Casey · Aug 19, 2011 at 12:10pm

Starbucks Claims Widespread Support for CEO's Call to Boycott Campaign Donations

schultz_howard_032311

Starbucks claimed Wednesday that it has rallied “hundreds” of people in support of a call by CEO Howard Schultz to suspend campaign contributions to Congress and the president until Washington produces a long-term deficit reduction plan.

Schultz has been pushing the idea over the past several days, appealing to business leaders and other Americans to send a message to Washington by cutting off the fundraising spigot.

“This effort is not concerned with helping or hurting one party or another – it’s about applying pressure on all those now in office to compromise for the good of the country,”

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Yeah...ok.
Joined
Jan '11
Yeah...ok.

How about we peg the price of Ricochet to diesel fuel in Houston rather than coffee in Seattle.

Yeah...ok.
Joined
Jan '11
Yeah...ok.

Better yet, only contribute to challengers until the incumbents perform as desired. Never send money to Washington.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Feeling better and better about our decision to skips starbucks for the Seattle meet up last weekend. Compromise always seems to equal agreeing with the left.

DrewInWisconsin
Joined
Aug '11
DrewInWisconsin

"Hundreds of people" . . . Wow! That's gotta be dozens!

Ross Conatser
Joined
Sep '10
Ross Conatser

 I think that the reduction in "general" donations will lead the pols to rely more heavily on special interest money.

I don't know the right answer, but I think I can see unintended consequences here that will not be good.

Ross Conatser
Joined
Sep '10
Ross Conatser

BTW great title to the post, you are clever. 

Peter Christofferson
Joined
Jul '10
Peter Christofferson

Are there really people out there who need to be convinced to stop contributing money to politicians?

I guess I'll just never understand human nature…

Nathaniel Wright
Joined
Aug '10
Nathaniel Wright

Given that Schulz has historically been a big Democrat donor, this is an interesting development.  He isn't asking Rs to compromise, he's asking Patty Murray and the DNC to compromise.  Those are who his is withholding money from.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius
Ross Conatser: BTW great title to the post, you are clever.  · Aug 19 at 12:32pm

I like encouraging the young folk.

Instugator
Joined
Aug '10
Instugator
Nathaniel Wright: Given that Schulz has historically been a big Democrat donor, this is an interesting development.  He isn't asking Rs to compromise, he's asking Patty Murray and the DNC to compromise.  Those are who his is withholding money from. · Aug 19 at 1:05pm

Those are whom he is proposing to withold money from. Hasn't happened yet.

Busy System Admin
Joined
Feb '10
Busy System Admin

Sounds like a good idea, if it were really a bipartisan boycott.  But game theory says it probably won't work.

Casey
Joined
Mar '11
Casey

Pseudodionysius

Ross Conatser: BTW great title to the post, you are clever.  · Aug 19 at 12:32pm

I like encouraging the young folk. · Aug 19 at 1:10pm

Thanks, I like be encouraged by the elderly.  How old are you?  12?  14?

In people years I mean.

ctruppi
Joined
Apr '11
ctruppi

Did anyone see the Pelosi town hall meeting?  Where is there any room for her to compromise with that constituency?  She would be tarred and feathered if she voted for anything that required any sort of entitlement restructuring.  I would love to see from this brilliant CEO what the heck he means by "compromise".  We're $16 Trillion in the hole heading fast towards $23 Trillion in 10 years.  Even if we double tax revenue, we won't make a dent in this number, let alone the unfunded liabilities bomb.  This exceptionally "rosy" scenario doesn't even take into account the possibilities of increased interest rates or that doubling tax revenues may have a slight negative affect on the economy.

So please, Mr. Genius Starbucks CEO, what the heck do you mean by "compromise"?

Nathaniel Wright
Joined
Aug '10
Nathaniel Wright

Thanks for the grammar/typo check Instugator.  As you wrote, it hasn't happened yet, but it is a Democrat supporter who is proposing withholding donations.  If he withheld donations from R candidates, no one would notice.  Largely because he hasn't significantly contributed to Republican coffers.

Freesmith
Joined
Jan '11
Freesmith

Howard Schultz is just another Democrat expressing disappointment in The One. He joins Dylan Ratigan, Chris Matthews and many, many others in that sad camp.

But don't be deceived. He hasn't changed his mind about the programs, the policies or the plans - only about the Head Planner. Notice that he wants the politicians defunded - not the government. The government, you can be sure Mr. Schultz believes, really really needs more revenue.

And like a lawyer who can't argue the facts of a case, Mr. Schultz, similar to Democrats all across the country (including Mr. Obama himself) is now reduced to arguing against the process - our supposedly "dysfunctional" democracy, unable to arrive at the truth of compromise.

In this scenario Eric Cantor becomes Mark Fuhrman.

Don't take any Democrat's argument seriously.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

I like the general idea of withholding funds for something as important as this. I don't know what all the negative stuff is about here. Great idea to boycott Washington by going after their campaign funds. Schultz is right that this can be bipartisan and maybe he can influence more people that affect more money. This is the only place besides the ballot box that these pols are the least bit responsive to.

Someone please explain how this is only detrimental to Republicans.

I also like Yeah...ok's idea of only sending money to challengers. Very smart.

Instugator
Joined
Aug '10
Instugator

Larry Koler:

Someone please explain how this is only detrimental to Republicans.

Because it is like a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, it only works if you have verification that they have not, in fact, made campaign donations. The incentives here are to cheat on the agreement.

Larry Koler
Joined
Jun '10
Larry Koler

Instugator

Larry Koler:

Someone please explain how this is only detrimental to Republicans.

Because it is like a Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, it only works if you have verification that they have not, in fact, made campaign donations. The incentives here are to cheat on the agreement. · Aug 20 at 4:59am

All contributions have to be made public.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius

Casey

Pseudodionysius

Ross Conatser: BTW great title to the post, you are clever.  · Aug 19 at 12:32pm

I like encouraging the young folk. · Aug 19 at 1:10pm

Thanks, I like be encouraged by the elderly.  How old are you?  12?  14?

In people years I mean. · Aug 19 at 1:25pm

This is a very complicated formula. There's the imperial/metric issue, the Canadian/US dollar conversion and then, finally, Apollonius's Conic Sections. Allow me to down a glass of butane lighter fluid and I'll get right back to you.

Pseudodionysius
Joined
Sep '10
Pseudodionysius
DrewInWisconsin: "Hundreds of people" . . . Wow! That's gotta be dozens! · Aug 19 at 12:29pm

I'd like to know if Steve Wynn is part of the group.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In