DC Update
Read the newest articles and the DC Call To Action - DC Update Page 2
Antis: What to expect
The Cold Sharp Slap Of Reality
Indoor Smoking Ban Prompts Concern about Outdoor Noise December 03, 2006 The smoking ban for D.C. bars and nightclubs that takes effect next month is raising concerns that it might increase noise in neighborhoods and contribute to litter on the streets as smokers are forced outside. Some bar owners are asking neighborhood commissions and the city for permission to build outdoor smoking decks. They would allow customers to congregate in designated smoking spots on sidewalks. In Dupont Circle, two bars have already been granted permission to build decks. But one nightclub had to make a compromise with its neighbor - Saint Matthew's Cathedral. The club's deck will need to close before midnight Mass at Christmas and hours before Easter services so the priests can sleep. D.C. Council member David Catania, who chairs the council's health committee, says he isn't worried about a little more noise along busy night-life corridors. He says the smoking ban inside bars is a good choice for citizens. Read -------------- Indoor smoking ban prompts concern about more outdoor noise Dec 3, 2006 WASHINGTON - As smokers are forced outside of the District of Columbia's bars and nightclubs on Jan. 2, there are concerns that the ban might increase noise in neighborhoods and contribute to litter on the streets. "I'm 100 percent sure it's going to be a complete debacle," said Bryan Weaver, an advisory neighborhood commissioner in Adams Morgan. "It's going to add to the friction that already exists (between) some of these establishments" and neighbors. Bar owners are listening up - partly because advisory neighborhood commissions are influential when it comes time to renew alcohol licenses. "There is a lot of anxiety on the part of the owners. (The ban) is a ridiculous solution to a problem," said Pat Patrick, vice president of the Adams Morgan Business and Professional Association, which is worried that city bars and restaurants could lose smoking customers to Virginia businesses. In the meantime, some bars and nightclubs have asked advisory neighborhood commissions and the city for permission to build outdoor smoking decks to allow customers to congregate in designated smoking spots on sidewalks. In Dupont Circle, advisory neighborhood commissioner Mike Silverstein said the nightclubs MCCXXIII and Club Five received permission to build decks. But MCCXXIII had to pay attention to the needs of one of its neighbors: St. Matthew's Cathedral. The club's deck will need to close before midnight Mass at Christmas and hours before Easter services so the priests can sleep. "It's something that always requires balancing and something that requires goodwill," Silverstein said of the cooperation between bars and neighbors. "People want to live downtown and they want to live close by, but they also want to sleep." Leila Abrar, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Department of Health, said the city is working on an outreach effort and is training health inspectors before the enforcement starts. "It is a new law, so all of us are going to have to ease into it," Abrar said. D.C. Council member David A. Catania, chairman of the council's Committee on Health, said he is not worried about the possibility of a little more noise along busy night-life corridors. "A few smokers on the sidewalk is not going to change the decibel level one bit," Catania said. "I think this is the right choice for the citizens." The D.C. Council passed the ban on indoor smoking in January. The new measure took effect in restaurant dining rooms in April and will be expanded to bars and nightclubs in January. Read
National Zoo To Ban Outdoor Smoking
November 23, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Officials at the Smithsonian Institution's National Zoo have decided to ban outdoor smoking beginning next month, citing concerns over the potential for fires.
Smoking was already prohibited in zoo buildings, and keepers were not allowed to smoke in animal areas. The new rule prohibits smoking on public walkways through the zoo, in zoo golf carts and other vehicles and at the zoo's Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, Va., zoo spokeswoman Peper Long said Wednesday.
The change was prompted in part by a couple of small mulch fires on zoo grounds during the past year that "were probably connected to smoking," Long said. No one was injured in the fires.
"This is the kind of thing, if you're looking at policies to review, you ask yourself, if those can start, what else can happen?" Long said.
Zoos across the country have been following a trend toward smoking bans, said Steve Feldman, spokesman for the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. Last week the Topeka Zoo in Topeka, Kan., went smoke-free. The Hogle Zoo in Salt Lake City also plans to ban all smoking at the beginning of the year, he said.
"No Smoking" signs will be posted across the National Zoo grounds and in parking lots to alert visitors about the change, Long said. She said officials aren't expecting much negative reaction from the 2 million people who visit the zoo each year.
Zoo staff members and volunteers "will be versed in asking people to comply" with the ban, Long said. The zoo will also install disposal containers for smoking materials. Read
Williams Hashes Over Smoking Ban January 27, 2006 Melissa McCart Though many of us have firmly sided in one camp or the other on whether D.C. should ban smoking in restaurants and bars, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams seems stymied by the pressure to decide. Poor Mayor Williams. Read
D.C. Set to Join Other Cities and Ban Bar, Restaurant Smoking January 26, 2006 By Elaine Marsilio Restaurant and bar owners - and some of their customers - say patrons will go to Virginia if Mayor Anthony A. Williams signs a bill to ban smoking in their establishments. Read
3:11 PM Jan. 4th 2006
DC City Council Passes smoking ban. 11-1 with one absent.
Now it goes to the mayor who wants exemptions for Restaurants, taverns, and nightclubs.
D.C. Council Passes Smoking Ban Restaurant Association Concerned With Ban January 4, 2006 with Video Read
Washington D.C. bans smoking in bars, restaurants
Wed Jan 4, 2006 7:10 PM ET
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Washington D.C.'s city council on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to ban smoking in the U.S. capital's bars, restaurants and other workplaces, with portions of the ban expected to take effect as early as this spring.
Modeled after a similar smoking ban New York City launched in 2003, the District of Columbia measure will ban smoking in all restaurant and bar dining areas and other workplaces upon expiration of a congressional review period of 30 legislative days.
But the smoking ban would not take effect in indoor bar areas of restaurants and in taverns, brew pubs, clubs and nightclubs until Jan. 1, 2007. The measure will allow smoking on outdoor patio areas.
"It's a wonderful first step. They're acknowledging secondhand smoke is a health problem," said Katja Fort, who said she left her job as a liquor sales manager in June after exposure to smoky bars exacerbated her lung illness.
With Wednesday's vote, Washington joins a growing list of jurisdictions with full workplace smoking bans, including New York, California, Connecticut and seven other U.S. states, as well as Ireland, Norway, and Sweden.
After hours of heated of debate over amendments, the council approved the ban by a veto-proof majority of 11-1 with one member absent, after a preliminary 12-1 vote in December.
Mayor Anthony Williams said, however, that he may still veto the bill to make a point because he believes it will harm local bars and restaurants that would lose patrons to adjacent Virginia which does not have a smoking ban. Nearby counties in Maryland already ban smoking in most bars and restaurants.
The 13-member council needs a two-thirds majority of nine votes to override a veto.
"People will stay home or go where they can smoke," said Carol Schwartz, the council's lone Republican, who cast the only vote against the measure. "Our competition is a five minute Metro ride away."
The council added amendments to the bill which expanded exemptions to hookah bars, where patrons smoke flavored tobacco in Middle Eastern-style water pipes, and to taverns, clubs, nightclubs and brew-pubs that generate at least 10 percent of their revenues from on-site tobacco sales.
Angela Bradbery, a co-founder of Smokefree DC, a group advocating the ban, said the amendment could open a loophole for an establishment to push tobacco sales to maintain its smoking status, but she added that the 10 percent tobacco sales threshold would be too high for most bars and restaurants to achieve.
Nightclub promoter Mark Lee said the ban would hit the city's clubs hard because nearly half of their customers smoke regularly or occasionally. "The pain will be deep, significant and long-lasting," he said.
The measure, however, includes a provision for the city's mayor to grant an economic hardship waiver to establishments that can prove the ban has resulted in an as-yet-unspecified loss of revenue. Read
Online Poll:
Do you think the D.C. Council should vote to approve a mandatory smoking ban in the District?
Choice Votes Percentage of 1671 Votes
Yes 604 36%
No 1067 64%
Related To Story: D.C. Council To Vote On Smoking Ban D.C. Restaurant Owners Furious Over Proposed Ban http://www.nbc4.com/ 1/4/05
Appeals court considers anti-smoking referendum
By Bill Myers, Examiner Staff Writer
December 20, 2005
Butts were on the line Tuesday as both sides of an anti-smoking measure took their cases to the D.C. Court of Appeals.
A lower court judge last year tossed out Initiative 66, which would have banned smoking in D.C. restaurants, because it usurped the D.C. Council's right to control the public's purse strings.
Foes of the measure say it would reduce revenues from sales taxes because smokers would stop going out for dinner and drinks. The lower court judge agreed and said it was the council's prerogative to decide how and where the city will get its revenue.
But anti-smoking groups told three judges of the Court of Appeals that the ballot measure doesn't have a direct effect on the council's power to raise and spend money.
"It's a quality-of-life issue. That's what the citizen ballots initiatives are supposed to do," said Bennett C. Rushkoff of the D.C. Attorney General's office.
Craig C. Reilly argued against Initiative 66. He told the judges that if the measure is approved it will wreak havoc with the District's budget because city officials count on sales tax revenues in advance. At a minimum, any ballot measure like Initiative 66 ought to require a fiscal-impact study before it takes effect, Reilly said.
"Every single bill submitted to the council has to have a fiscal impact statement. Do we ignore that provision for ballot initiatives?" he said.
The judges seemed unmoved by Reilly's arguments.
"I have a difficulty here, I have to tell you," Chief Judge Eric T. Washington said, interrupting Reilly. "If we're to write this rule as you suggest ... it would completely undermine the public's access to the ballot initiative. We might as well close down the initiative process in the District of Columbia."
Washington and his colleagues must also decide whether the question even matters. The council is currently weighing an expanded smoking ban and the judges Tuesday wondered if the council's action rendered Initiative 66 moot.
Estimated revenue from D.C. restaurants
- Fiscal 2004: $18 million
- Fiscal 2005: $19 million
- Fiscal 2006: $26 million
Our elected baby sitters
Commentary
By Jonetta Rose Barras
Dec. 8, 2005
They're changing diapers and washing bottles in the D.C. Council chamber over at the John A. Wilson Building. Playpens are expected to arrive soon. Twelve of the city's 13 policymakers have morphed into old-fashion, but high-priced, nannies.
Claiming concern for District workers, lawmakers gave preliminary approval this week to a smoking ban in restaurants, bars and taverns. (All will be expected to go smoke-free by January 2007.) The ban comes after a two-year, well-funded battle and the introduction of multiple bills to two different council committees.
Legislators-cum-nannies assume that citizens in the District aren't intelligent or responsible enough to choose for themselves a dining or entertainment establishment that meets their own health standards. They also presume that workers, most of whom are over 18 years old, are incapable of determining when an environment is or isn't safe.
Smoking is a dangerous habit. It didn't take the U.S. surgeon general to provide that warning for me. As a young girl, I remember my grandmother bringing my Uncle Tiny home after his release from the hospital where he had been treated for lung cancer. He landed in my room in the twin bed just across from mine. I listened each night to his wheezing. His hacking cough rattled me. One morning, I awoke to total silence. Uncle Tiny died sometime that night. I never forgot his painful end. I have never put a cigarette to my lips.
Studies have differed on the dangers of secondhand smoke. Statistics can always be manipulated. Whether those reports are true or not is not the issue. The District has more than 200 restaurants and bars - an ample supply - that prohibit smoking. There are numerous others that have significant portions of their establishment sectioned off for nonsmokers. In other words, thinking adults have a choice - just as my Uncle Tiny did. Further, if the council is concerned about employment opportunities for those individuals who work in bars or restaurants where there is smoking, it could set up a job-counseling agency.
Council Member Carol Schwartz has the right idea: She believes regulation and not a total ban is the answer. She continues to offer a proposal that could guarantee protections for workers without jeopardizing legitimate businesses and the city's economic health. The at-large Republican member is pushing legislation that would require the installation of a specialized ventilation system where smoke is permitted in a restaurant, bar or tavern would provide for larger nonsmoking sections while allowing nonsmoking patrons to completely avoid smoking areas; and would allow for employees to have a choice of working in smoking or nonsmoking sections without economic discrimination or retaliation.
The council should take a closer look at the Schwartz plan before its second vote - unless members prefer being nannies to grown men and women.
Jonetta Rose Barras is the political analyst for WAMU radio's "D.C. Politics Hour with Kojo and Jonetta." E-mail her at rosebook1@aol.com. Read
D.C. Inches A Step Closer To Becoming Smoke-Free (The Washington Post) By Eric M. Weiss, Page A01, December 07, 2005 The D.C. Council voted 12 to 1 yesterday to prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants and other indoor public places, bringing the District closer to... Read
Washington, D.C., council approves smoking ban
Tue Dec 6, 2005 7:36 PM ET
By David Lawder
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington, D.C.'s city council on Tuesday overwhelmingly approved a smoking ban for bars, restaurants and other work and public places, but Mayor Anthony Williams said he may not sign the measure.
The council voted 12-1 in favor of the legislation, which would declare existing indoor bars, restaurants, brew-pubs and nightclubs in the U.S. capital smoke-free as of January 1, 2007.
New facilities that open between enactment and that date must be immediately smoke-free.
Smoking would still be allowed in outdoor spaces maintained by bars and restaurants, in individual hotel rooms, in retail tobacco stores, in cigar bars that generate at least 10 percent of annual revenue from on-site tobacco sales, and in facilities that research the effects of smoking.
The District of Columbia joins a growing number of U.S. cities and states to ban smoking in public places. Council members said the legislation was modeled after the smoking ban New York City launched in 2003.
"Secondhand smoke kills, it is a proven fact. This country has been moving in the direction of moving secondhand smoke out of the workplace for years," said council member and mayoral candidate Adrian Fenty in support of the bill.
The council defeated proposed amendments to allow bars and restaurants to maintain physically separated smoking sections if they install air purification devices and to exempt taverns that serve no food.
An amendment to exempt hookah bars, where patrons smoke tobacco in Middle Eastern-style water pipes, was deferred for consideration at a later date.
But the measure does allow for the city's mayor to grant an "economic hardship waiver" to those establishments who demonstrate that compliance has caused undue financial hardship. The act, however, does not define what constitutes such hardship.
Williams said on Tuesday he had not yet decided whether to sign the legislation. On Monday, he said he would not support the "100 percent ban" proposed by the council, but given the 12-1 vote he could face an override if he decides to veto it. An override would require a two-thirds vote by the council.
He said the city's bar and restaurant owners would lose business to Virginia, which has no smoking ban, and smaller neighborhood establishments would struggle financially.
"I really fear economic detriment here to our city," Williams said.
D.C. mayor says won't support total smoking ban Mon Dec 5, 2005 Mayor Anthony Williams said on Monday he would not support a total smoking ban for bars and restaurants in the U.S. capital because it would economically harm smaller, neighborhood establishments. Read
Political Winds Blowing Smoke-Free Lobbyist Struggles As Bans Multiply Through D.C. Area By Dan Morse November 6, 2005; Page C06 Montgomery County, Melvin Thompson could understand. It's filled with government workers. "There's a tendency to believe that government can solve problems for you," he said. Read
Friday, October 28, 2005
Dear Council Chair Cropp:
I write to urge you and your colleagues to preserve hospitality freedom of choice on smoking in the District of Columbia and to oppose legislation to forcibly impose a total and mandatory smoking ban at all hospitality and nightlife establishments in the nation's capital.
I strongly believe that it is in the best interest of the city to find a reasonable and fair-minded compromise on this issue — one that does not threaten the hundreds of alcohol-licensed restaurant bars, nightclubs, and taverns, as well as the livelihoods of service workers who overwhelmingly oppose such proposed measures. I hope that you will provide the needed leadership to protect Washington's small and moderate size hospitality and entertainment enterprises, citywide economic development and employment opportunities, and the continued growth and financial viability of a great city.
As you know, the hospitality industry in Washington is the largest private sector business segment and the city's largest taxpayer — directly contributing nearly 15% of the District's total tax revenues comprising its annual budget. Washington uniquely serves as "America's Hometown" — and in that role must strive to accommodate all of its residents, regional neighbors, national visitors, and international guests.
Hundreds of Washington's diverse and acclaimed dining and entertainment establishments already prohibit smoking — and hundreds more provide a wide range of options for consumers, including separate facilities and other provisions. Real-world marketplace preferences encourage the expansion and variety of available customer options and continue to serve a diversity of personal choices, providing for the greatest enjoyment and accommodation for all patrons.
I believe that the community would be better served by initiatives to encourage cooperation in the development of lifestyle education programs and smoking cessation efforts involving the city government and utilizing its share of tobacco company Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) funds received each year and totalling in the hundreds of millions of dollars — partnering with the hospitality industry and public health agencies to provide more effective solutions without the public rancor and division associated with a mandatory smoking ban.
A public policy affording freedom of personal choice has proven to provide the broadest range of hometown hospitality and public accommodation for al — workers, patrons, and businesses alike. On this important issue, coercive government mandates and the adoption of a total prohibition on smoking is both unnecessary and ill-advised.
I urge your support for hospitality freedom of choice — especially in the nation's capital.
Sincerely
October 28, 2005 Dear Editor, Showing an uncritical acceptance of Antismoking extremists' demands for a "level playing field," the Washington Post editorialized on Oct. 29th that expanding smoking bans to entire states would preserve businesses. The Post overlooks the fact that the only reputable study to date focusing on the long term effects of statewide bans has shown them to be an almost unmitigated disaster. The study, done independently and without external funding, was published earlier this year by the Missouri Restaurant Association and indicates that states with smoking bans have suffered staggering growth losses to their hospitality industries compared to states without such bans. Titled "ECONOMIC LOSSES DUE TO SMOKING BANS IN CALIFORNIA AND OTHER STATES" the study, done by David W. Kuneman and myself, shows an enormous economic burden imposed by smoking bans. Extended analysis produces the incredible figure for the state of California of up to 100 billion dollars lost over the past 15 years. Why is this study reputable? Well to this date the only substantive attack on it by Antismoking extremists has been based upon the fact that one of the authors, David Kuneman, was a research chemist 20 years ago for 7up, working on research relating to soda pop when the company was bought by Philip Morris. The "TobaccoScam" organization takes this fact and dismisses the study's findings because they were developed by a "Philip Morris researcher." Neither TobaccoScam nor any other group or organization has criticized any of the substantive findings or figures presented in the study. Smoking bans are disastrous for the hospitality industry, particularly stand alone bars and bar/restaurants, and that fact is consistently covered up and obfuscated by ban supporters who wave reams of studies in the air.... without ever mentioning that virtually every one of those studies was financed directly by organizations devoted to promoting smoking bans. The studies done by the hospitality industry, the folks whose only real interest is the effects those bans actually have on their businesses, almost all show bans to be an economic disaster. We can see why those promoting smoking bans might lie... but what motivations would the hospitality folks have for lying? Do we want to believe that they prefer to lose money??? References: 1) http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html 2) "Another Misleading Public Claim: This Time, a TobaccoScam Attempt to Discredit an Individual Who Opposes the Anti-Smoking View " - Dr. Michael Siegel - fourth article from top at: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains" http://www.pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
From: ATLAS
Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:16 PM
Subject: NIGHTLIFE UPDATE - No Action on Smoking Ban
* * * NIGHTLIFE UPDATE * * *
D.C. Council Committee on Health Does Not Act on Proposed Mandatory Smoking Ban
Reports that the D.C. Council Committee on Health was planning to "mark up" and vote on proposed legislation to forcibly impose a mandatory smoking ban at all local nightclubs, bars, restaurants, lounges, and restaurant bars -- as indicated by a group advocating a mandatory ban -- proved to be unfounded. No action was taken by the Committee on Health on Wednesday, October 19. No schedule to do so has been announced by D.C. Councilmember and Council Committee on Health Chair David Catania (I - At Large) at this time.
This is NOT over.
Special thanks to the hundreds of nightlife patrons and supporters who have used the online ATLAS auto-email "Nightlife Alert" to support hospitality freedom of choice!
KNOW THE FACTS: Only 5% of U.S. Municipalities with Mandatory Smoking Bans Do Not Make Exceptions for Restaurants and Bars . . . 95% Do
Atlas
PO Box 53025 Washington DC 20009-9025
ATLAS InfoLine 202 331 4422
http://www.atlasevents.com/
info@ATLASevents.com
| |
Our Community Nightlife Is Threatened By A Proposed Mandatory Smoking Ban Sign and Send Your Message Now! You Do NOT Need to Be a D.C. Resident
| The D.C. Council is again considering proposed legislation to impose a total and mandatory smoking ban at all hospitality and nightlife establishments — including all nightclubs, restaurants, bars, lounges, and restaurant bars in the nation's capital.
These proposals threaten the vitality and survival of the small business enterprises comprising the largest private sector business segment in Washington and its 'top moneymaker' — directly contributing nearly 15% of the total tax revenues of the District. Our neighbors to the north and the south, the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia, have both rejected repeated attempts to impose mandatory smoking bans in the region.
Hundreds of service workers, hospitality and nightlife patrons, and local community businesses have provided testimony to elected officials at marathon public hearings voicing strong and unified opposition to these mandatory smoking ban proposals. Why? Because we know that our local economy, our jobs, our community's hospitality and nightlife venues, and our freedom of choice is at stake.
We also know that the richly-funded groups attempting to impose an 'all-or-nothing' mandatory smoking ban have a larger agenda — they want to force people to stop smoking by prohibiting it everywhere, even in our bars and nightclubs. While hospitality businesses are not 'pro-smoking' and our industry supports appropriate efforts to reduce the prevalence of adult smoking, we do not believe that coercive mandates and forced social engineering are the answer.
We would ask the D.C. Council to change its own bad habits first — before imposing restrictions on community businesses, workers, and patrons. The District government has failed to spend even one dollar of the $521 million received — over half-a-billion dollars in funding since 1998 as its share among the states — on lifestyle education, smoking cessation programs, or any other anti-smoking efforts, as was encouraged by a national financial settlement agreement with tobacco companies.
Rather than approaching this issue as one of education and persuasion, it has now become simply an attempt at prohibition.
You may or may not smoke. But whether or not you choose to smoke, you most likely share the community's approval of the accommodations provided all patrons of the city's largest hometown business activity — hospitality. As someone who enjoys Washington's diverse choices in dining and entertainment you know that hundreds of restaurants and other venues already prohibit smoking — and hundreds more provide a wide range of options for guests, including separate facilities. Marketplace preferences continue to serve all of us well, providing for the greatest enjoyment and accommodation for all. That's why its called 'hospitality' and that's why we are proud to provide it.
In fact, 95% of U.S. municipalities that have enacted mandatory smoking bans make exceptions for restaurants and bars. And the vast majority don't even impose mandatory bans, but seek common-sense approaches to accommodate all.
In asking for your support on this contentious political issue, we offer two resources in response to the misleading information that millions of dollars in political campaign money can buy. We invite you to take a moment and use the links below to review both special reports — "Our Hospitality/Your Choice" and "Myth vs. Reality: Smoking Bans" — and to join us in preserving hospitality freedom of choice!
It's really not about smoking. It's about choice.
We urge you to join us in choosing wisely. For our city. For our nightlife. For ourselves.
And we thank you for your consideration and support.
|
Counter-Conference by Free Market Advocates to Challenge Leftist Conference on Corporate Social Responsibility; Competing Events at the Omni Shoreham Hotel Next Week
10/26/2005
To: National and Assignment Desks, Daybook Editor
WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), Free Enterprise Education Institute (FEEI), and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) are sponsoring the CSR Reconsidered 2005 Conference, which will be held on Wednesday, Nov. 2 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, D.C. from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m.
CSR Reconsidered 2005 is a counter-conference to the Leftist-dominated Business for Social Responsibility conference also being held at the Omni Shoreham Hotel that same day. Information on this conference can be found at http://www.bsr.org/. The event is co-sponsored by the New York Times, Pfizer, General Electric, Chevron, Disney, Ford, Microsoft, Monsanto, Starbucks, Coca-Cola, Home Depot, Intel and many other companies.
CSR Reconsidered 2005 will bring together representatives of several organizations to offer a competing vision of "corporate responsibility," based on free-market principles. The conference represents the first organized effort to challenge the Left's longstanding campaign to use corporate America to advance its radical social and political agenda.
"Corporations do have a 'social responsibility,'" says NLPC President Peter Flaherty. "It is to faithfully protect the interests of the shareholders who own the company. When corporations cave into the demands of radical activists, they undermine private property and the whole idea of an 'ownership society.'"
World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has been invited to speak at CSR Reconsidered. Wolfowitz is scheduled to speak at the Business for Social Responsibility conference later that day.
"We invited Mr. Wolfowitz to speak at our conference because we think our pro-free enterprise and pro-free market views are more consistent with Mr. Wolfowitz's goals of promoting economic and social progress in developing nations," said CEI President Fred Smith.
"The BSR version of 'corporate social responsibility' is intended more to help labor unions, environmental activists and other extreme social activist groups implement their social and political agendas, in our view," said FEEI President Steven Milloy. "Businesses are society's wealth generation machine, not an engine for social engineering," added Milloy.
Speakers and topics at the event include:
-- Jim Glassman, senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI) – "CSR Reconsidered"
-- Fred Smith, president, CEI – "The Role of Business in the Modern World"
-- Steven Milloy, president, FEEI – "Politicization of Investment"
-- Peter Flaherty, president, NLPC – "Paying Off the Diversity Activists"
-- Paul Driessen, senior fellow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise – "CSR and the Developing World"
-- Bryan O'Keefe, research assistant, AEI – "Unions Flex Their Muscle"
-- Nick Nichols, lecturer, Johns Hopkins University
-- Wayne Winegarden, chief economist, Sterling International – "Business Profitability"
|
