It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Calls For Boycott On Campaign Contributions

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
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 .?

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




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
and ban all lobbyists while your at it too!


(hey - a man can dream, can't he?)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Instead of boycotting, all campaign contributions should be eliminated, period. Two wrongs don't make a right! The political fighting in congress and corporate campaign contributions are both wrong.

It sounds like corporations are black mailing members of congress as usual. "Stop the infighting and lets get back to supporting our corporate interests."

This is a perfect example of how corporate America tries to control the way government does business. This is a wolf in sheep clothing. It may sound like they have good intentions, but they're still controlling a system that is supposedly by the people and for the people.

If corporations really what to change government for the good, get your lobbyists out of the halls of congress, stop influencing elected officials with your campaign contributions, and stop supporting political groups that represent your interests!



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
I doubt this will go anywhere. There are too many corps that look forward to buying their own politician. What bothers me the most is that withholding campaign funds is even considered a threat.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
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



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
It is good to see the trend for cultural change building. It may not happen this election but the issue of money and politics does need as serious reevaluation.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
he is just as bad
and just as big of a liar as the rest of them.
if he is involved, its a lie.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
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



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join