Wal-Mart, the company that gives so many labor unions and “workers rights” folks stress-induced acne, anger hives and the runs, is tops among companies when it comes to charitable giving.

The company gave away $272 million last year, making it the largest corporate donor of charitable cash, but yet remains one of the biggest targets for the liberal preoccupation of attempting to control things they don’t build, own, invest in, work at, or understand.

In 2005 an article appeared in The Nation, the magazine that leans so far left it needs scaffold support so it doesn’t fall down upon the offshoot Lilliputian liberals cooling in its shadow, which questioned the motives behind Wal-Mart’s charitable giving — including $20 million for Hurricane Katrina relief.

The “findings” can be essentially summed up in two ways: 1) Wal-Mart is only giving all that money away to cure some image problems, and 2) Way too much of it is going to Republicans. The article cites the fact that Alice Walton gave $2.6 million to the Republican PAC “Progress for America” (the left hates it when anybody else co-opts the word “progress”). Progress for America “supported the sleazy Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

Some Walton money went toward the defeat of John Kerry? Oh the horror! America finally had a chance to put somebody who understands what it means to be in a “working family” into the Oval Office, but a wave of the Wal-Mart wand helped send blue-collar Thurston back to cocktails on the Vineyard with Lovie. Sometimes there is no justice.

If the Walton family were raging leftists, what are the odds any of this would be an issue? Heck, if Sam Walton was a raging leftist, what are the odds that Wal-Mart would even exist? Sam may well have ended up being just another lamprey on somebody else’s financial shark.

Sometimes Wal-Mart attempts to appease in varied ways, but it never works and their critics only get more vocal and demanding.

Now we sit back and await the liberal response to the most recent Wal-Mart charitable report, and we’ll soon know how much of a raise that amount of money would have given each employee, and how much of that should have gone to leeches who had nothing to do with, nor understanding of, what it takes to create that amount of wealth in the first place.

A major complaint from Wal-Mart critics is that, since the death of Sam Walton, the company fell into the hands of his children, who of course are “out of touch” with working class America and who have used much of the money they inherited to prop up political causes.

So, who’s the lead figure when it comes to opposing the people who inherited all their money from their father, like to play partisan politics and don’t know what it’s like to work for a living? Ted Kennedy. I know. Go ahead and laugh. It’s okay.

Here’s what I predict will be Ted Kennedy’s response/rebuttal to the news of Wal-Mart’s enormous charitable offerings in 2006: “It’s so easy to be able to give away such large sums of money when you’re not paying your employees fair wages or offering adequate health care.”

If it’s so bad working at Wal-Mart, I’d suggest heeding the sage advice of the comedian Larry the Cable Guy: “Then don’t work at friggin’ Wal-Mart.” Apparently it’s not that easy.


3 Responses to “When Charitable Giving is Greedy: The Catch-22 of Being Wal-Mart”

  1. Tom on March 29th, 2007 2:32 pm

    They’ve gotta have the tax break somewhere, don’t they?

  2. Doug Powers on March 29th, 2007 8:06 pm

    I predict that Wal-Mart becomes the first corporation that the government makes pay taxes on its charitable contributions.

  3. jimmyb on March 29th, 2007 8:18 pm

    When Wal-Mart started the $4 generic drug deal, I told someone at work about it.

    Instead of saying, “Wow, think of all the poor and fixed income people that will help” I got the “Oh that’ll really help the little guy. Put the other pharmacies out of business.

    I guess it doesn’t matter what they do.

    Can’t win for losin’…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.