Image 01 Image 03

Big corporations are not your friend (Wal-Mart caves to Color of Change on ALEC edition)

Big corporations are not your friend (Wal-Mart caves to Color of Change on ALEC edition)

Because large corporations are under continual attack from the left, there is a tendency for the right to think of big corporations as ideological compatriots.

They are not, at least not if they are public.  By and large they are large entities run by politically weak people who will cave into the race hustlers at the drop of a shout of “racist” or a Facebook page filled with name-calling or a Twitter barrage.

There is no better example than what has been happening with ALEC, as detailed here before.

Now the big kahuna has caved (h/t gs in Tip Line):

Wal-Mart Stores Inc, the world’s No. 1 retailer and the biggest seller of firearms in the United States, is dropping out of a U.S. conservative advocacy group that has been a lightning rod over voting and gun laws.

Wal-Mart said late Wednesday it is suspending membership in the American Legislative Council (ALEC), which the retailer joined in 1993.

ALEC sparked controversy recently because of its involvement in voting laws and in “stand your ground” gun laws, including the one under scrutiny in the Florida killing of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in February.

A coalition of liberal advocates targeted the group for its support of the self-defense laws.

So I guess we’ll just have to beat them at the ballot box.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Big companies hate controversy – they want to sell to everyone. Wal-Mart or Coke isn’t going to be involved with anything that offends even 10% of their customers.

Foundations doing political work need to get their funding from individuals, and companies in businesses removed from the retail marketplace, where such campaigns are felt.

The proper response is to make sure these companies also get heat for any left-leaning actions of any other groups they fund. All we have any right to expect is a balanced approach.

    Well, Amazon has offended me. I just made a purchase from Target that I would have ordinarily made from Amazon for $225. When Target starts this nonsense, I will find some other vendor. Someone out there wants the money from the 10%.

      OcTEApi in reply to Towson Lawyer. | May 31, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Then it won’t be long til hte left has you right where they want you…

      Rubbing two sticks together trying to start a little grass fire by the side of the road so you can brew up some chicory that you just picked then continue weaving baskets for sustainable urban gardeners… people who used to work at corporations.

      //snarc off//

JimMtnViewCaUSA | May 31, 2012 at 4:50 pm

This is a tricky and important area.
So far, the right has not come up with a way to hold corporations neutral. Most large corporations have a department that covers “green”, philanthropy, volunteering, diversity, recycling, giving back to the community, and on and on. These departments attract left wing liberal arts grads, who in turn push the corporation to support only left-wing causes.
Example: who would expect Home Depot to be a player on the issue of imposing gay marriage? Is this an issue which looms large for their customer base of small business, independent contractors, young families? One doubts it. Yet, HD goes way beyond neutrality.

Thanks for the info. Just sent my stock email letter out terminating business with Walmart. In it I explain why and what they can do to win back my business.

“So I guess we’ll just have to beat them at the ballot box.”


I hate to say it again, but businesses are not for our use as political tools.

My inclination is to huff into my local Wal-Mart (where I have the Ragspierre dedicated parking slot), and give my local manager a piece of my mind along with a promise of a boycott (which I would mean).

Trouble is, there are a lot of people from my town that act would hurt.

So… I will content myself with giving the local manager a piece of my mind, along with the corporate guys.

AND I’ll work to defeat the Collective wherever, whenever I can contrive to do it.

    OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    Both options equal #FAIL

    Please enlighten us how Color of Change, Center for Media and Democracy, Media Maters, Common Cause, People for the American Way and other economic terrorists like them can be beat at the ballot box?

      Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | May 31, 2012 at 5:32 pm

      First, your “economic terrorist” phrase is hyperbole. We do not like (maybe hate is a good word) what these people are doing, but calling them names is useless.

      Second, you don’t defeat such people EXCEPT by reducing the blood-fight over the bones. In other words, you work to reduce the power concentrated in government.

      What else is ALEC involved in doing BUT trying to move government in directions of which we approve?

      Reducing the concentrations of power in government is work fit for the ballot box. But it is ALSO done by strengthening businesses and their support structures, and our larger civil structures.

      Think of it like this; Steyn has observed the truism that as government gets bigger, everything gets smaller. The corollary is true, as well. As we build power into things BESIDES government, government is diminished.

        OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2012 at 7:32 pm

        Don’t spew platitudes of idealism, try to “educate” me on the principles of fluidity in Gov’t de-consolidation when I ask a direct question… why, you only bolster your moonbat creds.

        I’ve already proven in debate theoretical concept of “economic terrorism” used by leftist activists…

        You want hyperbole… how about your prolific misuse of the word COLLECTIVISTS.

        “Reducing the concentrations of power in government is work fit for the ballot box.”

        You mean organizing people around common principles and thought chained to grass roots action at the ballot box to promote the common good? “trying to move government in directions of which we approve?”

        From the works of Ayan Rand: Collectivism
        Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

        In other words, you little snot, the COLLECTIVISTS have just massively out maneuvered to reduce the power of ALEC concentrated in government.

        Gates Foundation Pulls Funds from Conservative ALEC, Sends Half a Million to Liberal NEA
        by Joy Pullmann on May 30, 2012

        Activists accelerate campaign against ALEC
        By Watchdog Staff / May 14, 2012

        OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | May 31, 2012 at 8:28 pm

        Stick with ignorance by claiming HUH?

        You’re starting to hit your stride.

        OWS trying to blow up bridge that that transports goods and people is NOT “economic terrorism”…

        According to Ragspierre, its WTF Investment in a 21st Century Infrastructure using the Broken Window Theory

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | May 31, 2012 at 8:55 pm

          You are beginning to smear things with other, unrelated things.

          That is a very, very bad sign. Look into some help.

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | May 31, 2012 at 10:39 pm

          heh, since the “economic terrorists” were the topic (and a notion where I destroyed your argument in regards to their activities WRT #StopRush) of my first post it seems that its you that’s having a hard time with cognitive thought process.

          Since I go to bed early, sleep comfortably through the still night and get up relatively early and growing weary of toying with your simplistic moonbattery…
          I’ll throw you a bone as to why you don’t have a logical rebuttal to my initial inquiry and to how this is all going to end.

          These nefarious left wing groups are not going to be defeated through the ballot box because they are using the Cloward-Piven strategy to infiltrate the system (everything good and decent) from within and destroy them… namely the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.
          Nitey-nite You’re done.

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | May 31, 2012 at 10:45 pm

          Cloward-Piven (as a strategy) has nothing to do with what this thread is about.

          It has a clear, discrete meaning. It does not contemplate legal activism to try to pressure businesses to one side of a political issue or another (regardless of how we feel about the activists).

          Nighty-night, and you are out of your flucking mind.

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | June 1, 2012 at 6:14 am

          So you’re saying this thread is about “legal activism” try[ing] to pressure businesses to one side of a political issue or another.”

          In other words you have your head so far up your own ass you can’t contemplate or comprehend any arguments that summarize that leftists leveraging (legal non-profit organization status)… increasing the number of (501(c)’s) and weight of relatively small vocal minority of astro-turfed progressive activists to destroy legal non-profit institutions with which they disagree?

          And that that’s the core issue as to why they will not be defeated at the ballot box but by only them (using Cloward-Piven strategy to overburden to a point where that behavior becomes unsustainable) to destroy non-profit organizations.

          I have to say Ragspierre, that I have debated some real hard core liberals, and I have never met a moonbat that is as childish as you, that is so anti-intellectual to blatantly propose as you have, that “your argument” is null and void because I said so (has nothing to do with what this thread is about).. and then to NEVER propose any counter argument but instead deflect with red herring (“economic terrorist” phrase is hyperbole) diversionary arguments, engaging in obscurantism (babbling about Mark Steyn and thinking you’re educating people) while peppering the thread with (poisoning the well) ad hominem personal attack tactics HERE and HERE and then declare “you are out of your f***king mind.”

          And actually, your supposition of “As we build power into things BESIDES government, government is diminished” is the antithetical argument to the nature of non-profit 501(c) institutions as they solely exist only in form and function because of their government tax status … while you have never proposed any argument or standpoint to further (your (Mark Steyn truism) as to how the functions of these many groups would still exist when “government is diminished.”
          Please explain moonbat how church’s would function in a profit and loss market economy?

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | June 1, 2012 at 8:49 am

          Really. Get some help. Today would be good.

          OcTEApi in reply to OcTEApi. | June 1, 2012 at 9:39 am

          Your ad hominem personal attacks are gaining steam.

          To quote Prof Jacobson:
          “Folks, this is how agitators do it. They agitate you, and then when you react, you are in trouble.”

          Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | June 1, 2012 at 9:44 am

          Look, I’m totally sincere. You need help. Attacking you would be like kicking a sick dog. Pick one or two of your run-on paragraphs to take with you, so the pros have something to help with the diagnosis. Today could change your world.

1. Someone at LI noted that Jamie Gorelick is on Amazon’s board. Let’s look at Wal-Mart’s:

Aida M. Alvarez

Former Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration and a member of President Bill Clinton’s Cabinet from 1997 to 2001
The founding Director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the financial regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from 1993 to 1997
Chair of the Latino Community Foundation of San Francisco
A director for UnionBanCal Corporation
A member of the diversity advisory board for Deloitte & Touche LLP
Aida joined the board in 2006

Draw your own conclusions.

2. IMO power, left to its own devices, tends to aggrandize itself. IMHO conservatives are well aware of this wrt government power and union power; we have a way to go wrt business power though hopefully watching crony capitalism in action is educating us.

3. The election, of course, remains the priority. And the economy remains the key to the election. Unemployment claims were up last week.

    Ragspierre in reply to gs. | May 31, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Years ago, Hi-Larry Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board, if memory serves.

    Still, as a capitalist, I will seek value (and THAT term can be very, very inclusive) for my money, and will avoid extraneous considerations.

    Read what Milton Friedman said.

      OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2012 at 7:57 am

      Enbridge Venture Plans Pipes to Gulf as Keystone Blocked …
      Mar 27, 2012

      Former Michigan Gov James Blanchard (D) sits on the board of Enbridge…

      You might be starting to get the corporatist picture why Keystone has been summarily blocked.

Since I am reducing the clutter I have in my life then these actions taken by Walmart, Amazon or Target motivate me to not buy more clutter from these companies.

    OcTEApi in reply to syn. | May 31, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    Here’s a tip:

    You might want to unload everything that isn’t nailed down on Craigslist or eBay … energy prices are expected to necessarily skyrocket, costs of vehicles to increase by $11,000 per vehicle.. ect.

    You get the drift, people are going to have a lot less expendable cash, IMO other peoples clutter will be selling cheap in an effort to salvage their existing lifestyles.

    Walmart not worried about one less customer when millions will be looking for increased savings.

I wrote a post about ALEC a few weeks ago after the Center for American Progress compared their opposition to the Common Core national standards as federal overreach to George Wallace standing in the doorway of the University of Alabama.

ALEC must be effective on issues of great importance to gutting the Constitution once and for all. They have become the scapegoat for everything the Left finds to be in their way.

Vote with your feet. I haven’t ordered anything from Amazon since they dropped ALEC, and I usually order things daily.

Speaking of Walmart…. I remember watching TV a couple of years ago and the station was doing a report on the opening of a new Dollar Store. The reporter picked out one 300 lb spandex lovely and asked her what she liked best about the Dollar Store. She replied that she liked the Dollar Store because she didn’t have to get all dressed up to go there like she did to go to Walmart.

Will give you an idea of the dress standards expected at Walmart.

Correction through the “ballot box” implies that the majority can neither reproduce in the minority nor terminate its children in the majority. They also can not abdicate their responsibility to raise them right and Right. Dreams of instant gratification will need to be prioritized.

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the sky and over all the beasts that tread upon the earth.

Ah, ancient wisdom that remains equally enlightened today.

Big business has never been our friend. Historically big business has always supported big government; they know how to use it to keep their smaller competitors down. The liberal movement (now known as the conservative movement) has always been driven by the bourgeoisie and small business.

Read what Milton Friedman said.

Not sure what in particular you mean, Rags. But there’s this:

Another easy shot consists of corporate contribution under the guise of social responsibility. Many studies of such contributions all show the same thing.(1) The oil companies contribute to conservation groups that are opposed to exploration for oil and that are engaged full time in bashing the oil industry. The nuclear industry contributes to antinuclear organizations that are engaged in bashing the nuclear industry. Most corporations contribute to universities and business schools, whose faculties are often dominated by fervent opponents of free enterprise and supporters of socialism. It would be a nice exercise, and I hope someone will undertake it, to determine the political affiliations of the corporate officials in charge of allocating corporate contributions — in the public affairs section or the government relations section or some other section in charge of corporate contributions. It boggles the imagination to understand why corporate executives believe it is in the interest of their shareholders to finance activities directed to destroying the foundations of a free market society. Yet there is no doubt that they act as if they did.

And this:

…Recently, Capital Research Center analyzed the grants by major corporations to public policy organizations, like Cato and like the others. And they found that the major corporations made $3 in grants to the non-profit left for every dollar they gave to the non-profit right.
…I would like somebody to explain to me why the business community in general is so insistent on supporting its own enemies? Why does it devote so much of its contributions to those who are opposed to it?

An analogy with the behavior of RINOs toward conservatives comes to mind. It’s an analogy I’ll defer until after the election.

    gs in reply to gs. | May 31, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    Blast, I did it again. The foregoing was meant as a reply to Ragspierre.

    Ragspierre in reply to gs. | May 31, 2012 at 10:17 pm

    “As a disciple of Adam Smith, who believes that the pursuit of self-interest can be in the national interest, I’m not going to bash business for pursuing its self-interest. A corporate executive who goes to Washington seeking a tariff for his company’s product is pursuing his stockholders’ self-interest, and I cannot blame him for doing so. As an employee of the stockholders, he has a fiduciary responsibility to promote their interest. If he’s made a valid, accurate judgment that a tariff will be in the self-interest of his enterprise, he is justified in lobbying for such a tariff. If he is a principled free trader, his proper recourse is to resign and seek a job where his principles do not conflict with his fiduciary interests. So I don’t blame corporate executives who lobby for tariffs. I blame the rest of us for being such fools as to let them exploit us. We’re to blame, not them. We’re the ones who enact the tariffs.”


    “It was recently expressed in a book by Paul Weaver called The Suicidal Corporation. That book, published a year or so ago, is devoted “to the corporation’s war against its own best interest,” and that’s exactly what I intend to discuss. I am going to argue that corporations, and especially large corporations, seeking to pursue through political means what they regard as their own interests, do not do a good job of evaluating their interest. The policies they pursue and promote are very often adverse to their own interests. That’s what I mean by my title, The Suicidal Impulse of the Business Community.”

    I wrote today, on another blog…

    Of the many suicidal things I’ve lobbied against U.S. companies indulging in, high on the list is so-called “corporate responsibility”, or more minutely “green sensitivity”.

    This is highly vogue in business schools, and has been for decades. There are (apparently) sound marketing reasons to play with the greenies. But the greenies are NOT playing. They are deadly serious Collectivists and misanthropes generally.

    Instead of giving money to people like these, American (and other) companies should be forming and funding people to counter them effectively.

    Efficiency is inherently good management. Nobody with a brain suggests waste and pollution (often a loss of a potentially valuable asset) is a good idea. Well-managed, profitable businesses are the cleanest possible models you’ll find.

    But, as we’ve noted here many times together, these people are not about that kind of responsible use and development. They are about rolling humanity back into the dark.

    We need to pressure companies to start acting in their own survival interests, and ours.”

    Again, I do not suggest that businesses should be our political pawns. I DO suggest that the true nature of our opponents be recognized, and that we COUNTER the pressure of the Collective to subvert business assets to their own use. That is not the same.

      OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2012 at 7:27 am

      Its hilarious how you’ll spout a bunch of first principles found in Freidman and Smith and such little understanding, a quaint naivety as to how major corporations are subverting the moral and ethical underpinnings of our American Capitalist economic system to their own advantage.

      By capitulating to these nefarious 501(c)’s they garner political favor, embracing crony capitalist, liberal fascist corporatism they profit off stealing the productive capacity of human freedom and liberty through the liberal utopian idea of market socialism.

      “We need to pressure companies to start acting in their own survival interests, and ours.”
      This statement is testament to your deft ignorance to whats really happening.

        Ragspierre in reply to OcTEApi. | June 1, 2012 at 9:12 am

        Call someone. Get some help. Really.

          OcTEApi in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2012 at 9:41 am

          Your ad hominem personal attacks are gaining steam.

          To quote Prof Jacobson:
          “Folks, this is how agitators do it. They agitate you, and then when you react, you are in trouble.”

          You’re are kindred spirit of Kimberlin.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 1, 2012 at 10:00 am

          You’ve lost all sense of self-awareness.

          Well, and self-parody.

          These are signs. Tell the pros when you speak with them. There is help for you.

I’m not offended by the decisions Amazon and Walmart made. After all, they get to decide what they think is best for their bottom line. Similarly, I get to decide who to support with my money.

I used to buy products from both companies every week, but I won’t now. I bet they won’t miss me any more than I’ll miss them.