Does Walgreens still support organizations that lobby for sanctuary cities that flout federal law to protect illegal immigrants who commit crimes?

View this email in your browser ([link removed])


** Free Enterprise Project Questions Walgreens Over Sanctuary Cities
------------------------------------------------------------
[link removed]
Today Scott Shepard of the National Center for Public Policy Research posed a series of questions to the leadership of Walgreens.
But first Scott thanked the company for responding to a Free Enterprise Project (FEP) shareholder proposal by agreeing to consider candidates with diverse viewpoints and perspectives. In our partisan climate, this is a win for Walgreens shareholders.

Scott then followed up on an exchange between Walgreens representatives and FEP that occurred at the 2018 shareholder meeting. At that meeting FEP pointed out that Walgreens was then contributing to organizations such as UnidosUS (formerly La Raza), and the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, which spend significant amounts of money lobbying for sanctuary-city policies that push state and municipal jurisdictions to flout federal immigration law in favor of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. FEP then noted that evidence suggests that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose these policies. Community Affairs V.P. Chuck Greener responded by promising that Walgreens would review its donations with these concerns in mind.

Since then, concerns about illegal immigration policy have not abated, while use of the sanctuary-jurisdiction strategy has expanded beyond just the illegal-immigration realm.

So today Scott asked:

Has Walgreens, as promised, reviewed its donations and its donations policy?
If so, what was the result of that review?

Does Walgreens still support organizations that lobby for cities to violate federal law in order to prevent deportation of illegal aliens who have committed crimes? If not, then please accept our congratulations on making a wise policy decision.

If so, though, what is the Company’s justification for continuing to run reputational risks in order to support violation of federal law, while taking a deeply partisan and highly unpopular political stance?

Curious about the company's response to Scott's questions?
Find Out More ([link removed])
We need your help.
Liberal shareholder activists outnumber us at least 50 to 1. Please make a donation ([link removed]) to help the Free Enterprise Project continue its work on behalf of conservatives.
DONATE NOW ([link removed])

============================================================
CONNECT WITH US
** Twitter ([link removed])
** Facebook ([link removed])
** YouTube ([link removed])
** Website ([link removed])
Copyright © *|2020|* *|National Center for Public Policy Research, Free Enterprise Project|*, All rights reserved.
*|WALGREENS|* *|SHAREHOLDER MEETING QUESTIONS|*

Our mailing address is:
*|20 F St NW, Washington D.C. 20001|*

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can ** update your preferences ([link removed])
or ** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
.