• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Tyson and Wal Mart Open Wallets

Mike

Well-known member
Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods open campaign wallets


By Alison Vekshin
Stephens Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The two largest corporations in Northwest Arkansas have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on political contributions, aimed largely at dozens of federal lawmakers who have the power to help or hurt the companies' bottom lines.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Tyson Foods, Inc., have directed donations through their political action committees (PACs) to members of Congress who sit on panels with jurisdiction over agriculture, banking, trade, taxes and commerce.

Tyson Foods, the Springdale-based meat and poultry giant, distributed $65,146, or one-third of its $202,063 in PAC donations, to campaigns or committees affiliated with members of the House and Senate agriculture committees, according to an analysis of 2003 and 2004 campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Wal-Mart gave $165,500 to campaigns or committees affiliated with members of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, which handles corporate tax and trade bills.

The Bentonville-based retailer also gave $225,000 to members of the House Committee on Financial Services, and $165,000 to lawmakers on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Targeted company donations are not uncommon, said Candice Nelson, director of the Campaign Management Institute at American University.

"PACs typically give to members of committees that have jurisdiction over issues that they care about," Nelson said. "They give money to gain access. So if there is an issue before Congress or before the committee, they can get the ear of a member of the committee."

Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, said lawmakers are singled out "in recognition of the fact that committees are where a lot of the action takes place."

Noble said that money invariably buys access.

"These companies are very bottom line-oriented," Noble said. "If they didn't think this was helping their business, they wouldn't put the work into it. Often the legislation that they can influence is worth millions of dollars if not more to these companies."

Art English, a political science professor at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, said the contributions raise the issue of whether monied corporations enjoy special privileges from lawmakers that are unavailable to regular citizens.

"The American public perceives, generally speaking, those relationships as too cozy," English said.

Jay Allen, Wal-Mart's senior vice president of corporate affairs, said donations are a normal course and Wal-Mart owes it to shareholders, employees and customers to be involved in the political process. No quid pro quo is involved, he said.

"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're probably not going to like the meal," said Allen, who is treasurer of the company's PAC, called the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., PAC for Responsible Government.

"You have to be there to represent your interests," he said. "Nobody else will and we learned that."

Tyson Foods and Wal-Mart are among a handful of Arkansas companies to run PACs that have donated large sums to political candidates and committees leading to Election Day on Nov. 2.

The state's largest contributors also include Stephens Group, Inc., the Little-Rock investment firm (and parent of Stephens Media), which gave $364,349, and New Orleans-based utility holding company Entergy Corp., which gave $273,627, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center grouped donations from the companies' PACs, executives, employees and their immediate families in compiling the totals.

Tyson Foods gave $24,500 to nine lawmakers of the 21-member Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee in the 2003-2004 election cycle. The company gave $40,646 to 24 members of the 49-member House Committee on Agriculture, with chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., securing $5,000.

The agriculture committees handle issues such as mad cow disease, country-of-origin labeling, child-nutrition programs and others of significance to Tyson Foods.

Tyson Foods also has supported home-state incumbents in Congress. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., received an $8,000 campaign donation and an additional $2,500 for her leadership PAC. Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers, got $5,500, while Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, received $4,000 and Rep. Marion Berry, D-Gillett, got $5,000.

PACs can give up to $5,000 to individual candidates in a primary and then again in a general election. PACs also can give $15,000 annually to a national party committee, and $5,000 annually to another PAC, a state or local party or other political committee.

In all, the Tyson Foods PAC, called TYPAC, distributed $202,063 to more than 100 candidates and committees, up from $138,000 in the 2002 elections.

Some 65 percent of Tyson Foods donations went to Republicans in 2003 and 2004, according to federal records.

"We contribute to people who have demonstrated an interest in the company and a willingness to listen to our concerns about issues that arise," said Archie Schaffer, Tyson Foods senior vice president of external relations. "We do it to support the government process and to be able to have a voice about the decisions that are made that affect our company."

Wal-Mart donates to candidates who favor a "pro-business" agenda, Allen said.

"We are supportive of incumbents and people that are generally appreciative of the role business plays in the country and open to discussing those issues," Allen said.

Funded by Wal-Mart management, the PAC distributed 77 percent of its donations to Republicans over the last two years, with the bulk of funds going to incumbents.

Donations for this election have gone to 29 of the 41 members of the House Ways and Means Committee, with $165,500 directed at 20 Republicans and nine Democrats.

The retailer also gave $165,000 to the campaigns or committees affiliated with 29 members of the 57-member House Committee on Energy and Commerce, including donations totaling $10,000 to committee chairman Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.

The committee has jurisdiction over interstate and foreign commerce, consumer protections, public health, and food and drug safety.

Wal-Mart also donated $225,000 to 34 members of the 70-member House Committee on Financial Services, which oversees the securities, insurance and banking industries.

The committee chairman Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, received $8,500 in contributions from Wal-Mart. A leadership PAC he operates got another $7,500.

On the Senate side, Wal-Mart gave $98,000 to the campaigns or committees affiliated with 11 members of the 21-member Senate Committee on Finance, which addresses such issues as Medicare and taxes. Seven of the 11 recipients were Republicans.

Campaigns or committees affiliated with 10 of the 21 members of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs received $67,500 in donations.

After years of sitting on the sidelines, Wal-Mart has emerged as one of the country's largest corporate contributors.

The retail giant has given nearly $2.1 million to candidates through its PAC, nearly double the $1.3 million donated in the 2002 cycle and more than triple the $576,050 donated in 2000.

Like Tyson, Wal-Mart also gives to Arkansas lawmakers. Lincoln's campaign got $4,000 in contributions while her leadership PAC got $10,000. Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., received a $1,000 donation. Boozman, Ross, Berry and Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Little Rock, each got the maximum $10,000.

"We need an effective PAC to be effective in Washington today," said Allen, noting that the PAC is one facet of a growing government-relations program that includes six lobbyists working in Washington.

Wal-Mart, which employs 1.5 million people worldwide, is affected by a host of issues pending in Congress ranging from trade and health care to labor and taxes, Allen said.

"We've learned that its expected that we're there because of our scope and visibility," he said. "We're the leading employer in a number of states, not to mention the country."

Allen noted that Wal-Mart receives solicitations from lawmakers "all the time."
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
""We do it to support the government process and to be able to have a voice about the decisions that are made that affect our company."


Money buys a voice. That's what our government has come to. They don't even try to hide it now - they just come out and say it. What a sad state of affairs.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
This doesn't even take into account the "hidden" money that travels through the people Tyson does business with and then to the politicos.
 

mrj

Well-known member
In a perfect world, there would be no greed, no envy, and no shysters preying on others.

The Second Coming of CHrist hasn't happened yet. Until it does, and until we can find a country that works better than ours, maybe we should all do our share to keep things as honest as possible.

I believe that includes businesses making the effort to help fund campaings of people whom they HOPE will treat business fairly in Congress.

I do not want it all up to the bleeding heart enviro-extremists, the anti-animal agriculture/vegetarian, "food for people, not for profit", $10.00 per hour minimum wage promoters along with dozens of other "cause" groups plus those who want to "help people", and to be paid well for doing so to be the only ones who Congressmen will listen to, do you?

Clearly, most businesses, including corporations, as well as most Ag organizations' PAC's, must be in the political arena to protect themselves from government mischief, rather than to solicit government largesse for themselves.

That is, unless we want the likes of George Soros, all those Foundations protecting the inheritance of the very wealthiest individuals (most of whom favor the Death Tax for the lesser wealthy among US citizens), Unions, and others who are funding much of the worst of the political rhetoric these days being the only ones who can influence government.

Would you prefer to pay taxes to fund campaigns?

Woldn't it be better to allow people to spend what they want as individuals and require that it be published and open instead of this game playing by the likes of Soros funding all those supposed "independent" groups like Rock the Vote and others, supporting only liberals?

MRJ
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Any excuse to keep the sorry system we have will do, now won't it, MRJ. Politicians are selling their votes and all you can do is defend them.

You are a class act, lady.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
She doesn't get it. She doesn't understand what a company is actually saying when they say, "We do it to be able to have a voice".

Hear no evil
 

DiamondSCattleCo

Well-known member
I've always thought that ALL political contributions should be banned outright. No company or entity should have a voice in a "government for the people", especially not when that voice is purchased with dollar bills. The taxpayers should fund political campaigns by serious contenders, and these campaigns should be strictly regulated. ie) Each politician makes X number of stops, there would Y public TV debates, etc.

As a taxpayer, I'd be happy to toss a few bucks towards properly run campaigns, especially if that meant that PACs, SIGs, and multinational companies ceased to have a voice in government.

Rod
 

the chief

Well-known member
I CAN'T believe someone is as stupid about politics as MRJ. Do you actually BELEIVE that the corruption in this country ONLY comes from liberals? Have you been in a freaking cave?

What a sorry piece you are, MRJ. You can't get out of your own conservative self long enough to see that this government is so far out of whack that it needs fixing NOW.

And you will go to the polls and vote to retain these sorry SOB's that are screwing it all up.

We Have the best government that MONEY CAN BUY and you are promoting it. Lord, bless those that cannot see!!! :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
the chief said:
And you will go to the polls and vote to retain these sorry SOB's that are screwing it all up.

You listen to MRJ- who openly admits that she neither has the time nor resources to study or know what the issues and happening events are- that she just blindly follows her leaders, and you can see how people like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin were able to come into existence and dominate the number of people they did....
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
I have to come down on MRJ's side on this one. Blaming corrupt politicians on money is the same as blaming murders on guns. Political speak is the most important speech that should be protected by the first amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that campaign contributions are political speak. What is needed is the light of truth shown on those contributions!!! So if a politician is bought by a corporation or George Soros, that fact is known before the election, not hidden through PACs...and if that information is a liability, it will be reflected in the election. The way we get honest politicians is with an open, honest system.

How many of you think campaign finance reform law was a step in the right direction?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
RM, "How many of you think campaign finance reform law was a step in the right direction?"

I think all they did was throw us a bone. Nothing was fixed and the biggest problems weren't addressed.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Its a hard question robert mac. The thing that usually happens is that politicians are tempted on the side, some succumb more than others, and it continues until it really gets bad. The eithics committees should be policing Congress but they don't. The leadership should be policing them, but they don't. No one seems to be held accountable and people like MRJ look the other way until it gets really really bad (its there now).

The government workers are protected when they shouldn't be and they are the ones that allow the frauds in the captive agencies to go on. The oversight committees are giving a blind eye to the frauds and taking payoffs to do this so industry can get away with cheating the American people. No one is being held accountable and they are all playing the dirty politician's game. It isn't about liberals, democrats, republicans, and conservatives, its about competence and corruption and their ability to hide it from the American people for their self interest.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Foley walked on his indescretions, JoAnn Waterfield walked in the USDA (and so have all her partners in crime) and no one gets held accountable.

What are oversight committees for if not for oversight? The problems at GIPSA have happened over time, not just the end of last year. We have an incompetent or corrupt USDA and too many idiots support them.
 

TSR

Well-known member
Somehow I kinda think those $10 hr minimum wage people would outnumber the corrupt corporate executives and who knows they might even make up a majority of the voters in this country.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
TSR said:
Somehow I kinda think those $10 hr minimum wage people would outnumber the corrupt corporate executives and who knows they might even make up a majority of the voters in this country.

The republican way of late has been to court the executives and use their money to sway elections. It is starting to wear a little thin. Too many people are starting to know the truth about someone who is peeing on their leg and calling it rain.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
TSR said:
Somehow I kinda think those $10 hr minimum wage people would outnumber the corrupt corporate executives and who knows they might even make up a majority of the voters in this country.

The republican way of late has been to court the executives and use their money to sway elections. It is starting to wear a little thin. Too many people are starting to know the truth about someone who is peeing on their leg and calling it rain.

If I were to look at it as the lesser of two evils, I would rather worry about Republican's corporate influence than Democrats in control of the security of our country.
 

TSR

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
Econ101 said:
TSR said:
Somehow I kinda think those $10 hr minimum wage people would outnumber the corrupt corporate executives and who knows they might even make up a majority of the voters in this country.

The republican way of late has been to court the executives and use their money to sway elections. It is starting to wear a little thin. Too many people are starting to know the truth about someone who is peeing on their leg and calling it rain.

If I were to look at it as the lesser of two evils, I would rather worry about Republican's corporate influence than Democrats in control of the security of our country.

You MAY be right but they (Republicans) certainly don't want to do anything about the border do they?? Osama could have walked across many times by now and be working as a cheap laborer for Tyson. lol Throw that in with their catoring to the corporations and my, my, what a mess we have.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
The republicans haven't been doing their part on securing our country other than beating a couple of tin bit dictators and getting us in some intractable messes. I remember the Balkans and we didn't get in the protracted and costly mess we are in right now.

I think we deserve better than a bunch of politicians who think we have it made just because they are in power and then do nothing to make sure things go the way they are supposed to except make them worse.
 
Top