Obama’s Corporate Bully Pulpit

Should the White House announce an American version of royal warrants?

It’s approaching the point where the Obama administration should just announce President Obama is starting an American version of royal warrants.

You know, those fancy shields with lions and crowns that appear on the sides of British goods like Walker’s Shortbread—“supplier of oatcakes to Her Majesty the Queen”—or Cadbury’s chocolates—“cocoa and chocolate manufacturers to Her Majesty the Queen.”

The American program could start off with the Gap, sweater and light-warmup-jacket supplier to his majesty President Obama.

President Obama’s recent shopping trip to Manhattan “was a reward for Gap, which is raising its minimum pay for employees to $10.10 an hour in keeping with Obama’s stalled proposal to increase it across the board,” The New York Times reported.

It’s hardly the first time in his presidency that Obama has made a personal endorsement of a private business. In fact, it’s a habit of his.

In July of 2013, he said he would “highlight” businesses that “set an example by providing decent wages and salaries to their own employees,” naming Costco and the Container Store as examples.

In January of 2014, Obama visited a Costco in Maryland and lavished praise on the company. “Costco’s commitment to fairness doesn’t stop at the checkout counter; it extends down the supply chain, including to many of the farmworkers who grow the product—the produce that you sell,” Obama said. “I got to tell you, when I walk around, just—I had a little tour of the produce section, the bakery—you could just tell people feel good about their job and they feel good about the company, and you have a good atmosphere, and the managers and people all take pride in what you do.”

Back in 2009, at a White House/ABC News special town hall meeting on heath care, Obama told the CEO of Aetna, “Aetna is a well-managed company and I am confident that your shareholders are going to do well.” (That turned out, by the way, to have been accurate—you could have more than tripled your money from then to now by investing in Aetna shares and reinvesting the dividends.)

Comparing President Obama’s product or company endorsements with the British Royal Warrant can be useful for helping to understand the hazards of the Obama approach. In some sense, they are similar. They are both a stamp of approval from the head of state, which is what got me thinking to begin with about stamping a stylized “O” and the words “by appointment to his majesty President Obama” in the windows of Gap stores or Costco warehouses.

But there are differences, too, and they are instructive. In the case of the products endorsed by the British kings and queens, individuals have the freedom to choose. As the author of an admiring biography of Samuel Adams, the news that the Queen of England buys some product never makes me even the slightest bit more likely to buy it.

But President Obama, unlike the Queen of England, isn’t just the ceremonial head of state. He is the head of government—a job somewhat akin to that of prime minister in Britain’s constitutional monarchy.

And Obama is running around trying to change the laws so that every business has to pay its workers like Costco and the Gap do, and so every American has to buy health insurance from Aetna or some other insurance company.

It’s almost as if the British Prime minister were trying to dictate that all chocolate be made with Cadbury’s recipe, or ordering each resident of Great Britain to purchase a dozen packages of Walker’s oatcakes each month.

Obama, unlike the Queen of England, also accepts campaign contributions, and a quick look shows that the presidential endorsements sometimes fall upon the companies whose affiliated persons have been generous with their support. Costco director and co-founder James Sinegal, for example, gave $35,000 to the Obama Victory Fund 2012; his wife Janet Sinegal gave $70,800 to the same group. Gap director William Fisher also gave $5000 to the Obama Victory Fund 2012, as did Gap director Robert Fisher; the Fisher family has a major ownership stake in Gap, in which, I should disclose, I am a small shareholder.

No one is suggesting any quid pro quo, though if a presidential endorsement can be bought with a mere $10,000 in campaign contributions, it’s probably a pretty cost-effective marketing expenditure.

The other thing—and perhaps the redeeming quality of the whole situation—is that certain successful American companies like Gap and Costco are in some ways more popular with Americans than Obama himself is. At least those companies don’t force you to shop there if you don’t want to. Don’t just take my bleeding-heart-liberal-community-organizer word for it, Obama is saying—even corporate giants like Gap and Costco can make higher wages work for their companies. Maybe, instead of putting a presidential seal on the window of Gap or Costco, Obama should hang a Gap or Costco sign on the front of the White House. At least those companies have a reputation for delivering value for a dollar.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Almanian!||

    I don't get this at all. It's like a Bok or Payne cartoon set to words.

    Curse you, Ira Stoll. Curse you....

    *shakes tiny fist*

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Can we have a full list of Obama be-shilled companies, so we can effectively boycott them?

  • Hugh Akston||

    No such animal as an effective boycott.

  • Almanian!||

    Says you. I get a lot of satisfaction in not frequenting proprieters who have gotten on my personal shit list. That's "effective" enough for me - not gettin' my money.

  • John Galt||

    There is a lot of satisfaction in not benefiting those on the shit list regardless.

    I Can't Get No Some Satisfaction! ♪

  • OneOut||

    Some of them are illegal to boycott.

  • ||

    If the govenrment perhaps lowered the amount of regulations businesses have to deal with or make the tax system somewhat less of a shit sandwiches, perhaps employers wouldn't mind spending a little extra on labor. In Illinois they want to raise the minimum wage to 10.00/hr which is stupid considering businesses aren't too keen on coming here. I know this small business owner who said that if the min wage raises, he would have to shut down because labor costs would skyrocket and he couldn't raise the prices without pissing customers off.

  • wareagle||

    why can't he just take it out of the massive profits we all know he is hiding offshore?

    /progtard

  • ||

    But but we deserve this money.

  • JeremyR||

    While regulations and taxes should be reduced/eliminated, companies aren't going to spend any more than they have to.

    The only way to boost wages is to reduce the labor pool.

  • DenverJay||

    hmmm... there are two sides to the equation, supply and demand. Increasing the number of jobs competing for the labor pool will also raise wages.

  • Paul.||

    Hey now, I inherited some china from the late 19th century that was made by... I don't remember, Bob's China, Potters to Her Majesty the Queen. I'm told it's worth something. I don't put it in the dishwasher.

    I'd say that having a label which read "The Gap, Clothiers to His Majesty the Queen" might be worth something.

  • R C Dean||

    Clothiers to His Majesty the Queen

    I snickered.

  • Sevo||

    "Clothiers to His Majesty the Queen"

    We've already got "Suppliers of Lame Excuses for Obo" posting right here on the board.

  • DenverJay||

    Damnit! I finally found a great rim shot emoticon, and can't get it to work!

    But HA! anyways

  • ||

    I remember years ago at a food retial job, I had to explain to my coworkers that creating a union and forcing the owner to raise the cost of labor is a poor idea because all he had to do was close down or stop hiring people which would force us to work bare bones. I even price wage ceiling for an illistrationa nd they still didn't get it. In their minds, the owner makes this amount in revenue every year (not considering the tax, labor costs, food costs, insurance, and other shit) so thus we are owed something more. I was like, how in the hell can you justify getting paid 9 or 10 a hour to make sandwiches?

  • SusanM||

    Honestly, having worked in unionized retail I don't quite buy that. Overall labor costs go up a little but, thanks to union rules, labor costs flatten out overall. With raises, wages and benefits tied to multi-year contracts they can also budget such costs more efficiently.

    Since there are no individual rewards, it also turns employees into indifferent, entitled fucknuggets who have no reason to care about whether the company makes money or not. That's the big downside.

  • ||

    Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

  • SusanM||

    ...indeed ;)

  • PRX||

    thanks to union rules, labor costs flatten out overall.

    tell me how union rules flatten labor costs

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Once you hit 100%*, it flattens.

    *Note that this only applies to private enterprises. Publicly funded institutions have no limits. My Krugman plushie whispered that in my ear.

  • ||

    They don't.

  • Almanian!||

    Nope - still don't get it....

    #I'veBeenBok-ed

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I love how Barry and the minimum-wage, treehouse club point to Costco vs. Walmart as some sort of validation for their religious theories. Their own example shows the exact opposite. Apply Costco's revenue per employee to Walmart and you immediately get to fire at least half of the Walmart staff. The ones left will get paid more, but at a very high price.

  • LibertarianX||

    A fairer comparison would be Cosco to Sam's Club, not Walmart. Walmart to Cosco is apples to oranges.
    But then, there's no reason to let reality get in the way of propaganda.

  • jdgalt||

    Cosco != Costco.

  • JeremyR||

    So what is better than?

    An employer where many of its employees are on government assistance (from food stamps to health care) but it employs a lot of people, or one that has fewer people, but their employees don't need government assistance, since they make decent money?

  • Sevo||

    And the people who have no jobs now need twice the GA.
    It's a win-win!

  • politicsbyothermeans||

    What is better is the government staying the fuck out of the equation.

  • ||

    1 + 2 = Bud out!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement