All United States: Sprint's bogus
Anti CCW News
Posted 2002-01-29 @ 17:38:11 by Douglas51
( Read 3456 times with 21 comments )
Earlier today,under the heading "National Companies Which Support Victim Disarmament," a link was posted to the website of Missourians for Public Safety (
www.moccw.org), and specifically to a list of corporations that contributed money to campaign against a "shall-issue" permit proposal (Proposition B) that appeared on the Missouri ballot in November 2000. The proposition failed narrowly. I recently visited that site and learned that the
political action committee of Sprint Corporation contributed $25,000 to the Missouri anti-CCW campaign. Subsequently, I had an exchange of e-mail correspondence with Sprint, which I have reproduced below so that you can see the lack of candor in the "explanation" that the Spring staff offered for the contribution. By the way, I originally signed up with Sprint through the USAA insurance company. USAA has a large contract with Sprint to provide discounted phone service to USAA members, who are mostly active duty or retired military officers and their dependents. I wonder what percentage of USAA members would approve of Sprint's anti-CCW intervention. (1) MY FIRST LETTER: Dear Sprint Customer Service: I am a longtime Sprint subscriber, through the USAA group. Today, I was very surprised to read today a report that Sprint Corporation PAC (Parkway, Westwood, KS 66205) contributed $25,000 to the political campaign that very narrowly defeated Proposition B in Missouri last year. I am writing to ask whether the Sprint Corporation PAC is the political action committee of your corporation -- or if not, what if any relationship exists between Sprint Corporation PAC and Sprint. (2) FIRST SPRINT RESPONSE: Thank you for contacting Sprint Long Distance via the Internet regarding your account number We generally do not take positions on social issues; however, we recognize and support the right of all people to freely hold and express their opinions. We fully respect that people of good conscience have differing views where social issues are concerned. Please be assured that we are sensitive to your concerns and we want to thank you for taking the time to express your feelings. We appreciate your business. If you have further questions concerning your account, you may visit our website, or contact our customer service department. Marlene 478B, Online Customer Service Specialist View your bill and manage your Sprint account on-line Anytime! Register NOW!
http://www.sprint.com/myaccount/ld/ (3) MY SECOND LETTER: Your "response" was completely nonresponsive. You did not answer my question: is the Sprint Corporation PAC the political action committee of your corporation -- or if not, what if any relationship exists between Sprint Corporation PAC and Sprint? (4) SPRINT's SECOND RESPONSE: Thank you for contacting Sprint Long Distance via the Internet. We would like to respond to your letter regarding Sprint's opposition to Missouri's Proposition B - the concealed weapons referendum. Sprint and numerous companies in the Kansas City area opposed Proposition B chiefly for two reason: concern for the safety of employees in our respective workplaces and the safety of children in schools. Specifically, Sprint demonstrated its opposition to the measure with a financial contribution to the Safe Schools and Workplaces Committee, which sought to educate voters about the risks associated with Proposition B. By no means does Sprint's opposition to Proposition B equate to opposition to an individual's right to bear arms; however, Sprint has a long-standing commitment to safety in the workplace. The right to carry concealed weapons, Sprint believed, significantly increased the threat to the safety of Sprint's most valued asset - its employees. We appreciate your business. If you have further questions concerning your account, please visit our website at
www.sprint.com. Zoraida 4630, Sprint On-line Customer Service (5) MY THIRD LETTER: Thank you for your prompt response. However, the justifications you offer for Sprint's intervention make no sense in light of the experience of other states and the plain language of the proposed Missouri law. The majority of states already have reformed their laws to allow law-abiding citizens who demonstrate competency to obtain concealed weapon permits. In any of these states, Sprint or any other employer that doesn't trust its own permit-holding employees can adopt a workplace policy forbidding concealed weapons on premises, just as an employer can forbid smoking. (The evidence suggests that such a policy would make Sprint workers LESS safe, not more safe, but Sprint's policy for its own workers is Sprint's business.) Moreover, the proposed Missouri law explicitly, at 571.094, empowered all businesses to post their property to deny access to persons (including non-employees) with concealed weapons. The Missouri proposal also explicitly EXCLUDED schools and several other types of buildings. Since none of your justifications are consistent with the plain language of the proposed law, your statement, "By no means does Sprint's opposition to Proposition B equate to opposition to an individual's right to bear arms," does not pass the straight-face test. I intend to pursue this further. Please provide me with the name and mailing address of the Chief Executive Officer and the Chairperson of the Board of Sprint, and also the name and mailing address of the Chief Executive Officer of Sprint Corp. PAC. Thank you for contacting Sprint Long Distance via the Internet regarding your account number 922966690. (6) SPRINT'S THIRD RESPONSE: You may contact William T. Esrey, CEO, at the following address: Sprint World Headquarters 2330 Shawnee Mission Parkway Westwood, KS 66205 913-624-6000 We appreciate your business.
