Now THIS is a two-faced company!
Following pressure from stockholders, AT&T reluctantly produced a report comparing its campaign contributions to its stated (woke, naturally) “values.” Surprise! While publicly proclaiming its left-approved virtues, the company gave millions to politicians holding opposing views.
-
AT&T asserts that it “recognizes, embraces, and stands with LGTBQ+ people,” but donated at least $1,396,650 to legislators who are regarded by progressive activists as hostile to their cause between January 2022 and June 2023.
- From 2018 to 2021, AT&T donated at least $574,500 to the politicians who crafted and passed Texas’s voting reform legislation and at least $99,700 to Georgia Republicans who helped pass the law Joe Biden called “Jim Crow on steroids.” Now, neither law was actually a restriction on the right to vote, but the company has pandered to progressives who believe both laws are, posturing as an ardent supporter of “voting rights” as defined by the Left. This is a deceitful metaphorical tightrope to walk.
- In AT&T’s 2020 Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Report, CEO John Stankey said one of the company’s “core values” was “gender equity and the empowerment of women.” Most women interpret that to mean support for Roe-style abortion rights, but from 2018 to 2021, AT&T donated $301,000 to the sponsors of Texas’ restrictive abortion law, and after it was passed an signed, gave $50,000 directly from its corporate treasury to the Texas Senate Republican Caucus which unanimously voted in favor of the abortion regulations, and $30,000 to House Speaker Dade Phelan (R), a champion of the bill.
- In 2022, the majority of members of Congress given donations by AT&T opposed the “Dream Act,” though the company had previously proclaimed its support for the illegal immigration-supporting measure.
I said “Surprise!” in jest. This isn’t a surprise. Most corporations have no genuine values, and try to play both “sides against the middle” as often as they can manage to sneak it by the news media, the public, and shareholders. Large corporations, with rare exceptions, have no virtues, and most of their leadership and managers won’t genuinely acknowledge an ethical principle unless it is profitable to do so or beneficial to their careers.
AT&T got caught. It is certainly not alone.
______________________
Pointer and Facts: Popular Info
Post Script: WordPress’s AI needs some work. Lately WP has suggested tags for essays. For this one, it said, “Based on the topics and themes in your post, here are some suggested tags to consider: Political Contributions, BBC, Australian shortstory, Flashfiction, Shortfiction , Daily Thoughts On Life
Ethics Alarms 
Jack you need to stop flogging the outdoor life with dingoes and wallaby’s, I reckon.
Do you think there is a portion of your text that only Workpress’s AI is able to read?
Curmie,
Part 2 is where we part ways in agreement. The primary reason for this difference of opinion stems from my agreement in Part 1
(I) You wrote: AT&T asserts that it “recognizes, embraces, and stands with LGTBQ+ people,” but donated at least $1,396,650 to legislators who are regarded by progressive activists as hostile to their cause between January 2022 and June 2023.
AT&T can embrace workplace rights for the LGBTQ community and contribute to legislators who view them as hostile for two reasons. First, LGBTQ activists demand fealty to their cause or you are deemed a homophobe or transphobe. Thus, any legislator that would support some parts of the LGBTQ agenda but not all are deemed hostile and because the activists demand absolute loyalty companies that are sympathetic will make pronouncements of support to avoid being trashed by the LGBT activists. Second, the world does not revolve around the LGBTQ community and AT&T may be supporting candidates that support AT&T initiatives who may also not hold the same ideals toward the LGBTQ community as AT&T. The question is are LGBTQ employees treated fairly in the AT&T workplace.
I have friends that disagree with me on a variety of issues. I focus on where we are in agreement and not where we hold different POV’s.
(II) From 2018 to 2021, AT&T donated at least $574,500 to the politicians who crafted and passed Texas’s voting reform legislation and at least $99,700 to Georgia Republicans who helped pass the law Joe Biden called “Jim Crow on steroids.” Now, neither law was actually a restriction on the right to vote, but the company has pandered to progressives who believe both laws are, posturing as an ardent supporter of “voting rights” as defined by the Left. This is a deceitful metaphorical tightrope to walk.
Again this is a case where the activists put a gun to someone’s head where the victim firm must prove fealty to the cause. I for one support voting rights but I also believe that it is appropriate for the voter to prove their eligibility to vote through some form of voter validation. This is especially true now when we have millions of non-citizens living among us. We hear all the time about voter ID is voter suppression but so is an ineligible voter cancelling out a legitimate voter. I don’t believe for a second that progressives get to define the terms by which we make decisions. Any metaphorical tightrope that is being walked was crafted by fealty demanding activists.
(III) “In AT&T’s 2020 Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Report, CEO John Stankey said one of the company’s “core values” was “gender equity and the empowerment of women.” Most women interpret that to mean support for Roe-style abortion rights, but from 2018 to 2021, AT&T donated $301,000 to the sponsors of Texas’ restrictive abortion law, and after it was passed an signed, gave $50,000 directly from its corporate treasury to the Texas Senate Republican Caucus which unanimously voted in favor of the abortion regulations, and $30,000 to House Speaker Dade Phelan (R), a champion of the bill.”
AT&T does not provide abortions nor does it require them for promotion as far as I know. Gender equity and empowerment of women means far more than the an fettered right to an abortion in a corporate setting. That is where AT&T can demonstrate that commitment.
You said most women interpret Gender Equity and Empowerment to mean Roe style rights to abortion. Most women where? Do most women in Texas feel that way? This was a state initiative so the women in California and New York or any other state have no say in the matter. That is how democracy in a republic works. The deceit that is being propagated is by the left because it claims that Dobbs would end a woman’s right to abort a pregnancy.
(IV) “In 2022, the majority of members of Congress given donations by AT&T opposed the “Dream Act,” though the company had previously proclaimed its support for the illegal immigration-supporting measure.”
Can we think of any other reasons why AT&T would give money to candidates opposed to the Dream Act. Is it possible that a person or firm can support an issue but that issue is far down on the list of priorities that are relevant to the individual or business concern. The Dream Act, in my opinion coming from the corporate world, could be considered something nice to have rather than something essential.
I’ll give you credit for your post but what I derived from part 2 was that unless I walk in lock step with progressive activists and sublimate my own needs in order to demonstrate absolute fealty to the cause my actions will be unethical. I disagree. As you said in part one you don’t want someone to tell you how to think, I don’t want someone establishing my priorities and choices. If someone wants my support, the cost to them is allowing me to establish meaning of my support and the level to which I give it.
Curmie? Isn’t this Jack’s Part II post? Part I: Macy’s – Part II: AT&T
Edward
You are correct I thought this was part 2 of Curmie’s post from the other day. I did not see Jack’s post about Macy’s before I read the ATT essay, I still stand by what I wrote but the first paragraph should be rewritten as follows:
I agreed with Curmie in his part 1 essay the other day and the analysis here I cannot support for the very reasons I agreed with Curmie.
My error.
Chris caught me: Curmie and I are the same person. As are you, as you, or I, know. The jig is up.
Chris? Of course any corporation can support any position it chooses to. But it’s a fact, not an accusation, that it’s public statements are calculated to pander to left-leaning groups and potential consumers and its donations are unequivocally at odds with their rhetoric. The linked article is full of biased phrasing of the sort Curmie discussed, like referring to the Texas and Georgia voting reform acts as laws de signed to “restrict voting.” The only people who make that argument are the Stacy Abrams crowd, who apparently want minority voters to be able to walk up to the voting booth, shout their preference, and have it recorded as a valid vote. If AT&T isn’t pandering to this group by virtue-signalling about voters’ rights, what are they talking about? The 1964 voters’ rights act? And why did they try to block releasing the records of their donations during this period?
Jack,
I may have misunderstood your post so I will reread it again.
I did read the article highlighted but explain to me how one must approve of “gender affirming care” – which is of course a misnomer when in reality it is gender changing medical procedures – to be ethical.
Affirming a biological male’s belief that he is female is denying reality or affirming a delusion that may have an origin in the brain and would otherwise be considered gender dysphoria and best treated by a licensed psychiatrist rather than a doctor pushing puberty blockers and other procedures that permanently alter a persons body before they have the mental capacity to make such decisions. Why are highly invasive procedures that leave the patient sterile deemed acceptable while psychotherapy or psychological therapy considered abusive “conversion” therapy.
My point was that a corporation can support adult LGBTQ persons in the workplace and be dead set against policies that permit they consider abuse of children. Why is it pandering to support some elements of a side while being vehemently opposed to the extremes of that side? I thought the goal was to find common ground.
I would agree with your assessment if AT&T was giving lip service to an inclusive work environment but discriminating against qualified LGBTQ applicants or giving money to politicians seeking to deny adult LGBTQ adult persons equal rights. That was not the issue in the story.
The other issue was that it was a corporate PAC that made the donations. Such PACs are organized under the aegis of the firm but it is not corporate funds that are used. Employees have significant say in what politicians the PAC will support based on my experience working with a local utility as a consultant for its external affairs department.
As for the Voting Rights issue based on the video it is in support of ensuring voting rights and is using the work done to achieve the civil rights act of 1964 as its backdrop. That is perfectly acceptable. I do question why in 2023 we are still litigating whether any citizen is unable to produce a government vetted identification means. In 1964, there were many in this country born without the benefit of a hospital that could issue a birth certificate. I could see the argument that getting an ID without a birth certificate would be an undue burden but that is no longer the case. The irony is that I had to get a “Real” ID from my state under federal law or be barred from some public transport or access to federal buildings Yes, I know using public transport is not a right but the purpose of REAL ID is to set a national standard for identification. What is most troubling is that DACA and those with TPS designation can obtain one. Why is it acceptable to require a “Real ID” if people who cannot produce identification to vote are excused? Finally, where does it say that voting comes without any responsibility? I cannot vote wherever I please. Why shouldn’t you have to apply for an absentee ballot before one is issued to you. I would favor making election day a national holiday as it was in days past. That would include closing the bars until after the polls closed. For those that must work, then let them vote early but no more that 2 weeks prior to an election.
The idea that the firm must embrace every element of what is proposed by progressives to make voting “easier” or else it is being hypocritical is dead wrong. The attacks by the media and their progressive activists on any change in ensuring one-citizen one-vote as regressive suppression is in my opinion just political BS.
International corporations have to appeal to many interests and can support multiple candidates and perspectives with opposing views at the same time. They have been doing that for years. What should be troubling is that corporations should be evaluated on the value they create and not what they believe. And, just as I can, they should be able to support part of an issue while simultaneously denouncing other aspects of that issue.
The point isn’t what AT&T supports or doesn’t support. The point is that it’s pretending to hold positions that it doesn’t hold, and is using obfuscation and double-talk to make inattentive partisans think otherwise. Of course opposing “gender-affirming care” doesn’t have any relevance to LGBTQ rights, but the people the company is pandering to think it does.
My take away from this exchange is a corporation must remain silent on social issues if it only partially agrees because some will interpret it as support of every aspect of the progressive issue and therefore the inference makes the actual support a lie. There are no social issues that do not have two sides or a continuum of perspectives.
I just don’t see the statements policies or donations made pretending. We have to examine the entirety of the issues facing the organization and its choices it makes regarding donations.
I find the whole idea the if “you ain’t wid me you agin me” that took hold in the Bush 2 administration a significant problem in our society. This is the root cause of the increasing balkanization of interest groups. I find this behavior among ill informed conservatives and myopic progressives. Neither side is willing to temper their ideas with thoughtful questions they just jump to conclusions.
What I am trying to convey is little different than what I understand EC to mean in his methods of addressing conflict. It is hard to reach agreement if we condemn based on a single element.
The company is virtue signalling and posturing. If a company really wants to be regarded as a social activist, then it is obligated to show integrity and honesty. Most corporations gibe contributions to both parties and both sides of various issues. That’s because, like AT&T, their interest isn’t political, it’s profits. That’s fine, but pretending otherwise is unethical.
(II) I would put money that the vast majority of people who feel that voter ID laws are racist also supported vaccine passports to travel or enter buildings.