REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

When consumers push soda companies out of politics (ALEC)

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Sunday, April 8, 2012 08:03
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 902
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, April 7, 2012 4:15 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Yeah, I know this was mentioned before in another thread, but I found this interesting too:
Quote:

As election 2012 heats up, the question of how corporations will figure into the first presidential election post-Citizens United is a hot topic.

This week, both Pepsi and Coca Cola renounced their membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, giving us a hint of what corporate accountability might look like this election year. The companies quit the trade group, which had been pushing restrictive voter ID laws, after being targeted by prominent African-American progressive group Color of Change.

With the controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court declared the corporate expenditure ban unconstitutional, holding that independent expenditures could not be constitutionally limited in federal elections, and implicitly that corporations could give unlimited amounts to other groups to spend, as long as the expenditures were made independently from the supported candidate.

The president criticized the move in his State of the Union address that year, and a poll shortly after the decision demonstrated that 80% of Americans, from both sides of the aisle, opposed the ruling. Subsequent polls show consistent concern about the amount of corporate money being spent in our political system. The soda giants' announcements indicate that corporate fallout in 2012 may extend well beyond ad spending enabled by Citizens United.

Social media has enabled consumers to register opinions with unprecedented speed and visibility and, in the ever-competitive marketplace, companies are responding in real time. Coca-Cola announced it would leave ALEC a mere five hours after Color of Change went public with its complaint. Pepsi followed suit on Thursday.

At issue are two hot-button topics: voter suppression and the "stand your ground" law that has been invoked as defense in the February shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Both are timely and relevant, both disproportionately affect the African-American community and both were hatched in closed-door sessions at ALEC meetings.

ALEC is not a new group; it predates the Citizens United decision by almost four decades. ALEC brings together corporations, conservative think-tanks and Republican legislators to collaborate on model legislation generally introduced through state houses. The voter ID laws at the center of the controversy have passed several state houses and face challenges from the Justice Department for racial bias. An estimated third of African-Americans do not hold state registered identification, so would be prevented from voting under these laws.

Voting rights advocates claim these laws would effectively keep millions of Americans from the polls. Yet studies show that voter fraud is exceedingly rare and where it does exist, it is not likely to be remedied by instituting ID laws.

This sharp protest against ALEC laws comes on the heels of the institution being spotlighted for its role in the stand your ground legislation at the center of the Trayvon Martin tragedy. Stand your ground was unveiled by the National Rifle Association at a 2005 ALEC gathering and since the initial meeting, 24 states have passed the law.

Americans generally co-exist peacefully with the corporations whose activities pervade our daily lives. There is a mutually recognized symbiotic relationship. But, at a time when American confidence in government is at an all-time low, voters have little tolerance for displays of affinity between elected officials and powerful corporate interests.

Early on in the Republican primary, presumed nominee Mitt Romney was skewered for a response to a question at the Iowa State Fair, where he proclaimed, "Corporations are people." This is a sentiment almost 60% of Americans disagree with, and it reinforces that Romney's history of wealth and corporate elitism put him out of touch with the common concerns of most Americans and casts doubt on where his loyalty would lie if elected.

Americans generally co-exist peacefully with the corporations whose activities pervade our daily lives. There is a mutually recognized symbiotic relationship. But, at a time when American confidence in government is at an all-time low, voters have little tolerance for displays of affinity between elected officials and powerful corporate interests.

Americans generally co-exist peacefully with the corporations whose activities pervade our daily lives. There is a mutually recognized symbiotic relationship. But, at a time when American confidence in government is at an all-time low, voters have little tolerance for displays of affinity between elected officials and powerful corporate interests.

Early on in the Republican primary, presumed nominee Mitt Romney was skewered for a response to a question at the Iowa State Fair, where he proclaimed, "Corporations are people." This is a sentiment almost 60% of Americans disagree with, and it reinforces that Romney's history of wealth and corporate elitism put him out of touch with the common concerns of most Americans and casts doubt on where his loyalty would lie if elected.

Coke and Pepsi are hardly the first to face the wrath of disgruntled citizens. In 2010, Target Corp. came under intense fire after Minnesota campaign disclosure laws revealed that it had given a contribution on behalf of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Emmer was known as a social conservative who opposed civil rights for gay and lesbian people and opposed immigration reform. Weeks of backlash followed, included demonstrations at more than 1,000 Target stores nationwide, hundreds of thousands of petition signatures and an intense social media campaign.

In the race to command the marketplace through brand loyalty, the corporations' own marketing strategies can make them vulnerable to consumer backlash. Target had positioned itself as the family friendly, all-American department store. It was a place people could feel good shopping after Wal-Mart became a target for its union busting. Similarly, "Have a Coke and a Smile" doesn't fit as a slogan for a company involved in robbing Americans of their democratic right to vote. Color of Change is a perfect emissary to Coke. The company established a dedicated marketing group for African-Americans in 2006 and just this year promoted a campaign targeting black teens to celebrate Black History Month. So, Color of Change represents a critical business demographic and its concerns must be taken seriously.

Republican leaders have and will continue to cry foul about these kinds of efforts. However, as 2012 unfolds, we'll see more of them. These campaigns have become the embodiment of democratic principles in a country where consumer choices matter and the government is seen as too close to corporate interests.

This power of the pocketbook has the potential to invigorate the free market by investing more people in its outcome and to crowd-source our cultural norms by reflecting the values of a diverse country. This is something all Americans should embrace. http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/opinion/hogue-alec-coke/index.html?iref=
allsearch

Isn't one of the favorite cries of our righties "If you don't like what they do, don't buy their product"? (Well, next to "USA, love it or leave it!") They should be really happy to see people availing themselves of their freedom-of-speech rights and choosing not to shop with businesses of whose actions they don't approve. Capitalism at it's best, yes?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, April 7, 2012 10:18 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

Freedom of speech and Freedom of commerce are part of the foundation of America. Who can possibly complain about citizens enjoying both Freedoms in the pursuit of their desires?

--Anthony


_______________________________________________
Note to self: Mr. Raptor believes that women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Reference thread: http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=51196
Never forget what this man is. If you respond to this man again, you are being foolish.

“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.”
--Thomas S. Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2012 1:00 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!



Sorry to see CocaCola cave like this. I'd have thought they knew better than to be hustled and bullied into this sort of thing. Glad I no longer own any stock in their company.

* Note to everyone* - Do not believe Anthony. He does not know what he thinks he knows on matters concerning of what I think or believe.


" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

"The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it." - Albert Einstein


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2012 5:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


But isn't this capitalism at it's best? "If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy from them". Isn't that what you guys say? Don't we have the right to spend our money any way we like?

If these companies didn't know what they were contributing to, and now that they've found out, they don't like it, don't they have the right to pull their funding? I don't see this all happening so fast unless these companies made their decisions based on SOMETHING other than petitions and e-mails and stuff...there just aren't that many people upset about ALEC (yet). I'd more likely see them waiting for it all to die down and seeing if it hurt their bottom line FIRST before pulling out, unless there's some other reason, maybe coupled with the public outcry.

What about OUR freedoms? We used freedom of speech to tell the companies what is going on and that we don't like it. The petition I signed and linked to makes no mention of boycotting the companies, it was merely offering some information about what ALEC does and asking the company to stop supporting them. The companies valued their customers over ALEC, so decided to go with their customers. Don't they have the freedom to do that? They make their profits by their customers, so they chose profit...what's wrong with that?

Nobody's telling ALEC what to do, they're exercising their freedoms. ALEC can do whatever it wants, but individual freedom means nobody HAS to support them if they don't want to.

Here's the petition:
Quote:

Your company funds or participates in the activities of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group whose ideologically driven agenda has led to the reckless promotion of bills that harm consumers, endanger individuals and deny the fundamental, constitutional rights of millions.

ALEC pushes discriminatory voter ID legislation that suppresses the votes of minorities, young voters, low-income voters and the elderly by erecting barriers that could disenfranchise millions of voters across the nation. Bills based on ALEC's model legislation in this area have been introduced in numerous states. Although proponents of voter ID laws claim the goal is to reduce voter fraud, there is no evidence that such fraud occurs with any regularity in this country.

Further, ALEC has worked with the NRA to aggressively spread passage of laws like the Florida so-called "Stand Your Ground" law which was implicated in the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin. Such laws, more aptly named Shoot First laws, encourage vigilantism that endangers whole communities.

I strongly urge you to withdraw from and cease supporting ALEC and its agenda. I am part of a growing number of Americans who are concerned about the role that ALEC is playing in the promotion and passage of laws that do real harm to individual Americans and will be taking note of which companies continue to support ALEC's efforts.

Please do the right thing, and separate yourself from ALEC's extreme political, and reckless, agenda.

No boycott, no THREAT of boycott, just an urging to stop supporting something we think is wrong. What's wrong with that?

If you have a problem with all of this, then I can't help but think you don't actually believe in freedom, just "some" freedoms. Is that true?



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 8, 2012 8:03 AM

FREMDFIRMA



Nah, like most jackboot licking authoritarians he only believes in the "freedom" of other people to act according to what HE wants, and is fundamentally incapable of seeing the dichotomy.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, April 29, 2024 00:32 - 6326 posts
Russian War Crimes In Ukraine
Mon, April 29, 2024 00:31 - 17 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Sun, April 28, 2024 22:22 - 10 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:09 - 1514 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:08 - 2315 posts
Russia, Jeff Sessions
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:07 - 128 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Sun, April 28, 2024 21:06 - 25 posts
Dangerous Rhetoric coming from our so-called President
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:10 - 2 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Sun, April 28, 2024 18:06 - 294 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, April 28, 2024 15:47 - 3576 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sun, April 28, 2024 02:03 - 1016 posts
The Thread of Court Cases Trump Is Winning
Sat, April 27, 2024 21:37 - 20 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL