George,

Did the United Farm Worker’s boycott of California grapes really help itinerant farm laborers? Was apartheid brought to an end in South Africa because of economic sanctions? What would have happened in Iraq had the UN economic sanctions continued without military intervention by the United States?

Making a case for economic sanctions to change the direction of society has always been contentious. Some will argue that the effects it has on those citizens who can least afford its consequences in the short run always outweigh the benefits. Others will argue that, in the long run, the “greater good” clearly outweighs whatever may be the temporary consequences. Either way, it’s unlikely to be a quick fix for any perceived injustice.

Another problem is what constitutes a valid rationale for undertaking an economic boycott? Does a corporation need to have inflicted demonstrable harm to people or the environment before it is sanctioned? Is the use of corporate profits for partisan political contributions sufficient to trigger action? Should company officer’s personal political contributions be held against the corporation?

This clearly is not one of those “black or white” questions that most of us would prefer to answer. For instance, it would have been hard for any of us to decide to NOT donate to last month’s UVA Children’s Hospital Telethon simply because the bulk of its volunteers worked for Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club which donated over $1.3 million to the Republican campaign last fall and only $300 thousand to the Democrats. These are well-meaning citizens of our community who generously gave of their time for a good cause. In fact, perhaps they were there because their families were among those who most need the free care that this effort will afford the poorer children of our community. The average employee of Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club earns about 30% less than their retail counterpart working elsewhere and, as a result, over half lack a healthcare plan for their children since they cannot afford to pay the employee share required by their employer.

If everyone in the Charlottesville area stopped shopping at Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club, what would happen? Would our neighbors who are employed there begin to be paid a fair wage? Would everyone who qualifies be given health benefits? If the experience of Wal-Mart employees in Quebec earlier this year is an indicator, the answer is probably no. These people are all looking for work because Wal-Mart management chose to close their store rather than allow its employees to unionize. No action occurs without some consequence.

On the other hand, those brave people in Quebec did send Wal-Mart a message and, although minutely, did affect its bottom line. Surely they hope that the ball keeps rolling and that their sacrifice is not in vane. Like any grassroots effort, empowerment is slow but progress often increases geometrically once momentum is gained.

At least, this is what a number of fledgling action groups across the country are counting on. One, aptly named BuyBlue.Org, sprung up after last year’s Presidential election in an effort to inform the electorate about corporate America’s involvement in what is supposed to be our democratic process. While Buy Blue’s editorial content is decidedly partisan, those of either political persuasion can use its data.

For instance, if you are a big supporter of President Bush and his policies, perusing Buy Blue’s website reveals that you should be eating often at Outback Steakhouse and buying gas at Exxon. If you were a rabid Kerry supporter, you should be drinking a lot of cappuccinos at Starbucks and stopping often to buy gas at the Hess Oil station on Route 29 North. For those of you who don’t want to mix politics and your pocketbook, get lunch at Subway and fill up at Amoco. And what about those who want to be part of the Wal-Mart boycott? Kmart’s a great choice. It only used $4000 of your hard earned dollars last year to influence the politicians. Half went to the Republicans and half to the Democrats.

Here is a sampling of other companies with local outlets who either contribute almost exclusively to one party or have chosen to keep their politics separate from their business.

Kip Newland (electronic mail, June 29, 2005)