Walmart shareholders to vote on corporate poltical giving transparancy

I just received my proxy to vote on issues that are being presented at next month's Walmart Shareholder's meeting. This will be my first time voting since my father transferred my inherited shares over to me. This proposal might interest many here-

PROPOSAL NO. 7
POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS REPORT

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001-2198, is the beneficial owner of 160 Shares and is joined by another filer (whose name, address, and shareholdings will be provided by Wal-Mart promptly upon receipt by Wal-Mart’s Investor Relations Department of any oral or written request) that have notified the Company that they intend to present the following proposal at the 2005 Annual Shareholders’ Meeting:

RESOLVED: That the shareholders of Wal-Mart (“Company”) hereby request that the Company provide a report, updated semi-annually, disclosing the Company’s:

1. Policies and procedures for political contributions (both direct and indirect) made with corporate funds.

2. Monetary and non-monetary contributions to political candidates, political parties, political committees and other
political entities organized and operating under 26 USC Sec. 527 of the Internal Revenue Code including the following:

a. An accounting of the Company’s funds contributed to any of the persons or organizations described above;
b. The business rationale for each of the Company’s political contributions; and,
c. Identification of the person or persons in the Company who participated in making decisions to contribute.

This report shall be presented to the board of directors, audit committee, or other relevant oversight committee, and posted on the company’s website to reduce costs to shareholders.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT: As long-term shareholders of Wal-Mart, we support policies that apply transparency and accountability to corporate political giving. In our view, such disclosure is consistent with public policy in regard to public company disclosure and is necessary for shareholder assessment of financial risks that may result from corporate political donations.

Company executives wide discretion over the use of corporate resources for political purposes. They make decisions without a stated business rationale for such donations. In 2001-02, the last fully reported election cycle, Wal-Mart contributed at least $123,497.00. (The Center for Responsive Politics, Soft Money Donors: http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/softcomp2.asp?txtName=Wal%2Dmart+Stores&txtUltOrg=y&txtSort=name&txtCycle=2002.)

Relying on the limited data available from the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, the Center for Responsive Politics, a leading campaign finance watchdog organization provides an incomplete picture of the Company’s political donations. Complete disclosure by the company is necessary for the company’s Board and its shareholders to be able to fully evaluate the political use of corporate assets.

Although the Bi-Partisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) enacted in 2002 prohibits corporate contributions to political parties at the federal level, it allows companies to contribute to independent political parties at the federal level, it allows companies to
contribute to independent political committees, also known as 527s, which are active in federal elections. In addition, BCRA did not prohibit corporate campaign contributions at the state and local level – limitations and disclosure requirements vary from state
to state. Therefore, it is not possible to independently verify all Company political giving.
Absent a system of accountability, corporate executives will be free to use the Company’s assets for political objectives that are not shared by and may be inimical to the interests of the Company and its shareholders. There is currently no single source of information that provides the information sought by this resolution.

That is why we urge your support FOR this critical governance reform.
-------------
WAL-MART’S STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE SHAREHOLDER PROPOSAL REGARDING A POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION REPORT

Wal-Mart believes it is in the best interests of its shareholders to be an effective participant in the political process by making prudent political contributions when such contributions are permitted by federal, state, and local laws. Furthermore, Wal-Mart is fully committed to complying with all applicable laws concerning political contributions, including laws requiring public disclosure of such matters.

Since the early 70’s, corporate contributions have been prohibited at the federal level. Political contributions to federal candidates, political party committees, and political action committees are made by Wal-Mart’s political action committee (“Wal-PAC”), which is not funded by corporate funds but from voluntary contributions of Associates. The activities of Wal-PAC are subject to comprehensive regulation by the federal government, including detailed disclosure requirements. Wal-PAC files monthly reports of receipts and disbursements with the Federal Election Commission (the “FEC”), as well as pre-election and postelection FEC reports. All political contributions over $200 are shown in public information made available by the FEC. Under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, Wal-PAC submits to Congress semi-annual reports, which also are publicly available. At the state level, our political contributions also are subject to regulation. While some states have not banned corporate contributions to candidates or political parties, all states require that such contributions be disclosed either by the recipient or by the donor and this information also is publicly available. As a result of these mandatory disclosures, the Board has concluded that ample disclosure exists regarding Wal-Mart’s political contributions to alleviate the concerns cited in this proposal.

In addition, the Board believes that the disclosure of business rationales behind every political contribution requested in this proposal would impose a business disadvantage on Wal-Mart. Our business is subject to extensive regulation at the federal and state levels. We are involved in a number of legislative initiatives in a broad spectrum of policy areas which can have an immediate and dramatic effect on our operations. Because parties with interests adverse to Wal-Mart also participate in the political process to their business advantage, any unilateral expanded disclosure requirements could benefit these parties while harming the interests of Wal-Mart and its shareholders.

For the above reasons, the Board recommends that the shareholders vote AGAINST this proposal.
------
The report also showed that Lee Scott, Jr., CEO, made $12.5 million last year. The company even paid his life insurance and medical physical. :P

recommendation in this matter, what chance do you have of making a difference? Doesn't the Walton family own most of the shares?

Do you know anyone else who owns shares, and who might share your views?

Do you own a substantial number of shares? Are you thinking about attending the meeting?

own roughly 1.7 billion shares, which make up on average 40% of the class and leaving 60% outstanding. My 7,500 shares are miniscule compared to their billion-plus shares, but there might just be enough votes to get the 50.1% to pass. My father would vote his shares FOR as well.

I am trying to make time to go, would be a first. I could try and talk to the United Methodist Church (about 1 million shares) and the people from the Amalgamated Bank in NY (1.7 million shares) to vote FOR the proposal. Wow, it's just like lobbying, lol. I should bring charts :D

of shareholders never vote, don't the Waltons maintain absolute control of the company? :shrug: