PagesBuy Us A Cup of Coffee

June 8, 2020

This Is Taco Bell Being Smart

The McDonald's PAC is a dinosaur from days gone by when our country was not so 
divided and when both McDonald's franchisees and McDonald's corporate believed 
in free enterprise and entrepreneurship. 

Taco Bell Corp. does not make donations to presidential political campaigns and has no involvement with or control over donations made by franchisees.
325
728
3.8K

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Proper stance - especially when 95% of restaurants are independently owned and operated.

Still, the BRAND has to show to important NATIONAL and STATE conventions and meetings impacting BUSINESS - regardless of political party. Unfortunately, without any skin in the game - it makes it easy for corporate to turn political - as its operational skills have deteriorated or been eliminated.

Anonymous said...

Speaking as a former member of the MCD PAC years ago it was not the intent of government relations to influence legislation as lobbyists or some form of power brokers. The intent was to educate legislators of how various proposals impacted our business. Issues like labeling, nutrition, child marketing and other. As interest groups opposed to MCD gained publicity and began donating to members of congress we decided that we needed to protect our interests against legislation proposed by opposition groups who were recruiting the labor unions to oppose our menu and other business practices. Our early donations were heavily tilted toward the conservative Republicans who were all pro business. We found that worked against us. Thus, a decision had to be made about the idea of becoming more political with donations and operator involvement at the local level. Slowly, we got the message out that we were not wed to one political philosophy that we were now going to be political in the sense that we would help those who helped us regardless of what side of the isle they sat on. At the time it was a logical and effective approach. Members of congress understood us and supported our mode of operating. MCD had vast credibility. As the political environment changed with huge amounts of money beginning to pour into political campaigns we were being left in the dust and the company and the PAC did not want to become a player in the backrooms of the congress. It was too important to our image to stay clean and family oriented. Our opposition knew this and took full advantage of it. I soon rotated off the PAC and can't speak to any changes after that time. However, I believe it remains important to have our positions known and why those positions are important to us. Many members of the congress have little understanding of business, of American history, culture and unless we talk about ourselves to those groups we become irrelevant to those decision makers. It is a problem that will only get bigger. We once were able to talk with pride about our operations and public relation programs, not so much anymore.

Anonymous said...

They didnt want to be player in the front room either. As they obviously willfully sitting on the sideline during the worse national crisis of our lifetime.

If your not leading the discussion, what are you doing then? And have to ask, where did the money go?

Anonymous said...

Bus loads of freeloaders all wearing the same t shirts roll into the halls of congress every day. Make no mistake, they all want to take everything that you as a business owner have.

As noted, most representatives know nothing about how a business works (which is why they will vote to make you pay someone who can't even sweep a floor a "living wage" despite you teaching them how to sweep and do everything else that will vendor them in the future). Don't even dream of these reps understanding what a franchise is and why you aren't Chris K and refuse to part with your hundred million dollar stock options and golden parachute to pay another $1 per hour.

That's why it is important to be in the game.

Anonymous said...

Being a Global brand and a well known national brand in the USA we have always had good customers on every side of every issue. Republicans, Democrat's, liberals, conservatives, race's, ethic groups, who consistently spend money in our stores. We also have loyal employee's in the stores and in the corporation on every side of every issue. USA operators also have diverse ideas on every issue. My personal position is that we are first and foremost a business with profit as our motive. I'm not ashamed to say it. We have to be good corporate citizens in our communities and globally.

Anonymous said...

In its search for stock price growth, the company has been disregarding operator profitability.
Broad menu offerings with worse fundamentals make this a riskier investment than you might think.
McDonalds is a household name offering a variety of items in the beverage and food sector. The company trades at a premium due to its stock performances. MCD has only the stockholders interests ,not the Owners, as its driving mission.

Protect your equity
JOIN and SUPPORT the NOA - Owners supporting Owners, NOT stockholders!

Anonymous said...

I stopped giving to the PAC years ago. They claim it is Operator lead, but in reality the liberal-antibusiness corporate pukes dictate everything and have total control. Several years ago they contacted me to present a contribution check to a anti business congressman who has voted to raise the minimum wage 13 TIMES! I refused. Today that congressman is a leading advocate for $15 minimum wage!

Richard Adams said...

The old bromide is "buying a seat at the table" - no you're not. You are just adding your name to a list of donors that the politician's campaign can come back to again and again for more money. No agendas or votes will be changed.
.

Anonymous said...

Richard, I must disagree in part with your view of the advocacy strategy. Money is art of it and all of the politicians are pigs hat look at us like a trough--we agree there. However, when the storm comes, those people pick up the phone when donors call. This has never been more clear than during the last 2 months. This op ed, while against franchises lobby efforts, explains it nearly flawlessly:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-small-business-loans.html

Just one key quote (the "special interests" in this case is the franchised restaurant industry): Of course, special interests could not have anticipated a pandemic happening this year — or the multi-trillion dollar congressional response it would require. But the influence game is a marathon, not a sprint. The lavish spending and lobbying these interests take on over many years are done in anticipation of rainy days like this. Times when they’ll need to leverage the power, the favors and the relationships their money can buy."

Anonymous said...

Another quote from that NYT op ed: "For example, the National Restaurant Association and the International Franchise Association both lobbied to waive the S.B.A. affiliation rules that would typically block large hotels, restaurants and certain franchises from being considered “small businesses” eligible for loans;"