[EL] Starbucks & NoDough

[David A. Holtzman]

Well, employees and those who speak for them (including some writers in 
/The Nation/) could reasonably be less upset by someone giving them an 
excuse to not part with their money than by someone trying to influence 
them to vote a particular way.

I myself have an excuse (but am not absolutely required to use it) for 
not donating to candidate campaigns: I'm president of my local LWV 
chapter and the LWV never takes sides in a candidate election.I have 
used it with pleasure for the past two years."Sorry, but you would have 
to report my name publicly...."

/If anyone on this list wants to be involved in civic affairs without 
feeling pressured to contribute to candidates, consider becoming an 
officer of the LWV!
/


But back to thinking about the incipient NoDough movement.

Compared to an employer encouraging or discouraging contributions to a 
specific candidate, here there's no obvious connection to getting 
specific policies or favors.So the governmental interest in reining in 
the employer probably can't relate to corruption or the appearance thereof.

Now the general subject of employers responding to workers' off-hours 
conduct arises with some regularity these days. Think of smoking (and 
its effect on employer-paid health insurance premiums), and the 
unbecoming things people have posted themselves doing, or have been 
tagged doing, on Facebook (and other social media).

Then note that off-hours campaign donations are unusual because they are 
linked to the donors' employers by law.

And don't we sometimes hear the shorthand that "XYZ Corp. has 
contributed N thousand dollars to CDT's campaign," when the donors are 
really employees of XYZ?

So maybe Starbucks baristas (and executives, too) should fear being 
tagged in photos of fundraisers.

When I was a federal employee, I was covered by that big employer's 
Hatch Act.I think (correct me if I'm wrong) I could give money to 
candidates but could not show my face in public as one of their 
supporters.Volunteer work, although generally not monetized or reported, 
is a very valuable part of campaigns.That raises a new question: If the 
Hatch Act could do it, can Starbucks legally prevent its employees from 
volunteering for federal campaigns?

   - dah



On 8/15/2011 2:59 PM, Sean Parnell wrote:
>
> Mr. Schultz's actions raise an interesting parallel, at least in terms 
> of how some people felt about Charles and David Koch's communications 
> with their employees when it comes to voting. From an April 2011 story 
> in /The Nation/ titled Big Brothers: thought control at Koch 
> <http://www.thenation.com/article/160062/big-brothers-thought-control-koch>. 
> A few of the more entertaining passages:
>
> On the eve of the November midterm elections, Koch Industries sent an 
> urgent letter to most of its 50,000 employees advising them on whom to 
> vote for and warning them about the dire consequences to their 
> families, their jobs and their country should they choose to vote 
> otherwise....
>
> Legal experts interviewed for this story called the blatant corporate 
> politicking highly unusual...
>
> "Before /Citizens United/, federal election law allowed a company like 
> Koch Industries to talk to officers and shareholders about whom to 
> vote for, but not to talk with employees about whom to vote for," 
> explains Paul M. Secunda, associate professor of law at Marquette 
> University. But according to Secunda, who recently wrote in /The/ 
> /Yale Law Journal/ /Online/ about the effects of /Citizens United/ on 
> political coercion in the workplace, the decision knocked down those 
> regulations. "Now, companies like Koch Industries are free to send out 
> newsletters persuading their employees how to vote. They can even 
> intimidate their employees into voting for their candidates." Secunda 
> adds, "It's a very troubling situation."
>
> ...After guiding employees on how they should vote, the mailer devoted 
> the rest of the material to the sort of indoctrination one would 
> expect from an old John Birch Society pamphlet...
>
> Legal experts say that this kind of corporate-sponsored propagandizing 
> has been almost unheard-of in America since the passage of New 
> Deal--era laws like the National Labor Relations Act...
>
> I wonder, will the folks at /The Nation/ and elsewhere who were so 
> upset with an employer urging employers to take a certain political 
> action *without having the ability to monitor, enforce, or determine* 
> whether employees followed their recommendation, be similarly upset 
> with another corporate leader urging employees to take a certain 
> political action (or rather, refrain from taking a certain political 
> action), perhaps even more upset given that this particular employer 
> has some ability to monitor whether employees complied with their 
> employer's wishes? Should we expect to see an article in /The Nation/ 
> gravely warning of the dangers of allowing a Howard Schultz to use his 
> position as corporate leader to engage in "thought control" over the 
> political actions of employees and intimidating employees?
>
> File this question under 'Breath, Not Holding.'
>
> Sean Parnell
>
> President
>
> Center for Competitive Politics
>
> http://www.campaignfreedom.org
>
> http://www.twitter.com/seanparnellccp
>
> 124 S. West Street, #201
>
> Alexandria, VA  22314
>
> (703) 894-6800 phone
>
> (703) 894-6813 direct
>
> (703) 894-6811 fax
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *Peter Overby
> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 5:39 PM
> *To:* 'David A. Holtzman'; [EL]
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Starbucks & NoDough
>
> Wouldn't it be the same leverage for giving to a certain candidate or 
> not giving to any candidate?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu 
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of 
> *David A. Holtzman
> *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2011 5:36 PM
> *To:* [EL]
> *Subject:* [EL] Starbucks & NoDough
>
> Starbucks' chief wants people to refrain from giving to federal 
> campaigns 
> <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/13/opinion/nocera-boycott-campaign-donations.html>, 
> as a way to make politicians shape up.
>
> What leverage might he have over his employees to push compliance with 
> a NoDough boycott?
>
> When you donate to a federal campaign, you fill in your employer on 
> the form.  Could the head of Starbucks search for "Starbucks" in 
> donation records and penalize the employee-donors in any way?  If he 
> has their pictures (say, from ID badges), could he put up posters of 
> shame in Starbucks stores?  In backrooms? In public areas?  Could he 
> require stores to hand out lists of offenders and their home addresses 
> (from their contribution disclosure forms)?  [Or, could somebody else 
> hand out such lists outside Starbucks stores?]  Does it matter that 
> the NoDough movement is not a campaign for or against any candidate?
>
> How powerful could a NoDough movement be?
>
>   - David A. Holtzman
>
>
>
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com <mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email 
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email 
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or 
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard 
> all copies.
>
>
> -- 
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be 
> confidential, for use only by intended recipients.  If you are not an 
> intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email 
> to an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email 
> in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or 
> copying of this email is strictly prohibited.  If you have received 
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard 
> all copies.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110815/96caa2d1/attachment.html>