BS: Money & Voting

Subject: BS: Money & Voting
From: saulgoldie
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 09:45 AM

There has been a lot of talk here recently about money and politics. I would like to point out that while the "new" rules allow large institutions to spend freely on whatever political issues or candidates they want, that we, too have such freedom. And we can have a huge impact on the process if we make thoughtful decisions.

This concept is not much different from the rationale for unions. If you have one corporate representative making decisions for "the company" and one-on-one workers making decisions, then the power of the workers is diffused. BUT, if the workers unite into one voice, then you have one-on-one making the decisions. And the power shifts dramatically. This is why the monied powers, including but not limited to the Republican party, do whatever they can to hamstring unions.

Apply this to economics. If you have one business entity making decisions, and many people giving their money to that entity for goods or services, then each (little) customer has a one-on-one relationship with the (large) business entity, and is at their mercy. BUT, if the customers together decide to change the nature of that relationship--prices, nature of the goods or services, treatment of the workers, or public behavior of the company--then you have more of a one-on-one relationship. Or not even a one-on-one; such changes don't need to be 80% or even 50%. Sometimes, only 7% is enough. That could be three times their profit margin. And once they see the change, their bean-counters will start to howl!

Soooo, I am suggesting that those here who have the strong social and political views that they scream that voice with their thoughtful spending. You can affect things by pointing your credit card in one direction or another. You can choose which companies to deal with, and which companies NOT to deal with. You can write consumer letters to specific companies expressing your views.

Examples: Walmaart is a rapist. (Well, not literally. But, you know what I mean...) Land, local economies, employees, and even American manufacturing. Don't shop there. Cosco treats its employees well and has received recognition for it. Shop there. Home Depot and Dominos Pizza are both well-known heavy donors to right-wing causes (which, for some strange reason also includes heavy regulation of *personal* behavior and imposition of religion--go figure). Don't give them your money to end up in the hands of the Kock brothers. Don't let them funnel your money to these causes.

Reminder of recent success with this approach. It took a while. But finally, Glenn Beck succumbed to significant pressure on his advertisers that shoppers would boycott them if they did not stop promoting him. And going back in time, there was the legendary lettuce boycott. And, of course, the bus boycott.

Other news. If you invest money in a retirement fund, or if you belong to a union that does, you can influence the investment institution or union to invest only in "good" places. Imagine a union under siege, suddenly taking its money out of all investments that funded its tormenters! In fact, didn't I hear that one of the unions in Wisconsin did just that?

Anyway, we have talked here at great length about discussion, war, and making change. I just want to remind folks that they can do a lot by making conscious choices when they spend money. Literal votes can be suppressed, redistricted, hacked, or thrown in ditches. But you CHOOSE where to put your money each time you pull it out of your pocket. Choose to "spend your values" and make some change!

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Money & Voting
From: gnu
Date: 04 Jun 11 - 11:08 AM

I do, within reason of course. Unfortunately, many do not have a choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Money & Voting
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 05 Jun 11 - 03:47 AM

All sounds very plausible. However..

There is a curve chart somewhere in this. As you shop with smaller large companies, their ethical stance gets better. Thus proving you don't get to the top by being nice.

However, you then start curving the other way as you reach the companies who claim they can't afford to look after their staff and suppliers as well as larger companies.

After that come the small companies who can't compete with larger companies which limits the spending power people have with them.

So, more and more, this stance becomes a feasible tool of those with more spare cash than others. As I noted above though, you don't get to the top by being nice.

I note hat despite such mass action attempts, Nestle are still turning a decent crust for their shareholders.