“Boycott Campaign Donations!” What do YOU think?
“Boycott Campaign Donations!” What do YOU think?
My attention was grabbed by Joe Nocera’s OpEd column, “Boycott Campaign Donations!” in the New York Times last Friday, August 12. He shared the idea articulated by STARBUCKS CEO HOWARD SCHULTZ’s to "BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN DONATIONS. Nocera reports that Schultz’s idea was nothing unusual. The REAL SURPRISE came in the response to his e-mail not only from within the company but among a group of some 50 business leaders he shared it with — that response was so overwhelming that it galvanized him to launch a “BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN DONATIONS!” movement. What do YOU think?
I encourage YOU to read Nocera's column for yourself by using this link, “Boycott Campaign Donations!”
You will find that Nocera proceeds to clarify Schultz’s BOYCOTT idea, “In effect, Schultz thinks the country should go on strike against its politicians. ‘The fundamental problem,’ he said, ‘is that the lens through which Congress approaches issues is re-election. The lifeblood of their re-election campaigns is political contributions.’ Schultz wants his countrymen — big donors and small; corporations and unions — to stop making political contributions in presidential and Congressional campaigns. Simple as that. Economists like to talk about how incentives change behavior. Schultz is proposing that Americans give Washington an incentive to begin acting responsibly on their behalf. It’s a beautiful idea."
He continues, “To Schultz, the debt-ceiling crisis — so destructive to the country, yet entirely manufactured for political gain — was merely the final straw. ‘The debt crisis is really the symbol of a larger problem, which is that our leaders are not leading,’ he said. The real crisis, he believes, is a crisis of leadership, both in the White House and in Congress, which is draining confidence. ‘America’s leaders need to put their feet in the shoes of working Americans,’ he said. ‘Instead, all they think about is their own political self-interest.’”
Will the VERY SUCCESSFUL CEO of STARBUCKS be able to manage a significant PROTEST campaign so that our politicians pay attention IF we do “BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN DONATIONS”?! Do YOU think that such a BOYCOTT would pay-off?
Having recently read Schultz’s book just published March 29, 2011 about his leadership to “save” STARBUCKS, “Onward,” I have special interest in his leadership for a BOYCOTT to discontinue ALL contributions to political campaigns. He was VERY successful with STARBUCKS. Can he be as successful with this political venture? What do YOU expect? Are YOU willing to join this CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION BOYCOTT?
IF you need more information about Schultz, I suggest you read his book. I agree with Darryl Campbell’s review of the book posted on the Amazon.com webpage, “Books of the Month, April 2011: Onward is not a puff piece. In just under 400 brisk pages, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz details the multitude of factors--the recession, new consumer behavior, overexpansion--that led to the company's downturn during 2007-2008. Obviously, Schultz was successful, and his book has plenty of valuable lessons about management and leadership--standard features for most business books. But the most interesting thing about Onward is Schultz's honesty about the whole process, from his determination to make difficult personnel changes to his admission that he considers it a personal failure when he sees someone with a competitor's cup of coffee. Schultz even makes the chapters about his agonies over the company's breakfast sandwiches a fascinating study in the minute decisions that go into running a multibillion-dollar company. Conflicts, raw emotions, high stakes: Onward is a business book that goes beyond feel-good maxims and actually has a story to tell.”
Additionally, for MORE information on Schultz, read the Wikipedia feature article, “Howard Schultz.”
Nocera declares, “What I particularly like about Schultz’s idea is that it is not just another plea for compromise and civility, which does nothing to affect political behavior. It is hardheaded and practical, the kind of idea you would expect from a good businessman. Although it would require contributors from both the left and right to join arms, it seems to me that there are enough people in both parties who are fed up enough to give this a try. He’s already lined up one organization, Democracy 21, to support the idea; he’s searching for more.”
I checked on the “Democracy 21” organization and encourage you to take a look. Right now, the feature item on the homepage is, “Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer Endorses Bold New Proposal by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to Boycott Campaign Donations” dated yesterday, August 13, 2011.
And then Nocera concludes his column with a question and his support of the BOYCOTT idea, “Is Schultz’s idea a long shot? Yes. Is it worth trying? You bet it is.” Do YOU agree with Nocera? I shall be reading comments with interest.
Here we go…
Mr. E.
John Eyster lives in the Edgerton area. He is an adjunct professor of political science at UW-Waukesha and an advocate for democracy/civics education in Wisconsin high schools. John is a community blogger and is not a part of The Gazette staff. His opinion is not necessarily that of the The Gazette staff or management.
Aug 20, 2011 at 1:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
This is a very good idea. To stop political crisis at the best percentage, political donations should be stopped. I really admire Schultz' determination and courage. Rather than just voicing aggravation, though, Schultz has decided to do something about this. He has promised to quit donating to political campaigns until things are more to his liking. Schultz is trying to encourage other companies to do the same thing. Resource for this article: <a title="Howard Schultz cuts politicians off at the pocketbook" href="http://www.newsytype.com/10212-howard-schultz-political-donations/">Howard Schultz drops political figures off at the wallet</a>.
Aug 16, 2011 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'd like to see no "corporate" donations to campaigns because they are not "persons" and they have already bought our reps. Individual donations I would question withdrawing. Ms. W
Aug 16, 2011 at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Not giving donations is unrealistic in the age of Citizens United. So they will donate to an interest group instead and make better quality lie-based ads.
Aug 15, 2011 at 8:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why would it make sense for reasonable people to boycott donations to those running for office. The big billionaires are not going to stop funding these races with third party money that we cannot block?
Politicians should raise money from people in their districts or states. No outside money should be allowed to filter in and influence our elected officials. Presidential money should be limited as well and corp or individuals should not be allowed to dump millions into a front group that supposedly is non political.
Aug 15, 2011 at 6:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
@ janesvillefirst --
I think I would check out some of Rick Perry's credentials first if I were you:
http://endoftheamericandream.com/archive...
.
Rick Perry is nothing but another globalist shill, and with saying 'Yes' to the creation of a Super Congress -- I mean 'Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction', with its power to draft legislation, thereby superseding the power of Congress itself, Paul Ryan's proving himself to be not too far behind.
Aug 15, 2011 at 6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Couldn't agree with Mr. Schultz more! Great idea! No one in Washington should get a dime until they actually start working for Americans.
They, from the President on down, should stop getting facetime on TV, stop talking, talking, and try to solve America's huge problems.
Aug 15, 2011 at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Schultz is one of the biggest lefties heading any corporation, so I would agree that he, you and all blind followers of the New York Times should quit contributing to your candidates. We'll keep doing what's best for us and the country and keep donating to the Paul Ryan's and Rick Perry's of the world so we can get out from under the dark cloud by which the President and Senate have placed over our great country.
Aug 15, 2011 at 2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama 2012-End Of An Error
Aug 15, 2011 at 11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lord_Robot, believe it or not, Russ Feingold, although not poor was one of the least wealthiest person's to hold senate office. He was outspent and beaten by Big Money - Ron Johnson, who ranks as one of the wealthiest members of the Senate. Compared to the rest, Feingold was the "farmer joe."
http://www.postcrescent.com/article/2010...
http://www.zimbio.com/Senator+Russell+Fe...
Aug 15, 2011 at 10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
'WE ARE PAYING FOR THE 747, THE MOST EXPENSIVE PLANE THERE IS, FOR OBAMA TO GO CAMPAIGNING IN'
just curious if you could tell me how past presidents campaigned for re-election??
Aug 15, 2011 at 10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
I'm on the fence on this one, and skeptical. The skepticism comes from the fact that usually anything that JWE is for, I should be against. In this case, however, I find myself drawn into the absolute horror of actually agreeing with Eyster to a certain extent. I just want to know what's in it for the Socialists? I guess I would take it a step further, to say that I think that ALL DONATIONS be banned, or limited to a certain dollar amount, AND that candidates are allowed to spend only a certain dollar amount towards their campaign. Level the playing field, and make it FAIR for everyone, so that "Joe the Farmer" can run for office against a Feingold. Know what I mean??
Aug 15, 2011 at 9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
I feel Iriss's wrath through her written words.
Aug 15, 2011 at 8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
When wealthy CEO's are recommending that we should begin boycotting campaign donations it is time to do the opposite. Why should the ordinary electorate give up their only small hope of defeating the plutocrats who dictate the direction of OUR American economy? The wealthy already buy most elections, why hand them the election on a silver platter, even though they are used to that.
Aug 15, 2011 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
John: Pay no attention to Iriss. She's one of the biggest LOONS that comment on your blog. She's always looking for the negative and seldom engages in good dialogue. She'll definitely have some type of retort for what I've said here. Just watch!
Aug 15, 2011 at 5:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/harvey_h...
Aug 15, 2011 at 5:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Answer to this story is common sense. I'm guessing if you don't agree perhaps you benefit somehow.
Either way I see no change in site so I don't really care about it or the next election! Especially considering how much candidates at Republican debate spent talking about Iran more than real issues in this country!
Aug 14, 2011 at 11:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think that Iriss is against it.
Aug 14, 2011 at 11:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
I have been saying this for years! There is way too much money in politics. For any other job you may have to buy a certain color of clothes or something else, but in politics they are buying anything they can get. It's especially sickening when a person is willing to spend more money on a campaign then what their elected job pays such as Ron Johnson did. When you spend Millions of dollars to win a 100,000 job, why would you not think that would lead to corruption? Another thing too, these elected officials are working for the American people. The last I knew American doesn't work 5 out of 7 days and go on a summer break. I say your government elected representatives should be working well over 300 days a year. Remember you were not forced to take that job, you were elected to serve the people and while American serves you 24/7/365, you should serve your country to the same capacity considering enough time is wasted for a re-election campaign all ready. I'm an American citizen and I approve this message.
Aug 14, 2011 at 10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Iriss – In John's very first link it clearly implies that Joe Nocera had a conversation with Howard Schultz. Based on that conversation Nocera, in his article, wrote (begin cut and paste) "By Friday morning, when we spoke, Schultz was not only ready to unveil his idea, but to spearhead a movement, if that’s what it took.
In effect, Schultz thinks the country should go on strike against its politicians. “The fundamental problem,” he said, “is that the lens through which Congress approaches issues is re-election. The lifeblood of their re-election campaigns is political contributions.” Schultz wants his countrymen — big donors and small; corporations and unions — to stop making political contributions in presidential and Congressional campaigns. Simple as that.” (end cut and paste)
.
Unions are mentioned right after “big donors and small; corporations and...”
.
I do hope that you will try to keep these blogs and comments in perspective. These blogs and responses are not worth so much grief and discontent as you appear to have. Take them for what they are – one person's opinion. Certainly everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion and many times we disagree – that is one of the key aspects of having freedom of speech.
Aug 14, 2011 at 5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Some say that to train a mule you first have to get his attention. Maybe Charles Schultz idea will do the same for politicians in Washington who are more interested in their career than in coming up with real solutions for this country. It is worth a try.
Aug 14, 2011 at 5:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
garyprime....As Mitt and the Supreme Court say Coporations are people. So why do Coporations "shareholders" only get taxed 15% unlike the noncorporation people. Like the Hedge fund manager "corporation" that made $5 BILLION last year. If they are just people why do they get to pay less in taxes?
Aug 14, 2011 at 4:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think the premise behind iriss's comment is that when donations from individuals and corporations stops there is no one left to give money except unions and special interest. Both have agendas they want to push. The difference is the unions have a steady flow of cash based upon employment numbers; special interest cash flow is determined by how fired up people are.
Aug 14, 2011 at 4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
What if those who contributed ask for a refund. Perhaps for breach of trust!
Aug 14, 2011 at 3:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am disappointed to note that apparently you, "IRISS," did NOT read the whole blog post today. The discussion citing both JOE NOCERA's column and HOWARD SCHULTZ's "BOYCOTT CAMPAIGN DONATIONS" idea makes VERY CLEAR that the BOYCOTT is aimed at ALL FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS to PRESSURE them to get to work to REALLY SOLVE the DEBT/REVENUES situation of the USA NOW! This is NOT DEM or REP or IND. So, NO, YOU did NOT smoke me out... YOU revealed that YOU did NOT really read & comprehend the blog post. VERY DISappointing! One of the key points which I often remind my students about is the sage advice, "Put brain in gear before talking." Go for it, "IRISS"! Here we go... John W. Eyster
Aug 14, 2011 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
If corporations are people.
I demand to see the long-form birth certificate.
Aug 14, 2011 at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
gpawcat... I think you are on to something. That is a great way to fight the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling. Lets tax the crap out of campaign donations. But, we will also need a safeguard to prevent only the independently wealthy from running for ofice.
Aug 14, 2011 at 11:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
In a word: brilliant!
If we the people fail to act on this, we deserve the destruction of our nation that our congressmen are wreaking.
It's often said that in our three-branch system of government, congress is ultimately the strongest because it controls the purse strings: well, now WE have a chance to control THEIR purses!
Aug 14, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
If you want less of something, TAX it!
If some on gives me over $13,000 I have to pay gift tax. Why do candidates get millions to campaign to keep their jobs without paying taxes? If you set a limits like $100,000 for a state contest, or 250,000 for a federal race, then anything over could be taxed at the SS & Medicare rates, with the proceeds going into the SS trust fund that Washington spent.
Aug 14, 2011 at 10:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
I don't know if the Starbuck's CEO will be able to mount a successful campaign. If a politician, or group of, sense that the boycott may be successful, watch some type of legislation get introduced that will negatively affect coffee stores. The Starbuck's CEO is against campaign contributions, but what about campaigning for/against legislation that may affect his business/business interests? While I commend his efforts, I think he should do what he has been hired to do - make sure his company makes money so my stock goes up in value. Or better yet, start a "all coffee shops must sell their coffee for 85 cents a cup" campaign. Maybe then coffee prices will be inline with the Sally Struther's/Save the Whale organizations of the world that tell me "for the cost of a cup of coffee a day your contributions....."
The other day I saw a Romney quote "Corporations are people too". This is one of the unintended consequences of the first amendment. A couple of years ago, the US Supreme Court confirmed it. So as much of a dufus as Romney may be, he is right, corporations are people. I don't like it and I am sure most other Americans don't like it. But, until the first amendment gets repealed, or a future supreme court overturns the decision, we are going to have to live with the fact that "one dollar equals one vote".
Aug 14, 2011 at 7:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
I appreciate YOUR comment, "ImJustSayin" and I agree. The real problem, however, as I see it, is that $$$ is the bottom-line. My 8 years as a registered lobbyist w/WI State Government made me the MORE aware of the reality of the ways in which $$$ buys even the HONEST, RESPONSIBLE people once they are elected. So it goes... here we go... John W. Eyster
Aug 14, 2011 at 6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Or we could elect honest, responsible people to begin with, and not the ones who have the most commercials and biggest smear campaign?
I'm just sayin'...
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.