Half of NYC Council to Walmart: Stop making “dangerous” charitable contributions

Posted by: ST on June 5, 2014 at 9:27 am


We’ll call this “Stuck on Stupid: NYC Edition” – via the NY Post (hat tip):

More than half the members of the City Council have fired off a letter to Walmart demanding that it stop making millions in charitable contributions to local groups here.

Twenty-six of the 51 members of the Council charged in the letter that the world’s biggest retailer’s support of local causes is a cynical ploy to enter the market here.

“We know how desperate you are to find a foothold in New York City to buy influence and support here,” says the letter, obtained by The Post and addressed to Walmart and the Walton Family Foundation.

“Stop spending your dangerous dollars in our city,” the testy letter demands. “That’s right: this is a cease-and-desist letter.”

Last week, Walmart announced that it distributed $3 million last year to charities here, including $1 million to the New York Women’s Foundation, which offers job training, and $30,000 to Bailey House, which distributes groceries to low-income residents.

Walmart, which has been thwarted by union-backed opposition for more than a decade, said the handouts “can make a difference on big issues like hunger relief and career development.”

The retail giant said its business agenda “aligns with supporting the local organizations that are important to our customers and associates.”

But Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito called the donations “toxic money,” and accused Walmart of waging a “cynical public-relations campaign that disguises Walmart’s backwards anti-job agenda.”

Hot Air’s Erika Johnsen provides a partial transcript of an interview Fox News’ Neil Cavuto did yesterday with NYC Councilman Jimmy Van Bramer in which Van Bramer tries to defend his stance:

BRAMER: Walmart has a history of abusing its workers and profiting on the backs of hardworking men and women. … I think that where the [charitable donations] come from and where the money has been accumulated matters.  …

CAVUTO: If you are a New York City resident and you’re paying through the nose for everything from milk and coffee to bread to drugs, what’s wrong with a big-box retailer like Walmart coming in and offering you $4 prescription drugs, offering consumers in this city who could surely use a break, a break?

BRAMER: I don’t think you have to choose between having a retailer that offers competitive prices for its good and a retailer that treats its workers well. … When Walmart comes into a city, they take more than they give.

CAVUTO: Do you know how many people apply for the roughly 200 positions that the typical Walmart offers? 8,000. 8,000.

BRAMER: It doesn’t mean that those are good jobs.

Dontcha just love it?  Walmart is engaged in a number of things here that liberals normally would be over the moon about: They provide low cost prescription drugs and other goods and services to residents who need them. They employee hundreds of thousands of people with steady jobs.  They donate millions to charities that help minorities and working families.  But because it’s not the “right” kind of jobs – i.e., union jobs with a “living wage”, they aren’t “good enough” for the community and therefore they should stop doing all of it – stop providing low cost goods, decent paying  jobs, and generous contributions to charity.  The liberals who signed onto this letter to Walmart would rather citizens go without the low-cost prescriptions they need, be out of work and on unemployment, and have local charities have to turn people away all over their hatred of capitalism as demonstrated by Walmart.

And as far as Walmart trying to “buy” influence among NYC’s politicos, since when did New York Democrats EVER have a problem with a donor supposedly trying to “buy” their way into the good graces of local and state governments?

If this isn’t a classic example of the warped, chillingly controlling nature of the liberal Democrat mindset, I don’t know what is.  Disturbing.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 Responses to “Half of NYC Council to Walmart: Stop making “dangerous” charitable contributions”


  1. Tuerqas says:

    In a shocking turn, I actually understand where the mindset of this letter comes from. Walmart will offer 200 jobs, but they will often put more than 200 other jobs of ‘small box’ stores out of business in the same area. While ‘cheap’ is good for the majority of lib voters who are often the receivers of benefits for being ‘poor’ the Walmart model is to import their goods thus taking even more jobs from other Americans who now have one less territory in which to sell their goods. Ironically, it is almost always Republican communities fighting to keep Walmarts out.
    I am also a fan of as much diversification of jobs as possible. It really is better for America to pay a bit more to a Mom and Pop store in 80,000 locations than pay less to the same organization in 8,000 locations.

  2. Carlos says:

    The writers/signers of this letter need to get expert consultation on jobs and the economy.

    They should consult with the Seattle city council.

    ‘Nuf said.

  3. Phineas says:


    In a shocking turn, I actually understand where the mindset of this letter comes from. Walmart will offer 200 jobs, but they will often put more than 200 other jobs of ‘small box’ stores out of business in the same area.

    Perhaps, but it also seems they spawn other small-business jobs through a process of “creative destruction.” (PDF) I think this is something that often gets missed in the argument over big-box retailers.

  4. Darleen says:


    You’re free to shop where you want, let other people have the same freedom.

    Simple as that.

  5. Carlos says:

    Nothing causes more frustration to a politician than an “enemy” that does good things.

    ‘Course, these statists are really, really frustrated that all that charity isn’t going to the people via taxes, where somewhere between 60 and 80 percent is siphoned off the top for bureaucratic structure and political paybacks. Check with the “Reverend” Jackson to see how that works.

    (“Bureaucratic structure” is a nice way of saying “buying votes from low-info voters who were jobless until the guvmint hired their incompetent, overpayed butts.”)