DEMs Working FOR WalMart?

Daily Blog

November 02, 2005
Why Are Democrats Working For Wal-Mart?

I'm going to spend a second day here on the Beast of Bentonville. If you want to know why the Democratic Party will continue to be the minority party in the country, look no further than the raft of Democratic operatives and elected representatives who do the bidding of Wal-Mart. At the end of this rant, I'll propose a solution to cut off money to any of these Democrats who have ties to Wal-Mart.

Yesterday, I attended the screening of Robert Greenwald's new film, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." You have to see it--or buy your own copy here. It is a great piece of investigative work which gives voice to the people and communities Wal-Mart has destroyed. And the movie makes you wonder why the Democratic Party does not take on Wal-Mart in a big way...well, we know part of the answer: money.

Let's start by looking at what I call the Wal-Mart 22: The 22 Democrats who, on June 24th, voted against an amendment to the 2006 fiscal year Labor appropriations bill (offered by Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut) that would have barred any spending of money by the Department of Labor to implement the part of the deal the department had made with Wal-Mart calling for advance notice of inspections any time the DOL planned to investigate Wal-Mart. This is the deal that was heavily criticized by the Department's Inspector General.

That point bears repeating--the federal government, the people who are supposed to protect citizens from corporate abuse, said to perhaps the most notorious corporate law breaker in recent years, "when we come looking for wrong-doing in your company, we're going to tell you ahead of time." I wonder if the orders for paper shredders skyrocketed in Bentonville after that little deal was made.

Anyway, so who were the Wal-Mart 22? Marion Berry (AR) Sanford Bishop (GA) Dan Boren (OK) G. K. Butterfield (NC) James Clyburn (SC) Bud Cramer (AL) Henry Cuellar (TX) Artur Davis (AL) Diana DeGette (CO) Harold Ford (TN) Charles Gonzalez (TX) Ron Kind (WI) Jim Matheson (UT) Dennis Moore (KS) Mike Ross (AR) John Salazar (CO) Vic Snyder (AR) John Tanner (TN) Mike Thompson (CA) Bennie Thompson (MS) Ed Towns (NY) and Al Wynn (MD).

I'd note a few things about the Wal-Mart 22. A disturbing number of them are members of the Congressional Black Caucus (Bishop, Butterfield Clyburn, Davis, Ford, Bennie Thompson, Town and Wynn). What's up with that? Now, I know Harold Ford is running for the Senate and needs money. But, why should any labor union give him a dime if he's protecting Wal-Mart? I'll come back to that in a moment...

And, then, there is the interesting fact that up pop the names of Ed Towns and Henry Cuellar, who are also proud members of the CAFTA 15. Is there anymore evidence needed that these two deserve to be booted from office via a challenge in the Democratic primary?

Oh, yes, just up the street from the theater, at the swanky W Hotel, Wal-Mart scheduled a press conference last night to attack the Greenwald film. Almost no one from the press showed up. But, who was doing the press work for Wal-Mart? The Marino Organization. Among this p.r. firm's clients are the Directors Guild of America, the Construction Industry Partnership (which is heavily dependent on the building trades in New York) and the Center for American Progress. They also have Republican clients but...

Then, to top it off, I heard from a source that Matt Miller, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, is doing consulting work for Wal-Mart. Miller considers himself a Democrat and CAP, I believe, seems to position itself as a rapid-response operation in opposition to the Republican idea- and-spin machine.

And let's not forget, as I pointed out yesterday, that Clinton operatives are helping Wal-Mart run its "war-room."

UPDATE: This has obviously struck a chord because I'm already getting feedback. As one wag points out, Mia Masten, Walmart's East Coast rep is a former Clinton Administration staffer (her post was Special Assistant to the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development). A slight correction from before--Bill Daley was not involved, but, a Chicago source says, "another brother of the mayor, Michael Daley, was hired to lobby for the zoning changes for the west and southside stores. He has a law firm, and if his firm is hired, it is a signal that his position is the one supported by the mayor, a very powerful signal."

UPDATE: A well-connected source writes just now: "It is my understanding that former Sen. Birch Bayh is a "door opener" for Wal-Mart by scheduling/arranging/accompanying Wal-Mart officials to meetings on Capitol Hill." That would be sad, if true, since I still hold on to the memory of Bayh as a stalwart liberal.

This is unconscionable, morally and politically. I think we all get the moral part--I know readers are pretty hip to the way Wal-Mart rampages through our communities (if not, go to www.walmartwatch.com and get religion). But, politically, this is dumb: if the Democratic Party can't be unified in opposition to the number one economic enemy of the people, to the number one enemy undermining any hope for a decent standard of living in the future, then, what exactly should people think the Democratic Party stands for? Why exactly should voters believe that Democrats have any more intention to challenge corporate power? And I do believe that, given the choice between Republicans and Republican-lite (read: CAFTA 15 or the Wal-Mart 22), people will always vote for the real thing.

So, WHAT TO DO? Here are my humble suggestions:

1. The Change To Win Coalition and the AFL-CIO should jointly send a letter to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer (head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee) and Rahm Emanuel (head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) demanding that no work be given to any Democratic operative or consulting firm that shills for Wal-Mart. If the party refuses to at least dry up the money for Wal-Mart shills, then, the two Federations should pledge not to send a single dollar to any campaign committee.

2. Both Federations should also write to every member of Congress declaring that any Democrat receiving Wal-Mart money can kiss any labor donations or labor support good-bye.

3. Both Federation should, then, send a letter to every supposed Democratic campaign consultant and make it clear: you work for us OR you work for Wal-Mart. You can't do both.

We all know the political world is oiled by money. So, if there's really a commitment to roll back Wal-Mart, it makes no sense to me to reward people who aid Wal-Mart. Stop the money--and their hearts will follow.

==================
November 01, 2005
It's All About Wal-Mart

Whew. Today, it's all about the Beast of Bentonville. Hard to decide where to start but...how about today's world premiere of Robert Greenwald's film "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." Yours truly will be at the advance screening tonight here in NYC and I'll report back with a movie review tomorrow. But, in the meantime, you can buy your very own copy of the movie right here.

And what a day for news about the Beast. First, the inspector general of the Labor Department found that there were "serious breakdowns" in the agreement reached in January with Wal-Mart to settle child labor violations. This was really a sweetheart deal between the DOL and the company: After Wal-Mart was found breaking the law on child labor, the government fined the company a measly $135,000 (and change) and signed a deal with Wal-Mart that said "Next time we want to investigate what laws you might be breaking, we’re going to tell you about the investigation before we do it"—just to give you enough time to cover your tracks, shred documents or muddle the trail.

Rep. George Miller (maybe we should start calling him "Tiger" George because he's one of the few Democrats that consistently sinks his teeth into wrongdoing among corporations and the Republican administration--and doesn't seem to be afraid of his shadow) asked for the investigation after the deal hit the news. You can see Miller's press release here. I swear George isn't paying for all the love he gets on this blog but I just can't help but like a fighter for real people and someone who takes on the corporate machine, rather than kisses up to them to get campaign contributions. Can this guy run for president instead of the pathetic field the Democrats seem to be fielding so far?

There are a bunch of stories out there on this but I'm going to confine the accounts to the one in The New York Times (registration required) by Steve Greenhouse, as a tip of the hat to Steve who was the one who really unearthed the crappy deal and forced the investigation. Good journalism can result in good results for people.

Even more fascinating is the front-page story in the Times today by Michael Barbaro who reports from Bentonville on the "war-room" set up by Wal-Mart to defend itself from the increased criticism of its ways. Here's the nut graf that describes the operation: "Wal-Mart is taking a page from the modern political playbook. Under fire from well-organized opponents who have hammered the retailer with criticisms of its wages, health insurance and treatment of workers, Wal-Mart has quietly recruited former presidential advisers, including Michael K. Deaver, who was Ronald Reagan's image-meister, and Leslie Dach, one of Bill Clinton's media consultants, to set up a rapid-response public relations team in Arkansas."

Essentially, Wal-Mart is looking at its campaign precisely as a political campaign: it is explicitly trying to appeal to "swing" customers--people who are neither supporters nor critics of the company but haven't made up there minds.

For those of you who might recoil at the notion that one of Bill Clinton's media consultants (who is described as a Democrat "who is active in environmental and Democratic causes") is working for the Beast, understand that the Clintons have a very tight, historical relationship with Wal-Mart going back many years to the days when Bill Clinton was governor. Hillary Clinton sat on Wal-Mart's board for six years--at a time when the company was deeply engaged in its anti-union activities--and only left the board when her husband was preparing to run for president.

As much as this is a look at Wal-Mart, the article underscores the tight relationship between the corporate world and the political sphere, no matter what party someone belongs to. It is a subtle look at the close connection between money and politics: no matter what party you belong to, the campaign finance system requires that you belly up to the bar and take corporate cash. Beyond the campaign finance problems, though, it shows the easy crossover for Democrats: someone can be a Democrat and say he's pro-environment yet not see any issue with working for a company like Wal-Mart, which has the biggest negative impact of any single company on the environment, not to mention the life of workers.

November 1, 2005 in Wal-Mart | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
October 31, 2005
Melissa's Handouts

Over the past couple of months, the corporate money has been flowing into the hands of the CAFTA 15. Besides the fundraiser that business associations held for the CAFTA 15 in September, each of these so-called Democrats--who really need to be challenged and defeated in primaries--has been receiving corporate donations. I'm going to start letting folks now about that as the info comes in.

So, we will start with Melissa Bean from Illinois. Here are some of her recent corporate contributions:

A whole host of people from the corporate law firm of Kirkland and Ellis (that would be Ken Starr's law firm) have ponied up money to the tune of $3,550. Microsoft has laid down $6,000, Deere and Co has paid up $3,000; SmithKline (pharmaceuticals) is in for $1,000; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is in for $2,000 and, as reported previously, Wal-Mart gave $2,000 at the office.

This is just an example of the link we've seen before: how cash flows to Democrats and Republicans from corporate interests as a reward for their votes. And we wonder why 45 million people have no health insurance (the insurance lobby) and why bad trade deals get passed.

October 31, 2005 in CAFTA 15 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
October 30, 2005
The Ideological Assault on Pensions

There is an ideological drum beat underway that, to me, mirrors the relentless mantra we have endured about so-called "free trade" for the past three decades. This one goes like this: pensions are a thing of the past, and certainly no one should expect to get a real pension anymore--"real" being, in my humble opinion, a defined-benefit pension.

In the same way that we have been told that the global economy has arrived and so, good folks, everyone has to embrace so-called "free trade" and get with the program, there is a persistent hum that companies are no longer capable of providing pensions for its workers, and certainly don't have any moral obligation to do so.

Into this noise wades Roger Lowenstein in today's Sunday New York Times Magazine with a piece headlined, "We Regret To Inform You That You No Longer Have A Pension." (registration required) There are two themes to this piece. The first I have no particular quibble with: the factual recounting of the looming financial crisis facing private and public pensions (which I've talked about here many times, as well as over at TomPaine.com).

The second theme is what isn't said: that the coming collapse of the private pension system has as a root cause the abdication of the corporate sector from any responsibility to people who toil for their companies. Lowenstein sets this up by painting the picture of the more "mobile" worker--a worker who does not stay at one company for an entire lifetime--as an inevitable economic developmental.

In fact, the more "mobile" worker is an integral part of the stripping away of job security, which is not an economic fact, like the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, but a consequence of the rules that have been set up. And our economy is now run on a set of rules that puts less and less responsibility on companies for the welfare of workers and more of the onus on workers--whether we're talking about pensions or health care. Ummmm...and there is very little focus in the piece on the vast riches being pulled down by executives, which come at the expense of part of the ability to fund rank-and-file workers' pensions.

I'd also point out that Lowenstein makes no reference to the crisis in health care. The huge liabilities faced by companies because of our idiotic health care system adds significant financial pressures that cascades over to the willingness to fund pensions. It's not a one-to-one equation but an important factor
==============