Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Calls For Boycott On Campaign Contributions , page

From the Huffington Post:

Infuriated by what he described as irresponsible behavior, Howard Schultz is calling on his fellow CEOs -- and other would-be donors -- to boycott all campaign contributions to either party until the nation's elected leaders put aside their political posturing and find some common ground on long-term fiscal issues.

Now, we all know that political campaigns are financed primarily by campaign contributions from corporate interests, which are approved through CEOs who expect political favors in return. But what happens when the CEOs decide to pull back the money? We're not talking about individual contributions here... we're talking about the primary source of political money.

I'm personally watching this story. It will be interesting to see where it goes, if anywhere. Will other businessmen follow suit? Or this just a sudden flash of responsibility that will die off as soon as the next issue rears its ugly head?

Or will this threat bring repercussions from those in political power?

Or will we see political campaigns scaled back for lack of funds? And does this open the door to independents a little wider?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

I'm watching it too. I hope others follow. I don't think GE will get out of Obama's bed tho

reply to post by WeRpeons

The problem is, if no one can contribute, who pays for the ads to get the message out? We'd all be voting in the dark (like most people seem to do anyway). Just imagine that instead of knowing who stands for what on the issues when you walk into that voting booth, you get a list of names and have no earthly idea who any of them are. Where's the advantage in that?

Without the ability to advertise, none of us would know who Ron Paul is, for instance. The campaign contributions to his campaign allow him to advertise, to get his message out.

And of course don't forget the fact that just making something illegal does not stop it from existing. During Prohibition, alcohol ran freely. People are shot where guns are outlawed. All criminalization does is drive the activity underground.

I don't see any problem with campaign contributions as long as the contributors do not exert undue influence. That's the problem. Everyone has the right to petition their representatives, and obviously a part of that petitioning has to do how much support they can be expected to give come reelection time. Seriously, would you be willing to help someone out who you know for a fact will be campaigning for your opponent come election time?

It's simple human nature.

At least here is one instance where the monetary aspect of the corporate/government relationship may actually work to do some good.

TheRedneck

HA HA! Starbucks seeks bipartisanism! Sure...

Starbucks offers free coffee to those who join Obama volunteer corps


Starbucks Offers Free Coffee On Nov 4th For Those Who Voted

In 2000 Schultz (Starbucks CEO) donated $50,000 to the DNC, and since has donated thousands to Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell, President Barack Obama, then presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards

Blatant corporate election swaying if I ever seen it.

reply to post by TheRedneck

---

If every candidate were given a set amount for their advertising, they would all be on a level playing field. Allowing corporate money to candidates allows candidates to be bought when it comes time to vote for regulations that may affect the corporate contributor's interests. It's really a conflict of interest.

The majority of political ads stretch the facts or promise things they can't deliver anyways. A simple way to eliminate candidate dishonesty and inform voters where the candidates stands on issues, is to mail out a magazine flyer to all eligible voters with a comparison on how all the candidates stand on the issues. It could also be accessed on the internet. It's clear cut and it can eliminate the voter who blindly votes along party lines.

No longer would candidates be allowed to buy their way into office. Either with corporate contributions or unlimited use of their own finances. Candidates could no longer out spend each other.

When it comes to politics, advertising doesn't have the voter's best interest in mind. Most voters who vote based on a 30 second sound bite are not well informed. The best way to buy a car is to comparison shop. By providing a candidate comparison you're giving the voter a way to find out if their candidate really does share the same beliefs as you.

reply to post by WeRpeons

If every candidate were given a set amount for their advertising, they would all be on a level playing field.

I have to agree. But then, who determines which candidates actually get money for a legitimate campaign and which do not because they have no intention of actually running a serious campaign? After all, we're talking about huge sums of money to get a message out nationwide, and that would be tempting for anyone who simply needed cash.

The majority of political ads stretch the facts or promise things they can't deliver anyways. A simple way to eliminate candidate dishonesty and inform voters where the candidates stands on issues, is to mail out a magazine flyer to all eligible voters with a comparison on how all the candidates stand on the issues. It could also be accessed on the internet. It's clear cut and it can eliminate the voter who blindly votes along party lines.

Again, a great idea but the devil is in the details. Someone may be completely in favor of balancing a budget, for example, but vote against a balanced budget amendment because of riders that make a good bill into a bad bill. Politicians do this all the time, and it is constantly hyped.

When it comes to politics, advertising doesn't have the voter's best interest in mind.

When it comes to anything, advertising does not have the best interests of anyone but the advertiser in mind. You don't really thing those commercial ads are trying to actually help anyone except the one doing the advertising, do you? Nike spends millions on advertising just to try and convince people that their shoes really are worth many times the cost of a generic brand of shoes.

Most voters who vote based on a 30 second sound bite are not well informed.

I have said for many years now that we are, as a society, getting exactly what we deserve.

A populous that does not care who runs the country will have crooks and inept charlatans running the country before long. And in that respect I cannot blame the politicians so much as I can the people in general. We tend to think of the government as an organization separate and above the people, but the country was not founded on that, It was founded on the people being part of the government, and the final resting place of ultimate power.

I agree with you, but I just don't see the solution as all that simple.

TheRedneck

While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 19 days ago with 81 member flags

People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 4 days ago with 72 member flags

Critical Mass Has Arrived: Fast & Furious Scandal - Dems Join With GOP
  Posted 17 days ago with 32 member flags

Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags

President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags

Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 7 days ago with 24 member flags

Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 13 days ago with 23 member flags

US judge blocks indefinite detention of Americans
  Posted 12 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: