prevented the opening of a much larger Supercenter, with a full-sized supermarket, discount store and pharmacy under one roof. The Associated Press reported that the ordinance “effectively prevents a Wal-Mart Supercenter from being built in Flagstaff.”7
The opposition to the big box limitations kicked into high gear. In October 2004, Protect Flagstaff’s Future, a pro Wal-Mart group, submitted more than 3,600 signatures to the city clerk ensuring that the ordinance would be on the ballot as a referendum.8 One week after the signatures were submitted, Wal-Mart gave Protect Flagstaff’s Future its first donation of $20,000.9
The referendum, Proposition 100, was a ballot measure to either approve (yes vote) or overturn (no vote) the City Council’s big box limitation.10
During the campaign, Wal-Mart’s allies ran scathing newspaper ads, which went unnoticed by the press outside Arizona until a furor erupted when the “Nazi ad” appeared a month before the election.11
In May 2005, Peter Kanelos, Wal-Mart’s Community Affairs Director for Arizona and Southern California, approved an advertisement in the Arizona Daily Sun that featured a well-known 1933 photo of Nazis throwing books on a pyre at Berlin’s Opernplatz.12 The ad equated those who wanted to restrict Wal-Mart’s growth to Nazis. Wal-Mart’s advertising consultants produced the ad and the company acknowledged approving it.13
Wal-Mart’s use of Nazi imagery in its ads was widely and nationally criticized by community groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and several members of Congress.14 “It’s not the imagery itself. It trivializes the Nazis and what they did. And to try to attach that imagery to a municipal election goes beyond distasteful,” said Bill Straus of the ADL.15
Wal-Mart and Protect Flagstaff’s Future eventually issued full apologies,16 but at the time Chuck Coughlin, the president of the consulting company that produced the ads fought back. “We wanted people to think about the freedoms we enjoy in America. The intent was wholly honorable and good,” said Coughlin. “We will not back away from the substance of the ads.”17
Wal-Mart contributed a total of $371,975 to defeat the referendum, giving $340,700 directly to Protect Flagstaff’s Future and $45,000 in in-kind contributions for advertising consulting and legal fees.18 This is an incredible sum considering only 17,167 voters went to the polls on Election Day.19 According to the Arizona Daily Sun, “All told, the “No” campaign, opposing big-box limitations, outspent the “Yes” campaign by nearly 3 to 1.”20
Although Wal-Mart won this fight, it was a pyrrhic victory. The strong-arm tactics of Wal-Mart’s political operatives and consultants attracted considerable negative media attention and criticism nationwide. Despite the sizable resources invested by Wal-Mart, local opponents of Wal-Mart fought hard and the referendum was barely defeated. Local activists can be reassured that next time Wal-Mart may not be so fortunate. Increasingly the media and the public are on notice and are less likely to be influenced by Wal-Mart’s heavy-handed politicking.
It isn’t clear, however, if Wal-Mart and its allies learned their lesson. A statement issued by Protect Flagstaff’s Future continued to support the substance of the ads. “We feel strongly that our ads speak the truth but we regret the image we used offended some of those who have sacrificed so much,” the letter read.21
WAL-MART FLAGSTAFF CAMPAIGN CASH
Total Wal-Mart Campaign Cash: $371,975.00
Source: Protect Flagstaff’s Future Campaign Finance Report, January 31 Report; Pre-Election Report; Post Election Report
Links to campaign finance documents:
January 2005 Campaign Finance Report,
May 2005 Campaign Finance Report,
June 2005 Campaign Finance Report
