Tag: amazon
Why I'm Not Canceling Amazon -- Or My Washington Post Subscription

Why I'm Not Canceling Amazon -- Or My Washington Post Subscription

Had you ever heard of Patrick Soon-Shiong before last week? For that matter, do you recognize him today? Probably not. He’s the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times, who has decided that his personal newspaper will not publish a presidential endorsement this year or ever again. I had to google his identity just now myself.

Soon-Shiong is a South African physician of Chinese descent, a professor at UCLA and several other prestigious medical schools around the world. He’s clearly a scientific genius and a pioneer in transplant surgery, cancer treatment and vaccine development. A philanthropist, he’s said to be the richest man in Los Angeles.

I can think of no obvious reason, however, why anybody would take Soon-Shiong’s political opinions—whatever they may be—more seriously than their brother-in-law’s. It may be that he has come to the same conclusion. Or maybe he’s simply hedging his bets because he doesn’t know which presidential candidate will win next week’s election, and he has heard and heeded Donald Trump’s threats of retribution against anybody he deems a political enemy.

True or false, that certainly appeared to be Jeff Bezos’ motive. The founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post ended up looking cowardly to the many readers who have cancelled their subscriptions to the newspaper whose motto “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” strikes them as lame in view of his decision not to endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in decades. The Post itself is an insignificant part of its owners’ far-flung financial interests.

As a business decision, the newspaper’s non-endorsement looked like a no-brainer. Also a no-guts move, according the the Post’s justly-celebrated former editor Marty Baron. “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” he posted on X. “Disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

But you know what? Even if the Washington Post had published a strongly-worded editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris, as everybody had expected it would, this subscriber probably wouldn’t have read it. As I haven’t read the New York Times’ official endorsement of Harris, and wouldn’t dream of perusing the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette’s expected encomium to the manly virtues of candidate Trump. Although I read large parts of all three newspapers daily, I normally skip unsigned, team-written editorials on any and all topics—politics in particular.

Having spent some years working at a publication where editorial decisions were made by committee (Newsweek in the 1980s, back when it was still a respected publication) I have limited enthusiasm for anonymous, group-written voices from nowhere. The Washington Post publishes a number of opinion columnists I read regularly: Jennifer Rubin, Fareed Zakaria, Philip Bump, David Ignatius, Dana Millbank, Eric Wemple...There are others whose individual voices I greatly respect.

Many of the above were among the 17 Post staffers that signed a protest letter to Jeff Bezos. Which tells you one good thing about him: they don’t fear retribution.

Indeed, I found myself in agreement with what Bezos himself wrote about his decision not to endorse anybody:

“Presidential endorsements,” Bezos wrote in the Post “do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

That said, Bezos’ timing couldn’t have been worse. If he was going to make this decision at all, he should have made it months ago. It’s also a naïve assumption on his part that the news media’s lack of credibility among some Americans stems from editorials they disagree with. Judging from hostile reader emails, I’d have to say that many never absorbed the distinction between fact and opinion taught in seventh grade in the first place.

They certainly pay little heed to the distinction between the news and opinion pages of the newspaper, and there are well-financed propaganda operations working hard to be sure that they never do. Any and everybody whose opinion differs from their own is a notorious liar.

Just the other day, Donald Trump threatened to come after dissenting journalists during his imagined second term: “They’re so nasty. They’re so evil. They are actually the enemy of the people,” he said last Saturday.

Yeah, well you know what? To hell with him.

Speaking as somebody who once resigned from the best job I ever had in a 3 A.M. email rather than allow my byline to appear on an article filled with statements I knew to be wrong, I’m not about to cower before a manifest fraud like Trump.

But I’m also not going to drop my subscription to the Washington Post nor quit shopping at Amazon. My Kindle alone justifies the price of admission. On that score, I see Jeff Bezos as a benefactor of mankind.

Gene Lyons is a former columnist for the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, a winner of the National Magazine Award, and co-author of The Hunting of the President.

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Big Firms Including Amazon And Boeing Gave $100M To Election Deniers

In the wake of the insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in which a mob of far-right rioters attempted to violently disrupt Congress' certification of the 2020 Electoral College count, numerous corporations vowed publicly to stop donating to Republicans who supported the rioters' cause.

However, a new report from nonpartisan campaign finance research group Open Secrets shows that corporations have been flooding the campaign war chests of Republican election deniers in Congress, with more than $108 million donated since the insurrection.

"Companies pledged to pull back, but we have not seen that play out," Open Secrets investigations manager Anna Massoglia recently told the New York Times.

To come to that amount, Open Secrets tracked donations to the campaigns of the 147 House and Senate Republicans (also known as the "Sedition Caucus") who voted to overturn the 2020 election the same day supporters of former President Donald Trump ransacked the US Capitol, killing five police officers and injuring hundreds more in the process. Researchers then zeroed in on donations that came from approximately 1,400 business political action committees and trade associations.

According to Open Secrets, PACs and trade groups donated roughly $91.4 million to the Sedition Caucus in the three years since the insurrection, and funded leadership PACs affiliated with Sedition Caucus members to the tune of $16.7 million more. Some of the biggest donors include the National Association of Realtors — a trade group for the real estate industry — the American Bankers Association and United Parcel Service. Other major corporate donors to election deniers include military contractors like Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and General Atomics.

Notably, many of these donations came from the very same companies that pledged to stop supporting the Sedition Caucus. As journalist Judd Legum reported in his newsletter Popular Information, household name brands like Airbnb, Amazon, AT&T, Boeing and Pfizer publicly vowed to cut off donations to election deniers in 2021. However, Open Secrets found that all of those companies quietly resumed donations, in addition to other companies that pledged to stop supporting 2020 election conspiracy theorists like Comcast, Deloitte, General Motors, Home Depot, Marathon Petroleum, Raytheon and SpaceX, among others.

"Support for these organizations does not represent an endorsement for all issues that the organization supports," General Motors said of a 2021 donation to the Republican State Leadership Committee, which signed a statement in support of election denialism.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

After Promising To Defund Election Deniers, Corporate PACS Gave Them Millions

After Promising To Defund Election Deniers, Corporate PACS Gave Them Millions

A new report by the nonprofit government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, found many of America's blue-chip corporations have collectively given tens of millions of dollars to congressional Republicans who voted against certifying President Joe Biden's 2020 election win, a group CREW dubbed the "Sedition Caucus."

At least 231 companies announced that they would either entirely suspend, temporarily halt, or meaningfully reassess their political giving in the days after a pro-Trump mob fueled by conspiracy theories about the 2020 election stormed the U.S. Capitol building on January 6, 2021.

After Congress reconvened later that night, 147 Republicans — 139 in the House and 8 in the Senate — voted against certifying the 2020 election, in some cases citing claims of widespread voter fraud. Numerous national- and state-level recounts, election audits, and independent investigations have found no evidence that the outcome of the 2020 election was affected by fraud.

According to the CREW report, 166 of those companies have resumed donating to political campaigns and leadership PACs run by those election objectors. Several companies that condemned the attack are among that number, including Disney, Amazon, and Allstate.

In a statement, a Disney spokesman called the attack "an appalling siege" and criticized legislators who voted against certifying Biden's victory. Amazon said the insurrection was an "unacceptable attempt to undermine a legitimate democratic process," and a senior vice president at Allstate told CNN that the vote "did not align with the committee's commitment to bipartisanship, collaboration and compromise."

However, according to CREW's report, Amazon has since given $46,500 to election objectors, Disney $4,500, and Allstate $36,000.

An Amazon spokesman told the American Independent Foundation that the company's political action committee gives to Congress members who "share our views on issues that are important to our customers and our business in general." The spokesperson said the suspension of donations was not intended to be permanent.

The three companies are far from alone in doubling back on strong statements; Politico reported last week that Cigna, the multi-billion-dollar health insurance giant, gave more than $200,000 to election objectors ahead of the 2022 midterm elections after promising to cease contributing to "any elected official who encouraged or supported violence, or otherwise hindered the peaceful transition of power."

"Some issues are so foundational to our core fiber that they transcend all other matters of public policy," read a Cigna internal memo obtained by CNBC. "There is never any justification for violence or destruction of the kind we saw at the U.S. Capitol — the building that [is] such a powerful symbol of the very democracy that makes our nation strong."

Of the top five corporate donors to election objectors since Jan. 6, 2021 — Koch Industries, Boeing, Valero Energy, Home Depot, and AT&T — all but Koch Industries made some kind of promise to cease giving in the wake of the insurrection.

The report also notes corporate contributions to election deniers who won election to Congress in the 2022 midterms, including Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance, a Republican who spread false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, and Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), who the Daily Beast reported crossed police lines on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 during the insurrection.

Sixty-five of the companies CREW surveyed have remained committed to their public rejection of election objectors, including Meta, BlackRock, Target, and Nike. However, lobbyists working for some of the corporations that publicly pledged to refrain from supporting election objectors, including Microsoft, Meta, Nike, and Dow Chemical Company, have since made personal contributions to some of those lawmakers.

"None of the remaining members who fed lies about the election and voted not to certify have atoned for their actions," CREW research director Robert Maguire told the American Independent Foundation. "What is the point — other than good PR — of making a commitment to not give, if you're just going to start making donations to those same politicians in the same election cycle, only a little later than you normally would have?"

"You can't say you support voting rights or democracy while also making campaign contributions to members of Congress who in many cases tried to disenfranchise voters in entire states and attempted to overturn a free and fair election," Maguire added.

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World