Walton, Benioff Join Billionaires Backing Clinton in 2016
Source: Bloomberg Politics
Billionaires Alice Walton, George Soros and Marc Benioff are helping to finance a super-political action committee encouraging former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to run for president, according to a report filed yesterday with the Federal Election Commission.
Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-01/walton-benioff-join-billionaires-backing-clinton-in-2016.html
Alice Louise Walton (born October 7, 1949) is an American heiress to the fortune of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. She is the daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton and Helen Walton, and sister of S. Robson Walton and Jim Walton. In March 2012, her estimated net worth was US$26.3 billion, making her the second-richest American woman and the tenth-richest American.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walton
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)to back a woman who'll fight tirelessly for the downtrodden and reverse policies that subsidize their wealth.
Altruism, indeed.
24601
(3,962 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Seems to be the Theme of Continuum only that instead of 65 years in the future, we live it today.
"Set in Vancouver British Columbia, the year is 2077, world governments have fallen and have been bought out by corporations leading to loss of privacy and basic rights."
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)I'm so excited.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)Looks like these "shareholders" are going to get a big return on their investment... on the American taxpayers' dime.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Which (contrary to its name) is a conservative PAC which ran ads supporting George Bush and the Iraq war. She also struck and killed a pedestrian while driving and got off scot-free.
Hillary's Walmart connections are paying off.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)Everyone knows about Soros and his long-time support of liberal causes. He has given away billions to human rights, education... etc.
Benioff owns salesforce.com. He also gives to worthy causes. $100 million to UCSF Children's Hospital.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)But, any Walton- that just doesn't sound, smell or feel right.
juajen
(8,515 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Goldman Sachs is probably just trying to hurt her too, right? It's not like rich people supporting corporate dems and republicans follows any sort of pattern or anything......
Mass
(27,315 posts)Soros is far from perfect, but he has at least a track record supporting Democrats (not sure when it comes to progressives).
Not familiar with Benioff, but giving to charitable entities does not mean you are a progressive. If anything, conservatives want charitable enterprises to perform functions assumed by the state, so I would need more information to be sure
As for Walton, supporting somebody who is known for her business friendly ways that early in the primary is a good move to be sure there will be no primary and no move to the left. No surprise she would go.
So, I am more wary of the effort to anoint Hillary as the nominee rather than having a discussion about what this country should be. Discussions matter. Democracy matters.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)I was just getting some recipes together for Sunday, getting all excited (about the food and a few guests, not the game)
Then I come here to check out stuff, find out what's going on from the good people.
..and I read about this.. (Just the info, FORGO, not your fault. )
We're totally expendable..useless,
We're like the serfs in the 5th century being laid waste by the Franks and the Visigoths.
OR the peasants in 13th century Japan..
OR the peons during the Siege of Baghdad
And FORGO--your comment about her sucking up to Walmart paying off sure hit the kneecap right on the money ! LOTS OF IT.
What a bunch of crap..
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)These "liberal" billionaires seem to be less about liberal causes and more about who will do their bidding in DC..........
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/21/news/economy/marc-benioff-campaign-donations/
valerief
(53,235 posts)something like whoever will make him richer. At least, that's how I read it.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)It disgusting how "liberals" suck up to the rich when they throw a few tiny crumbs their way.
Guess what people, rich people don't give a fuck about you.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Titonwan
(785 posts)"Boy, when I was young, you fought long and hard to make sure a transworld mega corporation kept their end of the bargain. I thank them for their struggle to keep us small and insignificant. Them was some mighty good commercials that made all of us to feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Boy! don't get me started on the cool Boeing and Exxon/BP ads! USA! USA! USA!
Beacool
(30,250 posts)The Republicans already have the Koch Brothers and some other billionaires funding anti Hillary PACs.
As for Alice Walton, she is of a similar age as Hillary's. She and Hillary came of age in the 60s, along with the women's movement. Alice may have decided that it's fine time for a woman to be president. Besides, she could be a Democrat for all we know.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Democrats don't donate 2.6 million to George Bush and promotion of the Iraq war (the one Hillary supported).
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Whatever.......
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)She was before it before she was against it.
She only voted to authorize, right? She was tricked by Bush, right? Meanwhile millions of us were in the streets saying the war was bullshit yet she chose to go along with Bush, and hundreds of thousands died because of it.
Whether she was naive enough to be tricked by a dumbass like Bush, or she is just plain hungry for war, she was wrong!
Lasher
(27,597 posts)Oh wait, Senator Byrd warned her on March 19, 2003.
R Merm
(405 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)She was the first woman on the board and pushed Sam for more female inclusiveness. Wal-Mart may not have been a champion of their workers then, but it wasn't the evil company that it has become after the old man died.
R Merm
(405 posts)also mentioned the change in the company after the old mad died. They said prior to his death they received small but regular increases in pay that added up over time, after his death the increases ended.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)This article seems to be a fair assessment of the company. Like most things in life, it's not a black and white issue. In some areas of the country it's either working for Wal-Mart or some place that's even worse.
Critics of Wal-Mart call the homespun stuff a fraud, a calculated strategy to put a human face on a relentlessly profit-minded corporation. What is paradoxical and suspect to people outside Wal-Mart, however, is perfectly normal to the people who work there. It reflects a deal that Sam Walton, Wal-Mart's founder, made with the people who worked for him.
"If you're good to people, and fair with them, and demanding of them, they will eventually decide that you're on their side," Walton says in his autobiography, Made in America (co-written with Time Inc. editorial director and former FORTUNE managing editor John Huey). Mr. Sam's--in Wal-Mart parlance Walton is always "Mr. Sam"--frequent appearances in the stores testified to the deal. Longtime associates recall that at each store he visited he would pull some crackers off the shelf and set up shop in the back of the store, chatting with associates and listening to their concerns. "You would be working away and out of the blue Mr. Sam's voice would come over the PA system," recalls Sheila Kaylor, a Wal-Mart worker who met Sam Walton several times, in Waco, Ky. "He was so real and so down to earth."
But the deal was a lot more than just a matter of the occasional visit from Mr. Sam. Wal-Mart demonstrated its concern for workers in many ways that were small but specific: time and a half for work on Sundays, an "open door" policy that let workers bring concerns to managers at any level, the real chance of promotion (about 70% percent of store managers started as hourly associates). In her book Nickel and Dimed, left-wing social critic Barbara Ehrenreich, who spent a week working in a Wal-Mart store in Minnesota, complains, "Why would anybody put up with the wages we were paid?" That original deal--all those unquantifiable things that fall under "good" and "fair"--is a big part of the answer. It was a deal, in short, that promised Wal-Mart would be different--more human, more caring--than any other employer in the low-wage service sector.
-------
My mother was an employee of Sam's," says Marsha Wardingly, a ten-year Sam's Club partner (the Sam's Club equivalent to "associate" who is active in the union drive. "It was a really good place to work. You got time and a half on Sundays. That disappeared six months to the day after Sam died. They just took so much away from us. One day we would get raises a dollar an hour at a time, and then next they started rating us for raises of 10 to 50 cents." (Wardingly's memory differs insignificantly from Wal-Mart's: The company notes that time and a half stopped before Walton died but after he retired, and that raises are now generally between 25 and 60 cents an hour.) Sam's Club partners point not just to specific losses in benefits or pervasive understaffing but also to a more general deterioration in the relationship with management. "When you went to work at a Sam's Club, they would say, 'This is your Sam's Club,' " says Frank Lupiani, a nine-year employee. "Now they don't trust anyone."
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/03/18/319920/
reformist2
(9,841 posts)red dog 1
(27,817 posts)and run against Clinton in 2016.
I like George Soros.
Benioff & Walton?..not so much.
Pterodactyl
(1,687 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I sometimes wonder if I'm on free republic.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)When I read about Hillary's support of fracking, the Iraq war, TPP, Wall Street, keystone xl, etc I wonder if my party has become the Republican Party.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Bill Clinton helped kill the Republic in 2000 by repealing Glass-Stegall.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Thanks a lot Bill. Of course we haven't had enough of this so now we are going to get Hillary to continue with this kind of shit storm raining down on us. Jeeze and I see a lot of griping about how repukes vote against their better interests ...someone needs to look in the mirror.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I wouldn't care if they gave to Hillary or Elizabeth or whatever. It's important that we aren't drown out by the likes of the Koch Brothers.
Though it's curious Alice Walton can go from supporting Mitt Romney in 2012 to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)Alice is trying to sweeten her image since her little Philanthropic Museum wound up getting bad press.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/12/142270045/wal-mart-heiress-show-puts-a-high-price-on-art
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-13/wal-mart-heiress-s-museum-a-moral-blight-commentary-by-jeffrey-goldberg.html
http://www.artnews.com/2012/01/12/american-art-alice-walton%E2%80%99s-way/
In short, it is the old idea of "I can be great no matter how much wealth I have stolen, because philanthropy will force people to love me."
Except it won't, because people realize that for every good thing you do, you will do three bad.
So any surprise Alice and Hillary are friends?
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Personally I'm not ok with getting rendered invisible because I don't have billions to throw around. Nothing about Clinton's policies or rhetoric tell me that she will take money from the billionaires in order to push an agenda that helps the working class and working poor in this country. I'd prefer to have a seat at the table.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)It's pretty much that simple. I don't like it, but damn if it isn't the system we have right now.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)....
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I didn't support her in '08, as I backed Obama instead, but since her role as SoS kept her from political matters, I don't know if she shares Obama's opposition to Citizens United.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)In the short term, we are losing. In the long term? The only way we can change the system is by getting those politicians in who want to change it. I don't know if Hillary is that person, but I believe someone like Warren would be - and if the only way getting her elected is by raising gobs of cash to compete with the right-wing PACs? Do it. Do it yesterday. It sucks, but I remember 2004 and how heavily outspent Kerry was. It hurt. It killed his campaign in the summer months, especially when those PACs went after his military record and he didn't have the funds to combat 'em. It killed him and helped reelect Bush.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the Powers To Be anointing Clinton-Sachs as president will just about finish us.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Do you prefer that these billionaires donate their money to conservative PACs?
Woulda, coulda, shoulda doesn't work in politics. This is the current reality.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Like the mafia hit man says "It's just business".
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Billionaires Backing Clinton, oy!
Well one can only imagine how that administration's going to function.
Yeay Money!
-p
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)adirondacker
(2,921 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)So, we can kiss good bye and Wall Street reform. It will be more of the same right-wing policies pretending to be "centrist"
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Everything will be great once the billionaires are allowed to give us more of those wonderful good jobs ...because they are such loving charitable humans.
Makes me sick! This party is going down the corporate war luv'n tubes. Wal-mart will be selling cheap made in China constitution toilet paper before this is over.
7962
(11,841 posts)Now that the long time front runner, Christie, has tarnished himself, there really is no front runner like Hillary. You could say Romney, but I dont think he has the desire to go through it again. Jeb? The "smart one" who shouldve run in 2000? Do the people really want another Bush/Clinton election?
Only way the Dems lose is if Hillary DOESNT run. I know that ruffles a few DU feathers, but name recognition is everything these days. So may people dont even know who their own Governor is. Plus they feel like they get Bill as a bonus to back her up. Biden? He'll be 74. Warren? Sure a lot of folks here love her, but she has to win the independents and most dont know her, plus she says she wont run. Of course, so did Hillary, but...... Who else as a snowballs chance?
If Hillary decides not to run, '16 will probably be the most wide-open contest in my lifetime; probably longer.
1000words
(7,051 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Now whose interests do you think she will put first? Ours or theirs?
She needs to make her choice very clear before the nomination.
We will be watching. I have voted strictly Democratic most of my life, but ????? I have to have a reason to vote Democratic in 2016. And It needs to be a good one. Because I am tired of Democrats who govern for the 1% and not for the whole nation.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)How do you all think that Obama raised over a billion dollars, $5 at a time???????
Presidential campaigns cost a fortune, regardless of who is the nominee.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,868 posts)Is because every time it's brought up people like you say "that's just the way things are" and the circle continues. Some of us are tired of settling.
When it impacts your quality of life, when your job is exported, when the banks take your home, when you can't afford to go to the doctor or dentist even when you have insurance you'll join us.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)We saw the effects when the banks were bailed out, and not one of the major bankers was tried for fraud or violation of banking laws. Our country paid dealy for every dollar that Obama got from big business.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)This year I have to vote/or not for an uncontested senator, who not only supports fracking, but is also an honorary board member of the Third way. After the recent votes in Virginia we know that even 11 can make a difference. By the way the (R) opponent would be a tea party loose cannon.
Now you pose a similar dilemma for me for 2016! I really don't know when I can vote again without running to the bathroom right afterwards.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)brooklynite
(94,597 posts)...what have YOU done to get a progressive to commit to running? Or are you just going to wait and complain?
Orsino
(37,428 posts)They doubtless expect to get their money's worth.
YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)I honestly don't see 'it' for the Republicans in 2016 .. but Hillary, for the rich, is the lesser of two evils, say an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders .. get it? She will be 8 years of the same old ''trying to bring both parties together'' by appeasing the Republican agenda. I don't trust her.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)spent on the board of Walmart is finally paying off.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)she has a tin ear for the American public if she sought out these endorsements.