From MSN:

Wal-Mart shopping for lawmakers?
The megaretailer -- and No. 1 corporate political donor at the federal level -- has been ramping up its political contributions, especially at state and local levels. Who's reaping the benefits?

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has legions of close friends, collected over decades as a Hollywood box-office draw and rising political star. Yet few may consider him as dear as Wal-Mart Stores (WMT, news, msgs), which gave the Republican governor $22,300 on May 15 and earlier contributed $200,000 for initiatives Schwarzenegger had supported. In addition, the company has given $300,000 to the state GOP and additional funds to local politicians, making California the biggest recipient of Wal-Mart's political largesse.

California is just one of the places where local politicians are benefiting from Wal-Mart's growing interest in state affairs. Over the past four election cycles, the giant retailer has been steadily boosting its contributions to state and local politicians, just as such politicians have been taking on bigger roles in deciding key issues concerning the company's operations, from the local minimum wage and required health-care benefits to zoning for big-box retailers.

Money has gone to everyone from Schwarzenegger and New York gubernatorial candidate Eliot Spitzer to Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich and Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones Jr.

Ramping up
Wal-Mart gave a total of $326,875 in the 2000 election cycle, $431,017 in 2002 and $857,179 in 2004, according to research by The Institute on Money in State Politics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization based in Helena, Mont.

For the 2006 election cycle, the company has given $644,655 so far and seems to be on track to hit a record for political contributions.

"They've gone from zero to warp speed in political giving all across the board," says Bruce Freed, co-director of the Center for Political Accountability, a nonprofit group that tracks corporate political spending.

These totals include only direct contributions to politicians and political parties. Adding in money for ballot initiatives and other local issues brings the total of Wal-Mart state giving so far this cycle to $1.25 million.

Wal-Mart says it's become necessary to step up its contributions. For two decades it largely shunned politics because company founder Sam Walton didn't believe such activities benefited his customers. In fact, Wal-Mart didn't hire any lobbyists or establish any political action committees until 1998.

No longer on sidelines
But that reticence, the company now says, has allowed critics to launch unilateral attacks and set the agenda on a number of issues. "For years we didn't participate -- to our detriment," says company spokesman John Simley. "Now we're participating in the same political process as any citizen, in this case a corporate citizen."

Simley says contributions are now a carefully considered component of Wal-Mart's business strategy. "The process that we use to choose to whom we contribute has to do with the voting record and position of each official," he says. "We look at their records on anything that's relevant to our business, like trade, taxes, legislation related to pharmacy and grocery, and we also consider the magnitude of our presence in the districts they represent."

Today, Wal-Mart has become one of the most active corporations in the U.S. At the federal level, Wal-Mart is already the No. 1 corporate political contributor, giving $943,455 in the 2006 election cycle, followed by General Electric's (GE, news, msgs) $788,711 and Anheuser-Busch's (BUD, news, msgs) $671,644, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, another nonpartisan watchdog.

Battleground states for Wal-Mart
As for the states, Wal-Mart has become one of the most active givers, though it still ranks well behind telecom companies such as AT&T (T, news, msgs) and tobacco companies like R.J. Reynolds.

Wal-Mart's contributions vary greatly by state, in part because the rules governing such donations are widely divergent. Twenty-one states prohibit corporate contributions altogether, and two dozen other states impose limits.

For example, a corporation can give a maximum of $22,300 to a gubernatorial candidate in California, while New York limits corporate contributions to $5,000 per year. Five states -- Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Virginia -- have no giving limits.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Click the link for the rest of the article.

Warren

 

Would be nice if the dems would finally shut this down. No one gets nothing from no one. No political contributions from anyone at anytime. That means private, companies, non-profits, etc.... People should run on mertits not contributions.

 

Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Warren what do you have against Wal-Mart? Both this post and your new one in Car Talk seem to have a decided negative Wal Mart slant.

 

Well we can all bitch about who donates to whom or we can bitch about the idea that one can be persuaded by x,y,z company but the sieera club or NRA is alright

 

He hates walmart, something about a company that pays higher wages to its employees than mom and pop shops and gives better benefits as well, that makes them the spawn of Hitler or Satan.

 

I don't care for Walmart either. A company that has basically led to the rise of China is not going to be one that I support. I end up going to Target usually.

 

I agree I'd rather go to target. Only 92% of their stuff is made in china while walmart is near 97%.
I prefer target because they tend to have slightly better stuff and the stores are usually nicer to be in.

 

But Super Tartget has no depth in their product lines. They carry only the top 2-3 sellers in each catagory. Heaven forbid you need or want something else.

I'm white trash which means it's Walmart all the way, when compared to Target

 

Why am I not surprised?

Warren