| Home | |
Sprint
Sprint donated $25,000 against the Prop. B campaign. Three years later, they have finally spoken on the topic. One of their customers, D. Dean Johnson, a Sprint customer who supports right-to-carry laws, sent them his comments, resulting in a response. Here is Johnson's comment:
Sprint Corporation
Suggests
It Will Avoid Gun-Carry Issues in the Future
By D. Dean Johnson
March 29, 2002
The Sprint telecommunications corporation now says
that it "does not expect" to be involved in opposing
concealed-carry laws in the future, as it did in Missouri in
1999.
In 1999, Sprint's political action committee donated
$25,000 to a campaign to defeat a proposed Missouri
right-to-carry law, which appeared on the ballot for voter
approval under the title "Proposition B." The
proposition was narrowly defeated after the opposition grossly
distorted its actual provisions. Some of the misinformation
was propagated at taxpayer expense by the Clinton
Administration's Justice Department.
In early 2002, I learned of Sprint's 1999
donation. Although I don't live in Missouri, Sprint is my
own long-distance carrier, so I wrote to Sprint to protest.
After an initially evasive reply, I received an e-mail response
explaining that Sprint opposed the right-to-carry law
"chiefly for two reasons: concern for the safety of
employees in our respective workplaces and the safety of children
in schools."
In subsequent communications to and with various
Sprint executives and directors, I argued that the evidence from
states that already have right-to-carry laws does not support the
offensive suggestion that concealed-carry permit holders would
pose a threat to Sprint employees or to school children.
Besides, Proposition B explicitly empowered any business to post
its property to deny access to persons (including non-employees)
with concealed weapons, and explicitly prohibited any
permitholders from carrying in schools and several other types of
buildings.
Ultimately, I received a letter signed by Judith
Gadd, Sprint's Director of Government Affairs, dated March 26,
2002. A copy of this letter is available on www.moccw.org/sprint.html [see below].
To summarize the letter: Ms. Gadd noted that Sprint
has its global headquarters in Kansas City, and that many of its
employees live or work in Missouri. She indicated that
Sprint participated in the 1999 anti-B campaign after the two
main local business organizations, the Chamber of Commerce and
the Civic Council, came out against the proposition.
Ms. Gadd went on: "Since that time,
Sprint has not participated financially or through lobbying on
concealed-carry initiatives. For example, Sprint was not
involved in any way in the action taken last week in the Missouri
House on transportation of concealed weapons. Our business
is selling the best telecommunications services possible, not
taking positions for or against gun carry laws. Sprint does
not expect to become involved in such issues in the future.
Of course, we will continue to review all future initiatives from
the perspective of employee safety -- having a safe place to live
and work. The input you contributed will be useful in that
regard."
Thus, while Sprint does not say that it regards its
1999 intervention as a mistake, the letter does suggest that the
corporation now plans to maintain a neutral stance on such
issues. Pro-self-defense forces in Missouri and elsewhere
should keep an eye on Sprint to see if the corporation indeed
avoids "taking positions for or against gun carry laws"
in the future.
The letter is available in two formats: PDF and plain text.
Please, please always be polite in all
communications to Sprint or any other donor to defeat Prop. B.
Click here for tips on communicating with businesses who opposed
Prop. B.
For further information, see
our website at www.moccw.org or
send email to 
.