There’s an article today in the Wall Street Journal showing how already-established companies and their union allies will use the coercive power of government to thwart competition. The article specifically discusses efforts by less competitive supermarkets to block new Wal-Mart stores. Not that Wal-Mart can complain too vociferously. After all, this is the company that endorsed a key provision of Obamacare in hopes its hurting lower-cost competitors. The moral of the story is that whenever big business and big government get in bed together, you can be sure the outcome almost always is bad for taxpayers and consumers.
A grocery chain with nine stores in the area had hired Saint Consulting Group to secretly run the antidevelopment campaign. Saint is a specialist at fighting proposed Wal-Marts, and it uses tactics it describes as “black arts.” As Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has grown into the largest grocery seller in the U.S., similar battles have played out in hundreds of towns like Mundelein. Local activists and union groups have been the public face of much of the resistance. But in scores of cases, large supermarket chains including Supervalu Inc., Safeway Inc. and Ahold NV have retained Saint Consulting to block Wal-Mart, according to hundreds of pages of Saint documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and interviews with former employees. …Supermarkets that have funded campaigns to stop Wal-Mart are concerned about having to match the retailing giant’s low prices lest they lose market share. …In many cases, the pitched battles have more than doubled the amount of time it takes Wal-Mart to open a store, says a person close to the company. … For the typical anti-Wal-Mart assignment, a Saint manager will drop into town using an assumed name to create or take control of local opposition, according to former Saint employees. They flood local politicians with calls, using multiple phones to make it appear that the calls are coming from different people, the former employees say. …Former Saint workers say the union sometimes pays a portion of Saint’s fees. “The work we’ve funded Saint to do to preserve our market share and our jobs is within our First Amendment rights,” says Jill Cashen, spokeswoman for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Safeway declined to comment. …Mr. Saint says there is nothing illegal about a company trying to derail a competitor’s project. Companies have legal protection under the First Amendment for using a government or legal process to thwart competition, even if they do so secretly, he says.
[…] This is true for business policy. […]
[…] This is true for business policy. […]
[…] should be non-controversial, but we need to remember that big companies are not necessarily strong proponents of free […]
[…] But, as I warn in this CNBC interview, I have major concerns about big government and big business getting in bed together. […]
[…] don’t want companies to do well because the CEOs cozy up to politicians. If entrepreneurs and corporations are going to be rolling in money, I want that to happen because […]
[…] already have many examples of oleaginous interactions between big business and big government. Turbo-charging cronyism is hardly a step in the right […]
[…] already have many examples of oleaginous interactions between big business and big government. Turbo-charging cronyism is hardly a step in the right […]
[…] apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, here’s the opening of the big-business version of Sonnet […]
[…] apologies to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, here’s the opening of the big-business version of Sonnet […]
[…] don’t want companies to do well because the CEOs cozy up to politicians. If entrepreneurs and corporations are going to be rolling in money, I want that to happen because […]
[…] business community, whether for entire industries or for specific companies such as General Motors, Wal-Mart, and General […]
[…] friendly.” I strongly prefer the latter. I want small government and laissez-faire markets, not policies that cater to big business. And some of China’s development is based on special deals for large […]
Still deserving of First Amendment protection, though, right? The problem isn’t the speech, or the advocacy, or the attempt at subterfuge, as much as it is the possibility that such might result in restrictions on commercial activity (or non-commercial activity, in other contexts and with other actors).
It also only seems fair to point out that at least one cited city lamented the subterfuge and its negative impact on the city’s economic well-being (if, possibly, only in the plausibly dubious context of tax revenue loss) — not all the government sentiment and involvement here was completely malign.