Daniel Gross has a column in Newsweek critiquing Wal-Mart's political strategy. Some of Gross' criricisms make sense, but his first point is a bit odd:
Wal-Mart has pursued what would appear to be a self-contradictory political strategy. Clearly, Wal-Mart fears the prospect of unionization more than any other factor. Low wages, low benefits, and a generally supine workforce have been fundamental to its business model for decades. Wal-Mart clearly believes Democrats are more sympathetic to unions than Republicans. So one might think that the company would be doing everything in its power to help Republicans and hurt Democrats. That's certainly what it used to do. In the 2000 campaign cycle, its political action committee devoted 85 percent of its donations to candidates for federal office to Republicans; in 2004, the split was 78 percent to 22 percent. But with Democrats having resumed control of Congress, Wal-Mart has increasingly deployed corporate resources to help Democrats stay in power. So far in this cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, Wal-Mart has basically split its $884,700 in donations equally between the two parties (52 percent to 48 percent in favor of the Republicans). The list of recipients includes long-standing friends of organized labor such as Rep. Charles Rangel of New York and Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.
Um... to a political scientist, this is not rocket science. Powerful material interests will play both sides of the political fence if their preferred party is unlikely to win. This doesn't mean Democrats will suddenly propose "Wal-Mart Day" legislation or anything -- but campaign contributions are likely to help blunt legislation that could hurt the company in the future.
Read More
(4)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE