"The sums we're talking about here are below the threshhold to motivate a NYT story."

Clearly you need to spend more time in New York City, for the Times' decision to put such a story out there is a function of elite New Yorkers' animosity toward Wal-Mart, business, capitalism, wealth, and the persistence of class in American society.

Good heavens. There are a myriad of story ideas in the list of 2004 grant recipients from the Walton Foundation found . Focusing on this is pretty weak on the NYT's part.

Frankly, what interests me is the number of donations to charter schools, school systems, and environmental organizations. "Floridians for School Choice, Inc." gets a whopping $3,287,500 in 2004. Georgia Charter Schools Association gets $406,000. The Brighter Choice Foundation (Charter schools for New York) gets $6,317,131.

Now, if we see Hoover Institution articles supportive of WalMart, we know to be suspicious. They got $628,000 in 2004. If my WalMart-free city also starts being nicer to the smiley face behemouth, I'll also wonder what's up. The Atlanta City Schools got a $100,000 donation.

No amount of money given by Wal-Mart is too low -- even zero!

Before I surrendered the alwayslowprices.net domain to WM, a few people warned me that handing it over for free looked suspicious! I was giving the corporation something potentially very valuable in exchange for nothing!

Takeaway: I already knew that if you or your employer takes money from WM, you're considered a paid stooge. But I learned that if you don't take money from WM, you might be thought part of a nefarious clandestine operation.

Either way, a generally pro-WM opinion is worthless.

[Btw, this comment is only half-serious.]

John Walton, before his untimely death, was a huge supporter of school choice. That explains the charter school donations, and probably why they gave to AEI, Heritage and Manhattan, as well.

"This leads to a fundamental question -- what on earth motivated the New York Times to put this article on the front page of its Business section?"

Walmart spent the last year or so caving to every PC demand that it be more sensitive and caring - because in today's world it's not enough for a large retailer to provide jobs and low-cost goods. Walmart's management has shown it is susceptible to pressure when applied in a public manner. The NY Times is applying public pressure, not because the story is page 1 material but because the editors know that applying public pressure causes Walmart to adopt more PC policies.

My guess is that Walmart is selling books debunking Joe Wilson's supposed debunking of the Nigerian uranium story. Since clinging to that is the NYT top priority, all other news must bow to it.

I bet they did it because Wal-Mart doesn't advertise in the NYT.

So Wal-Mart gives $295,000 over 7 years to conservative think tanks and thats a failure to disclose a tie. But $2,500,000 from unions to the Economic Policy institute in one year is fine and dandy.

Any idea how much money the Tides Foundation gave to the various anti-Walmart activist groups, labor unions, etc in the past year?

I mean, what's fair is fair. Oh, right, that can't be true.

I'd love to see the spider web of interests and money flows from the various liberal foundations to just the most obvious anti-Walmart groups, because I'm betting it's easily in the seven figures. But I'm comfortably certain such a web is so tangled as to be indiscipherable.

Think tanks are simply an extension of the two major political parties. So Walmart went right due to criticism from the left. What's the surprise?

We conservatives hope, Stanford, that the Republicans will be an extension of the conservative/libertarian think tanks, not the other way around.

I exaggerate, but only slightly.

elite New Yorkers' animosity toward Wal-Mart, business, capitalism, wealth

Huh? A very large percentage of "elite New Yorkers" are elite precisely because of success in business, especially finance - the very core of capitalism. Not a lot of Marxists work on Wall Street.

Not a lot of Marxists work on Wall Street.

But many feel guilty, so they play along with fashionably Left issues of the moment.

...

Part of the deal here is that WalMart doesn't advertise much in magazines or in big city newspapers.

Wal-mart hasn't given much to think tanks because it has had no need to generate new policy ideas (or crush existing ones). after all, with GOP control of both houses and the White House, issues like the minimum wage and universal health care have not exactly been at the top of the agenda. With China in the WTO, the trade issue for Wal mart is effectively moot. Why give lots of money to think tanks if your ideas are the flavor du jour inside the Beltway anyway?

If the Dems get control of one or both of the houses, you can bet Wal-Mart will suddenly be funding every Cato/AEI/Heritage paper that points out the evil of paying a living wage and providing health care.

"you can bet Wal-Mart will suddenly be funding every Cato/AEI/Heritage paper that points out the evil of paying a living wage and providing health care."

Seriously, what kind of a world do we live in where the 16 year old bagging my groceries doesnt make 25,000 dollars a year with the opportunity to stand in line at a government health and wellness facility so Hillary can determine how much free healthcare he needs in this instance? Ah, workers utopia!

Dan -

Thanks for the addendum. As the person fingered by the Times as a "voice in front of Wal-Mart's money" I'm bemused. Getting essentially smeared by the NY Times feels somewhat like a badge of honor, as I'm sure some movement conservatives will see it. But it's also deeply embarassing. I'm a PhD economist, and I can't help but imagine what my professors would think to read this trashy article. So what is the recommended course of action here?

Clearly, the reporters were too lazy too actually look at what I've written about Wal-Mart, especially when I've taken the company to task, as I would any company that promotes itself over free market principles. So, the NYTimes muffs this badly, right? I get a little smeared, right? What now?

Do the reports or editors of the paper have any conscience? Will they call and apologize and write a pageC1 correction? Do you think they're feeling a little embarassed now? Or do they just keep rolling on towards tomorrow's edition, and pay no heed to the people they step on?

This is a somewhat surreal experience. Any advice is welcome.

- Tim