« Who is G. Robert Blakey and what did he say? | Main | Amway Spotlights »

February 10, 2004

Sue Myrick, Amway and HR 1220

By QBlog in

Scott Larsen has posted some interesting info about NC Representative Sue Myrick and the HR 1220 bill. Opponents of the bill say it will "legalize pyramid schemes" while the bill's supporters say it "will give legitimate American direct sellers needed protection from maverick and rogue interpretations of the law impacting direct sellers."

Sue Myrick is co-sponsor of the HR 1220 bill and Larsen's page states that "Myrick has been the recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from Amway/Quixtar distributors." One of Larsen's concerns seems to be that the apparently substantial contributions and support of Amway (and now Quixtar) distributors (or IBOs) may represent a conflict of interest for Myrick.

Larsen is not the only one concerned about Myrick's ties to Amway. A MotherJones.com article titled "She Did It Amway" (1996) reveals Amway's substantial support (via independent distributors) of Myrick (and other Republicans) and raises questions about the legality of some of that support. While there is no disputing Myrick's ties to Amway, I should point out that to my knowledge, Myrick has never been charged with violation of any federal election laws.

But what about the bill? Is it a good bill or not? Does it help consumers or does it help "direct sales" organizations at the expense of consumers? To find the answers to those important questions it often helps to look at the list of supporters and opponents. As stated previously, the bill is opposed by Pyramid Scheme Alert and supported by the Direct Selling Association. DSA counts Amway and Quixtar among its many members though I haven't found any public statement from Amway (or Quixtar) either supporting or opposing HR 1220. In fact, the only "direct sales" organization I've found that publicly opposes the bill is Passport.

Passport founder (and former Amway/Quixtar Diamond) Bo Short says in a press release that:

"In my opinion, this (the HR 1220 bill) can do nothing but further hurt this industry's image... more importantly, its byproduct could hurt good, unsuspecting people," Short states. He adds, "I believe there are far too many abuses that go unpunished already. It seems to me that this has the potential of making it even more difficult to prosecute behavior that can cause great financial and emotional harm to the public."
If you know of other "direct sales" organizations that oppose this bill please contact me.

Whether you support or oppose this bill I think it's important to understand all the information. Larsen and MotherJones.com ask some good questions about Myrick and HR 1220 and I believe such inquiries are what makes this country great. When we stop asking questions and seeking the truth, we stop being free.

Comments (2) TrackBack (0)

Comments  

This is incorrect " Opponents of the bill say it will "legalize pyramid schemes" "

It should be: " Opponents of the bill say it will "legalize product based pyramid schemes"

That is the critical point.

Posted by: scott | February 11, 2004 11:59 PM

Then I suggest that those "opponents" change the headline on their explanation page. PSA takes the blame for this "goof up," not me. I just quoted their own words.

Posted by: QBlog | February 12, 2004 6:52 AM





Post a comment

Comment notes: Some html is allowed (b, p, strong, em, ul, li, blockquote). Email addresses are not displayed. Avoid using profanity. Some comments may automatically end up in a “pending queue,” so be patient.

Vigorous discussion and opposing viewpoints are welcome, but please keep comments *on-topic* and *civil*. Comments containing flames, trolls, or personal attacks are discouraged and may be deleted. If you don't know what this means, please choose not to participate. Thanks.



Subscribe to this entry?