Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Starbucks CEO says 100+ businesses to withhold campaign donations over debt
The Ticket ^ | August 25, 2011 | Rachel Rose Hartman

Posted on 08/25/2011 10:58:53 AM PDT by no dems

Heads of over 100 major companies have joined Starbucks Corp. CEO Howard Schultz in a pledge to boycott political donations until Congress and the president agree on a long-term debt and deficit plan, Schultz announced in a letter Wednesday. "Remarkably, the initiative triggered a national dialogue and a groundswell of support," Schultz wrote, adding that in the 10 days since releasing his pledge, he "heard directly from thousands of concerned citizens and was astounded by the volume of support we received through calls, emails, social media exchanges and various other public votes of confidence." That included over 100 business leaders who signed on to Schultz' initiative, including Myron Ullman of JC Penney, Duncan Niederauer of NYSE, and Walter Robb, co-chief executive of Whole Foods, Tim Armstrong of AOL, Mickey Drexler of J. Crew Group, and billionaire investor Pete Peterson.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: campaigndonations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
I wonder who most of them donate to; Pubbies or Dems.
1 posted on 08/25/2011 10:59:01 AM PDT by no dems
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: no dems

bfl


2 posted on 08/25/2011 11:00:48 AM PDT by tutstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Last time around, probably the dems. This is definitely a publicity stunt.


3 posted on 08/25/2011 11:00:57 AM PDT by Tulane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Obama says 100+ companies to face stringent IRS audits, OSHA reviews, and EPA compliance studies...


4 posted on 08/25/2011 11:01:38 AM PDT by null and void (Day 944 of America's holiday from reality...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

bump.


5 posted on 08/25/2011 11:01:59 AM PDT by ken21 (ruling class dem + rino progressives -- destroying america for 150 years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Cool. Let’s hope they’re mostly demon rats. Of course, if these guys bail out on Hussein and don’t support Constitutionalists, there might be hell to pay if Hussein wins.

Oh, hell, there will be hell to pay IF they send him money too. He is like the scorpion on the back of the frog.


6 posted on 08/25/2011 11:04:33 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

No one is calling for Unions to boycott campaigns, however.


7 posted on 08/25/2011 11:05:14 AM PDT by Palmetto Patriot (How much better off would we be if these bastards would just leave us alone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems
I believe Schultz himself donates 98% to Dems.

My suspicion is that most of these people donate to Dems.

They probably know that Obama is on-track to lose. So when the Repub wins they can now again say "there's too much money in politics", like the Dems and media did 10 years ago. They can then try to get another campaign finance law passed to hamstring Repubs. Remember, Obama raised 10X as much money ($800M) as McCain ($86M) because McCain did not raise money but took public financing. It's so very telling that the Dem nominee did not.

8 posted on 08/25/2011 11:19:41 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Palmetto Patriot

Actually, there’s another thread on FR which states that Trumka (sp?) is calling to pull back from contributing to the Dems and is instead forming some kind of separate PAC to raise money.


9 posted on 08/25/2011 11:21:45 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

What I find tedious about this, is the idea that the Republicans need to be taken to task on this too.

Look, I think the Republicans screwed up no doubt about it. The real problem is, Obama’s refusal to cut spending in any way shape or form.

If something the Dems do needs to be addressed, somehow it becomes the Right’s fault too. If something the Republicans do needs to be addressed, they are addressed exclusively.

This guy and his group can go F themselves until they come to grips with who is president and how he is performing his duties. When they address that in public, without spreading the blame around, get back to me.


10 posted on 08/25/2011 11:28:22 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (McCain 5 yrs Left/1 yr right "BAD!" - Republicans 3 yrs Right 1 year Left to elect RINOs. "Good?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems; mickie
No donations till there's a meeting of minds in D.C ?.....hah.

Looks like CEOs across the fruited plain are just as nuts as university and college presidents.

They have no knowledge of how politics works. They think their D.C. representatives and senators do nothing in committee meetings and on their respective floors but pass peace pipes around, puff on them and come to an amicable meeting of minds on all thorny issues.

Even the debt problem can be solved by "reaching across the aisle" and then both chambers end up singing "Kumbaya" in perfect harmony.

The reality is that these mindless CEOs and university honchos are petty tyrants in their own little domains and they don't have to do much debating and compromising with rivals in their own realms as there aren't any to speak of.

They just don't get it that there's a difference between a dictator getting something done and individual senators or reps trying to get something done on behalf of the people, not their own dictates.

So their little donation "boycott" to force entente is just laughable....and it won't work, no way, no how.

Starbuck's coffee is mediocre and their pastries look tempting but are pure garbage-tasting, anyhow. I would "stop donating" to Starbuck's cash registers because its CEO is such an idiot, but I haven't patronized them for a long time....and don't intend to....so it's all moot,

Leni

11 posted on 08/25/2011 11:40:39 AM PDT by MinuteGal (Too Bad Those of Us who Work for a Living Have to Support Those who Vote for a Living)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

I saw this guy on Cavuto and he looks rational but is a dingbat.

Not contributing to Republican campaigns means union contributions and funding get a greater kick

The man is covert leftwinger sabotaging fund raising and attempting to make an endrun around the Supreme court.

boycott Starbucks........ anti american


12 posted on 08/25/2011 11:51:52 AM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ....Rats carry plague)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems
In case he missed it, they did agree to a long term deficit plan. They agreed to maintain the status quo of large deficits long term. If he meant deficit reduction plan, well that will take removing half of the pols in D.C., but that requires being able make a distinction between people and their ideas which this CEO cannot.
13 posted on 08/25/2011 11:57:38 AM PDT by throwback ( The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

They just don’t want to be called racist for baling on Obama.


14 posted on 08/25/2011 12:01:27 PM PDT by Chandalier (You say Obama, I say O-blame-o!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Schultz is a big Dem.


15 posted on 08/25/2011 12:02:07 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - God gives countless, indisputable clues that He does, indeed, exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

they’ll start cutting the checks the minute some Congresscritter puts a “pinch bill” in the hopper that threatens their bottom lines.


16 posted on 08/25/2011 12:05:06 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: null and void

As I read the version of this story in my paper this morning, it seemed pretty obvious that the cut-off was aimed at the Congress, not at our revered and messianic Leader. I agree that this interpretation is not obvious from the story cited in this thread.


17 posted on 08/25/2011 12:44:05 PM PDT by bagman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: no dems

Alinsky tactic ... make the other side live up to the standards you design for them but won’t follow yourself unless it’s politically expedient and then only long enough to get useful publicity out of it.

Liberals are SO transparent ... with their Alinsky tactics and not much else.

Sarah Palin will raise her funds the ‘old fashioned way’ ... without overseas illegal contributions.


18 posted on 08/25/2011 12:54:47 PM PDT by HighlyOpinionated (I am a Catholic, A US Citizen, A Patriot, A TEA Partier, An Oath Keeper, A Voter, An Auburn Fan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems

That’s the only way to get their attention.


19 posted on 08/25/2011 1:00:32 PM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: no dems
We will lose out on this if any business which may have supported a conservative takes this bait and withholds campaign contributions. That leaves the field clear for the communist unions to contribute mega bucks to the communists of their choice.

I go back to the last USSC decision on campaign contributions which IMO was 100% WRONG.

We were hoodwinked with neither side wanting the only PROPER outcome and that would have been ONLY “WE THE PEOPLE” CAN CONTRIBUTE, not corporations, not unions, not religious or other organizations and certainly no foreign contributions.

To allow any entity other than “WE THE PEOPLE” to have a voice with a multi-million dollar megaphone is to negate the voice of “WE THE PEOPLE”.

Both sides in that USSC case had a vested interest in keeping “WE THE PEOPLE” essentially out of the equation.

There should be not PAC money and only a limited dollar amount should have been allowed to be sent to any candidate by an individual.

To allow otherwise, as the USSC did is to not only suppress our voice in who gets elected but endorses bribing of public officials under the guise of a campaign contribution.

Once again our government is working against us and needs to be forcibly shoved back into the confines created by the US Constitution.

20 posted on 08/25/2011 1:22:19 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Welcome to the new USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson