I agree with you but obviously neither party is interested in cutting off their primary source of funding. What is needed is a revamping of the SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. Otherwise I fear it would take a Constitutional amendment, which simply ain't going to happen.
Citizens United = an organization that brought a lawsuit against the FEC for limits on campaign spending. Therefore the case is referred to as Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission or abbreviated to “Citizens United”.
The big problem is SCOTUS decided limitations on the spending limited ‘free speech’ under the 1st Amendment. There is no repeal of SCOTUS decisions unless SCOTUS decided to go in the opposite direction. Unlikely with the current bunch. A Constitutional Amendment seems very unlikely.
The Brennan Center recommends public financing of elections.
Right Chris. If they want to change their views - with hold the money until they see them actually do something. Service first, reward second. Pretty simple.
From the department of the super obvious, it is well known that our political system is pay to play. Exposing this corporate dichotomy is great work Judd. I'm just not sure it is going to change anything.
Unfortunately, should Trump win the next election, his admin will force companies vying for Federal Government Contracts to remove Diversity and Inclusion positions and departments.
Judd, you know this is bigger than just corporate giving, right? For LGBTQ+, the USA is Germany 1938. Rather than the Kristallnacht occurring in just one night, this is just a slower burn.
It really is terrifying how much ground is being lost, and just how dangerous the water has become. You're right in saying they're coming for the most vulnerable first, but they certainly won't stop at LGBTQ+. They'll come for anyone deemed "other," and that's going to be quite the list. As history has taught us, isn't is always?
SCOTUS ruled in favor of the organization “Citizens United” when it sued the FEC. SCOTUS decided limited the $$ was limiting speech under the 1st Amendment. Therefore Congress and state legislatures have no power to overturn it. They can do some things but nothing close to changing the ruling.
With an expanded SCOTUS and a new federal law there might be a glimmer of hope.
I look at how many businesses that are on there that I don't know if I can ditch. I am in Germany so many, but not all. I could get rid of my VISA credit card and get a Mastercard, but otherwise I would be crippled in my life if I did not have at least one credit card. In fact, I have difficulty using my credit card for online purchases because of some weirdness of how my bank in Germany has things set up. I am considering getting rid of Amazon, but I have also chosen not to have a car, so I limit myself too. We shall see. I am weaning myself off of unnecessary things, but not overnight.
We launched Spending Spotlight (www.spendingspotlight.org) today in fact to help consumers distill information like this article and convert it into easy actions they can take to align their daily spending with their values on issues like LGBTQ+ equality. We help people focus on switching "just one or two brands" as a first easy step to help move consumer dollars away from companies supporting anti-LGBTQ+ legislators, as most of the people in our test pool were overwhelmed by trying to change away from all of these companies. Would appreciate and feedback if you have a chance to check it out. Thx.
Looks like a great start! (I'd also like to see a category related to environment and/or climate change - but maybe that's harder to quantify based on votes).
On the website, I find it very annoying that you can only open one category at a time (and the previous one closes when you open a new one).
That is going to be a big help for me. It *is* hard to wade through the conglomerate mess. I am tied to a few utilities I can’t change (phone, internet). That won’t stop me from trying. Big business is amazingly two-faced, more than ever. That HRC hasn’t thoroughly researched its own data isn’t a surprise. I’ve seen this before. Rating businesses based only on their PR campaigns and not on donations is poor research. I’m hoping that they’ll realize this; otherwise people are going to lose trust. — Tom
Seems like corporations remain dedicated to hedging. Deloitte and others should recognize their mistake in this regard and make appropriate adjustments. Thank you for exposing this corporate hypocrisy Judd.
Thanks for exposing the hypocrisy of these giant corporations using their money to hurt people I care for. Just updated to a paid subscription. Keep up the good work!
Of course, no matter what they say, we know that corporations put money ahead of ideals and moral compass and humanitarian stances. This work by Popular Information will bring more of the hypocrisy to light and cause some reflection all around. We humans have a long way to go before we stop being hung up about sexual practices. The deep fear of so many around sexuality often enlists religious righteousness--it is THIS fear that must be exposed. For example, we only have to look at the behavior and practices of our former president, DJT, to have a glaring example of how deeply neurotic much of what we accept as normal prevails. Women are treated as objects, as if we were to live in the state and stage of "dowry." How could we ever expect this prevailing culture around sexuality to be heathy and humane?
"How could we ever expect this prevailing culture around sexuality to be heathy and humane?"
If more folk could only MYOB, we wouldn't have all of this turmoil but there are too many who have a need to use their personal religious beliefs to control the actions of others, in order to feel good about themselves.
"Engagement" means you have to pay them to get them to "make progress" so that they can make more money. This is the closest to saying that political donations are bribes or pay-to-play. They barely added any other words to cover the meaning.
Excellent, informaative work as always. Going to today's topic, I could boycott them all if itv were practical but how? My job requires that I have internet access. Comcast and ATT are the only real options in my area!
Now factor in the fact that I'm a transplant recipient and CVS outright owns my insurance company in addition to supplying all of my medications. Just 2 of the 19 prescribed medications that I take daily cost $132,000 per year.
I want to do something to move the needle, so I write letters and send donations to various organizations. Also, subscribing to Popular Information was one of the best decisions that I've made in the past few years.
However, I have run out of ideas beyond what I already do, which seems somehow, insufficient.
If we are to presume that the other companies would make the same hedging claim as Microsoft, it would be interesting to see their contributions to Democratic and democratic politicians proposing LGBT+ legislation.
These conglomerates have us so wrapped up with their products and services, it is unthinkable to consider economic boycotts (though I do think about the possibilities). Who am I hurting if I don’t buy my drugs at CVS or don’t see my doctor while insured by Aetna, owned by CVS?
Once again we see corporations playing both sides, as part of their strategy to appear to be socially responsible while simultaneously promoting their financial interests. If anything I'm surprised to not see any big banks or investment firms on the list: They are notorious for duplicity. For instance, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was Obama's biggest donor in 2008 and his second biggest in 2012. He was also McCain's second biggest donor in 2008 and Romney's biggest in 2012. Is there any wonder that none of the banksters who caused the 2007-8 financial crisis were never brouht to justice?
So do tell, Microsoft, how you're "engaging" with these politicians to change their views or actions against the LGBTQ community? What utter BS.
We need to turn Congress Blue to repeal Citizens United and ban any non individual donations. Companies should not be buying politicians.
I agree with you but obviously neither party is interested in cutting off their primary source of funding. What is needed is a revamping of the SCOTUS to reverse Citizens United. Otherwise I fear it would take a Constitutional amendment, which simply ain't going to happen.
Citizens United = an organization that brought a lawsuit against the FEC for limits on campaign spending. Therefore the case is referred to as Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission or abbreviated to “Citizens United”.
The big problem is SCOTUS decided limitations on the spending limited ‘free speech’ under the 1st Amendment. There is no repeal of SCOTUS decisions unless SCOTUS decided to go in the opposite direction. Unlikely with the current bunch. A Constitutional Amendment seems very unlikely.
The Brennan Center recommends public financing of elections.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained
Right Chris. If they want to change their views - with hold the money until they see them actually do something. Service first, reward second. Pretty simple.
Great work, as always. Are you turning attention to HRC and why they didn't know or act on this information?
Great question.
From the department of the super obvious, it is well known that our political system is pay to play. Exposing this corporate dichotomy is great work Judd. I'm just not sure it is going to change anything.
Unfortunately, should Trump win the next election, his admin will force companies vying for Federal Government Contracts to remove Diversity and Inclusion positions and departments.
Judd, you know this is bigger than just corporate giving, right? For LGBTQ+, the USA is Germany 1938. Rather than the Kristallnacht occurring in just one night, this is just a slower burn.
The hate won't stop at LGBTQ+. Who's next?
It really is terrifying how much ground is being lost, and just how dangerous the water has become. You're right in saying they're coming for the most vulnerable first, but they certainly won't stop at LGBTQ+. They'll come for anyone deemed "other," and that's going to be quite the list. As history has taught us, isn't is always?
"Rainbow washing" is a thing.
Damn! You're right.
Vote for Democrats across the board.
Sweep the House, Senate and White House.
Expand the number of Justices on SCOTUS.
PASS LEGISLATION to OVERTURN Citizens United! (One of the most disturbing and disgusting decisions by SCOTUS in the past 100 years.)
SCOTUS ruled in favor of the organization “Citizens United” when it sued the FEC. SCOTUS decided limited the $$ was limiting speech under the 1st Amendment. Therefore Congress and state legislatures have no power to overturn it. They can do some things but nothing close to changing the ruling.
With an expanded SCOTUS and a new federal law there might be a glimmer of hope.
WE MUST EXPAND SCOTUS!!!!!!!!!
I look at how many businesses that are on there that I don't know if I can ditch. I am in Germany so many, but not all. I could get rid of my VISA credit card and get a Mastercard, but otherwise I would be crippled in my life if I did not have at least one credit card. In fact, I have difficulty using my credit card for online purchases because of some weirdness of how my bank in Germany has things set up. I am considering getting rid of Amazon, but I have also chosen not to have a car, so I limit myself too. We shall see. I am weaning myself off of unnecessary things, but not overnight.
We launched Spending Spotlight (www.spendingspotlight.org) today in fact to help consumers distill information like this article and convert it into easy actions they can take to align their daily spending with their values on issues like LGBTQ+ equality. We help people focus on switching "just one or two brands" as a first easy step to help move consumer dollars away from companies supporting anti-LGBTQ+ legislators, as most of the people in our test pool were overwhelmed by trying to change away from all of these companies. Would appreciate and feedback if you have a chance to check it out. Thx.
Looks like a great start! (I'd also like to see a category related to environment and/or climate change - but maybe that's harder to quantify based on votes).
On the website, I find it very annoying that you can only open one category at a time (and the previous one closes when you open a new one).
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, environment is on the list, but the quantification is challenging. Working on it, but haven't solved it yet...
This is great! I will check it out and give feedback if I can remember to.
That is going to be a big help for me. It *is* hard to wade through the conglomerate mess. I am tied to a few utilities I can’t change (phone, internet). That won’t stop me from trying. Big business is amazingly two-faced, more than ever. That HRC hasn’t thoroughly researched its own data isn’t a surprise. I’ve seen this before. Rating businesses based only on their PR campaigns and not on donations is poor research. I’m hoping that they’ll realize this; otherwise people are going to lose trust. — Tom
Thx. Tom. We've just gotten started at Spending Spotlight, but would appreciate any feedback or suggestions. John
Seems like corporations remain dedicated to hedging. Deloitte and others should recognize their mistake in this regard and make appropriate adjustments. Thank you for exposing this corporate hypocrisy Judd.
Excellent article I hope will galvanize some changes.
Thanks for exposing the hypocrisy of these giant corporations using their money to hurt people I care for. Just updated to a paid subscription. Keep up the good work!
Of course, no matter what they say, we know that corporations put money ahead of ideals and moral compass and humanitarian stances. This work by Popular Information will bring more of the hypocrisy to light and cause some reflection all around. We humans have a long way to go before we stop being hung up about sexual practices. The deep fear of so many around sexuality often enlists religious righteousness--it is THIS fear that must be exposed. For example, we only have to look at the behavior and practices of our former president, DJT, to have a glaring example of how deeply neurotic much of what we accept as normal prevails. Women are treated as objects, as if we were to live in the state and stage of "dowry." How could we ever expect this prevailing culture around sexuality to be heathy and humane?
"How could we ever expect this prevailing culture around sexuality to be heathy and humane?"
If more folk could only MYOB, we wouldn't have all of this turmoil but there are too many who have a need to use their personal religious beliefs to control the actions of others, in order to feel good about themselves.
Sorry, Adam, I cannot figure out what MYOB stands for.
Usually in conversations it means “Mind Your Own Business.”
Thanks!
Sorry Valerie. It was early and I was stressing over a deadline, which in turn tortured my syntax unmercifully.
"Engagement" means you have to pay them to get them to "make progress" so that they can make more money. This is the closest to saying that political donations are bribes or pay-to-play. They barely added any other words to cover the meaning.
The hypocrisy is breathtaking.... as always how the 3 of you do this is absolutely amazing...
Breathtaking indeed. I could say more but the air will turn blue if not purple.
Good morning Judd, Tesnim and Rebecca,
Excellent, informaative work as always. Going to today's topic, I could boycott them all if itv were practical but how? My job requires that I have internet access. Comcast and ATT are the only real options in my area!
Now factor in the fact that I'm a transplant recipient and CVS outright owns my insurance company in addition to supplying all of my medications. Just 2 of the 19 prescribed medications that I take daily cost $132,000 per year.
I want to do something to move the needle, so I write letters and send donations to various organizations. Also, subscribing to Popular Information was one of the best decisions that I've made in the past few years.
However, I have run out of ideas beyond what I already do, which seems somehow, insufficient.
OK, I'll stop whining now, thanks for listening.
Adam, you’re doing what you can, and thank you for that! If we all followed suit, Judd would be writing a completely different story!
Logically, I know that you are corrrect Randy, but emotionally, I'd like to kick somebody's ass!
Oh, I’m with you. It would be a difficult decision regarding which ass to start with, but once I got started, look out!
In the famous words of Chaka Khan:
"Once you get started, Lord it's hard to stop!"
Yas Queen!
Hahahahahahahaha! Damn right.
If we are to presume that the other companies would make the same hedging claim as Microsoft, it would be interesting to see their contributions to Democratic and democratic politicians proposing LGBT+ legislation.
These conglomerates have us so wrapped up with their products and services, it is unthinkable to consider economic boycotts (though I do think about the possibilities). Who am I hurting if I don’t buy my drugs at CVS or don’t see my doctor while insured by Aetna, owned by CVS?
We have the same issue Marc. CVS/Aetna.
Today's information makes me sick. Corporate greed has no moral code and DEI programs and proclamations are just window dressing to appease.
Once again we see corporations playing both sides, as part of their strategy to appear to be socially responsible while simultaneously promoting their financial interests. If anything I'm surprised to not see any big banks or investment firms on the list: They are notorious for duplicity. For instance, Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs was Obama's biggest donor in 2008 and his second biggest in 2012. He was also McCain's second biggest donor in 2008 and Romney's biggest in 2012. Is there any wonder that none of the banksters who caused the 2007-8 financial crisis were never brouht to justice?