- econimic-news.space - All about the world of economy and finance!

HOTTEST

Major League Eating will part ways with 16-time champion Joey Chestnut ahead of this year’s annual Fourth of July hot dog eating contest, hosted by Nathan’s Famous.
The decision comes after Chestnut chose to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs, the organization told CNBC in a statement.
Hot dog sales have been on the decline as wellness and health-conscious eating trends lead consumers away from processed foods to healthier alternatives.
Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog-Eating Contest contestant Joey Chestnut stands next to the Nathan’s mascot Frankster, ahead of the official weigh in ceremony in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., July 2, 2021.
Angus Mordant | Reuters
The Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July hot dog eating contest will be down one dog this year.
Major League Eating announced Tuesday that it’s parting ways with 16-time champion Joey “Jaws” Chestnut ahead of this year’s competition, hosted by Nathan’s Famous.
Chestnut was previously offered a $1.2 million, four-year contract with MLE to participate in the hot dog competition, a source familiar with the matter told CNBC.
The decision to end the relationship comes after Chestnut chose to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs, the organization told CNBC in a statement. The New York Post reported that the brand is Impossible Foods, though the company didn’t immediately provide a comment.
An account on X under Chestnut’s name late Tuesday said he was “gutted” to find out from the media that he was “banned” from Nathan’s hot dog eating contest this year. CNBC has not independently verified the account.
The post also said: “To set the record straight, I do not have a contract with MLE or Nathans and they are looking to change the rules from past years as it relates to other partners I can work with. This is apparently the basis on which I’m being banned, and it doesn’t impact the July 4th event.”
Impossible Foods offers plant-based hot dogs, which the company claims to be healthier and more eco-friendly than the traditional meat version, with half the saturated fat of the animal version and 84% less greenhouse gas emissions generated.
For nearly two decades, contestants, including Chestnut, have worked under the same “hot dog exclusivity provisions,” the MLE said in a statement.
“Joey is a great champion and a friend, and he is loved in Coney Island and all around the world. So I hope he’s there on July fourth as we celebrate Independence Day and he changes his choice to promote a veggie hot dog rather than ours,” Major League Eating President Richard Shea told CNBC.
The MLE said it worked with Nathan’s to accommodate Chestnut’s requests, including allowing him to compete in a rival unbranded hot dog eating contest on Labor Day to be streamed by an unnamed major platform.
Joey Chestnut holds the Guinness World Record for eating the most hot dogs in 10 minutes, a title he won at the annual hot dog eating contest in 2021.
Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest in Coney Island, New York, is a Fourth of July tradition and broadcast nationally on ESPN. It’s also a marketing strategy for Nathan’s Famous, whose signature offering, the hot dog, is on a decline.
Particularly with the rise of health-conscious eating habits and the increasing importance of the wellness trend for consumers, the American staple food hot dog is one of many processed foods whose sales have been hurting.
Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO More
A pedestrian wearing a protective face mask walks past the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday, March 14, 2020. Elijah Nouvelage | Bloomberg via Getty Images The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked a cluster of coronavirus cases in rural Arkansas back to a church pastor and […] More
Members of U.S. Capitol Police try to fend off a mob of supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump as one of them tries to use a flag like a spear as the supporters storm the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, January 6, 2021.
Leah Millis | Reuters
Companies across major sectors of the market are reassessing political donations in response to last week’s storming of the U.S. Capitol, but it is too soon to know whether it leads to fundamental changes in the way money flows between politics and business.
For decades, political action committees have served as a mechanism for corporations and trade groups to maintain sway in Washington, D.C. It is big money, but also far from the only way companies can move money around in politics. But many companies also contribute to candidates and causes using 527 groups and super PACs, among other contribution methods, which can raise unlimited funds from individuals and corporations.

According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, corporate PACs accounted for about 5% of money accumulated for the 2020 election. The rise of small donors as well as the political action committees allowing unlimited donations have made the role of specific corporate political giving directly to candidates smaller over time.
Even though the 2020 election set a record for donations, the Center for Responsive Politics notes that, “Traditional PACs, often used by corporations to curry favor with lawmakers, are losing relative influence. … That’s because the PAC contribution limit of $5,000 hasn’t increased in decades, and corporate PACs have become toxic to some Democrats.” They are making up the gap, in part, by record levels of donations from small donors, which accounted for 22% of the money raised in the 2020 cycle, a record, up from 15% of the money raised in the 2016 election.
Many of the freezes on political donations to candidates being announced by companies don’t include political action committees not associated with specific candidates, and that means the moves could end up being more symbolic than consequential in shaping the future scope of political donations. It is also an opportune time to freeze political spending with consequences as a major election cycle just ended.
“It is a very difficult time for business leaders. Nobody gave money to a candidate or cause thinking they would ultimately end up voting against the certification of the next president. They make contributions based on how they think the individual will affect their company and industry,” said Mark Weinberger, former CEO of EY and former Assistant Treasury Secretary in the George W. Bush Administration, said on CNBC’s Squawk Box on Wednesday.
“You have to separate the moment from the overall system of how financing to elections is done these days,” he said. “People are stopping because they want to show immediate accountability and they don’t know what to do yet. … Nobody gave money to fund sedition.”
American Express was among the companies that said it would stop supporting candidates that attempted to “disrupt the peaceful transition of power.” The credit card company said it had contributed to 22 of the 139 House members who objected to the Electoral College results.
Weinberger said while certain politicians who supported President Trump’s effort to overturn the election results may find it difficult to raise money in the future from companies, he thinks it is harder to see how companies unilaterally remove themselves from the political influence system.
“I think it is hard for businesses alone to decide they are no longer going to participate in the system,” he said. “You have environmental groups and labor groups that all contribute to PACs. It is reasonable to look at the entire system, but to say individual companies should just stop on their own is like unilateral disarmament.”
Charles Schwab said earlier this week it would halt contributions for the remainder of the year, but by Wednesday announced it was discontinuing its corporate PAC, becoming one of the first corporations to make the move permanent.
Campaign donation experts remain skeptical that PACs are likely to dissipate as they represent useful transactional tools that help companies gain access and facetime with individuals in Washington.
“Right now, the companies who sponsor these PACs are simply trying to balance the need to on the one hand curry favor with elected officials and avoid public wrath and boycott,” said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics.
While halting PAC donations comes as “a good first step,” companies will need to reevaluate their approach to spending including contributions using corporate funds and 527s, said Bruce Freed, president and co-founder of the Center for Political Accountability.
“It’s very easy at the moment to say we’re going to pause, we’re going to halt, but what happens when we get into early fall, what happens when we get into early next year,” Freed said.
There are other ways to balance political interests for major companies. Since its founding, IBM has long avoided political givings to candidates and does not operate a PAC, although contributions have been made by individuals affiliated with the company, according to data from Open Secrets, and its CEO was among the first in the market to send a letter to President-elect Biden outlining policy priorities.
Apple, the most successful company in the world today, does not operate a PAC, although it “occasionally makes contributions for ballot measures and initiatives” in support of public schools in Cupertino.
“We carefully manage our engagement in the public policy process and have internal teams that coordinate those efforts,” the company’s public policy statement reads. “Strategic decisions about advocacy are made at the highest levels, including Apple’s Executive Team and CEO Tim Cook.”
At least one of the most recent major political battles fought — and won — by corporations was the California ballot initiative funded by Uber and other gig economy companies to overturn a California law on employee classification. That November ballot funding effort was seen as a major wake-up call as to how corporations can use their money to influence voter decisions.
Big tech, Wall Street and future of political giving
From technology giants like Microsoft and Facebook to Wall Street behemoths like Goldman Sachs, here’s a rundown of some of the big names joining the movement to at least temporarily suspend donations to politicians as corporations reassess how their money intersects with politics in a polarized nation. Political discontent has been rising within companies as well, especially among the employees at the largest technology companies.
Earlier this month, some Microsoft employees spoke out against the company’s recent donations to senators who supported overturning election results. This week, the company put its political contributions on hold.
Amazon, which pulled its web hosting support for the social media site Parler which has become a popular alternative for conservatives, also halted donations to lawmakers who voted against certifying the electoral results. Google and Apple already had pulled the service from their app stores, though Apple has said it can return to the App Store if it complies with terms of service.
Facebook has paused, for at least the current quarter, its political spending, and Alphabet said it is also freezing political donations as it reviews its policies. Alphabet’s YouTube became the latest to suspend a social media account associated with President Trump on Tuesday night, echoing moves already made by Twitter and Facebook.
On Wall Street, the major banks have all made moves to reassess their spending on politics.
Morgan Stanley announced it would not donate to lawmakers that opposed the electoral certification, going further than some Wall Street peers in specifying members of the Republican Party who supported President Trump’s attempts to overturn the election.
Both Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase said they will likely halt political donations for six months, while Citigroup announced a first-quarter pause. A Bank of America spokesman said it will factor recent events into 2022 midterm election contributions, while Wells Fargo will review its political action committee strategy.
What other corporations are doing
Walmart said it will indefinitely suspend contributions to members of Congress who voted against the lawful certification of state Electoral College votes and is reviewing its donation strategy.
Marriott International announced a suspension of its political contributions.
Hilton will continue a suspension of political donations it began last March.
Airbnb is suspending donations to “those who voted against the certification of presidential election results.”
The Coca-Cola Company announced it would halt all political givings.
Hallmark is asking for a return of contributions from Senators Josh Hawley Missouri and Roger Marshall of Kansas. Both lawmakers supported overturning election results.
Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast said they are halting donations to lawmakers that voted against certifying electoral results.
Blue Cross Blue Shield announced a suspension of donations to Republican lawmakers that voted against certifying election results.
Dow will pause contributions to lawmakers that supported overturning election results for one election cycle — two years for House members and up to six years for Senators.
Ford Motor Company is putting a pause on new contributions from its employee PAC.
Other companies that have suspended all political giving: American Airlines, BlackRock, BP, Target, US Bank, Visa.
Other companies that have suspended giving to candidates involved in disrupting the electoral process: Best Buy, Cigna, Commerce Bank, Disney, General Electric, Intel, State Street.
Disclosure: Comcast owns NBCUniversal, the parent company of CNBC. More
Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota told CNBC’s “The News with Shepard Smith” he doesn’t know many “wimps” in the U.S. Senate who would follow Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell when it comes to President Donald Trump’s impeachment.
“Mitch McConnell has a lot of influence, I don’t know that he has a lot of power,” Cramer said during a Wednesday evening interview. “He has a lot of power over the schedule, obviously, and the process, but I don’t know many wimps in the United States Senate who are going to vote one way or another just because Mitch McConnell does.”
McConnell already said an impeachment trial would not happen before President-elect Biden’s inauguration. McConnell also said that he remains undecided on how he will vote.
The House of Representatives voted 232-197 to impeach President Donald Trump with 10 Republicans voting to impeach Trump. The House voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” after a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 and left five people dead, including a police officer. The unprecedented charge was leveled just seven days before his term ends, and now, Trump stands alone in America’s 244-year history as the only president to be impeached twice.
Cramer said that he thought the House “rushed to judgment” and characterized it as “a much more political body than is the Senate.” When host Shepard Smith asked Cramer if he would vote to convict Trump, Cramer argued due process.
“I’ve read my Constitution many times, and in the country, you are afforded due process, I guess unless you are Donald Trump, and so I don’t default to guilty, because that is going against everything that the Constitution stands for and due process,” Cramer said.
In a Wednesday evening interview on “The News with Shepard Smith,” Ohio State University Law Professor Edward Foley explained when due process would occur during the impeachment process.
“What happened today in the House serves up what is, in essence, an indictment, and the trial is in the Senate, so that’s where due process will occur, in the trail, and it sounds like the Senate is going to proceed with deliberate speed to make sure it’s a fair trial.”
The article of impeachment said, in part, that Trump “threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said impeachment and conviction is the “constitutional remedy” for Trump’s actions “that will ensure that the republic will be safe from this man who is so resolutely determined to tear down the things that we hold dear and that hold us together.”
Cramer, however, told Smith that it was not clear to him that Trump’s rhetoric incited the violent mob at the Capitol.
“The president’s rhetoric, while reckless, while at some level could be accused of inciting anger and inciting some bad behavior, it is also clear that the exact words that he used do not rise to, in my mind anyway, a criminal level of incitement as we would have to consider, in my view, in this process even as political as it is,” Cramer said.
At the Save America rally on Jan. 6, Trump told thousands of audience members on Capitol Hill that “we will never concede,” and promoted a display of strength from his supporters.
“We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women,” said Trump to a crowd near the White House. “We’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.”
Minutes later, a mob of his supporters stormed the and terrorized Congress. Trump has since taken zero responsibility for the deadly riot and defended his speech. More
“Minions: The Rise of Gru” is the sequel to the 2015 film, “Minions,” and spin-off/prequel to the main “Despicable Me” film series. Universal “Minions: The Rise of Gru” won’t be coming to theaters until 2021. On Wednesday, Universal and Illumination announced the animated feature, which has been unable to finish production due to the coronavirus […] More
Major League Eating will part ways with 16-time champion Joey Chestnut ahead of this year’s annual Fourth of July hot dog eating contest, hosted by Nathan’s Famous.
The decision comes after Chestnut chose to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs, the organization told CNBC in a statement.
Hot dog sales have been on the decline as wellness and health-conscious eating trends lead consumers away from processed foods to healthier alternatives.
Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog-Eating Contest contestant Joey Chestnut stands next to the Nathan’s mascot Frankster, ahead of the official weigh in ceremony in the Manhattan borough of New York City, New York, U.S., July 2, 2021.
Angus Mordant | Reuters
The Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July hot dog eating contest will be down one dog this year.
Major League Eating announced Tuesday that it’s parting ways with 16-time champion Joey “Jaws” Chestnut ahead of this year’s competition, hosted by Nathan’s Famous.
Chestnut was previously offered a $1.2 million, four-year contract with MLE to participate in the hot dog competition, a source familiar with the matter told CNBC.
The decision to end the relationship comes after Chestnut chose to represent a rival brand that sells plant-based hot dogs, the organization told CNBC in a statement. The New York Post reported that the brand is Impossible Foods, though the company didn’t immediately provide a comment.
An account on X under Chestnut’s name late Tuesday said he was “gutted” to find out from the media that he was “banned” from Nathan’s hot dog eating contest this year. CNBC has not independently verified the account.
The post also said: “To set the record straight, I do not have a contract with MLE or Nathans and they are looking to change the rules from past years as it relates to other partners I can work with. This is apparently the basis on which I’m being banned, and it doesn’t impact the July 4th event.”
Impossible Foods offers plant-based hot dogs, which the company claims to be healthier and more eco-friendly than the traditional meat version, with half the saturated fat of the animal version and 84% less greenhouse gas emissions generated.
For nearly two decades, contestants, including Chestnut, have worked under the same “hot dog exclusivity provisions,” the MLE said in a statement.
“Joey is a great champion and a friend, and he is loved in Coney Island and all around the world. So I hope he’s there on July fourth as we celebrate Independence Day and he changes his choice to promote a veggie hot dog rather than ours,” Major League Eating President Richard Shea told CNBC.
The MLE said it worked with Nathan’s to accommodate Chestnut’s requests, including allowing him to compete in a rival unbranded hot dog eating contest on Labor Day to be streamed by an unnamed major platform.
Joey Chestnut holds the Guinness World Record for eating the most hot dogs in 10 minutes, a title he won at the annual hot dog eating contest in 2021.
Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest in Coney Island, New York, is a Fourth of July tradition and broadcast nationally on ESPN. It’s also a marketing strategy for Nathan’s Famous, whose signature offering, the hot dog, is on a decline.
Particularly with the rise of health-conscious eating habits and the increasing importance of the wellness trend for consumers, the American staple food hot dog is one of many processed foods whose sales have been hurting.
Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO More
A pedestrian wearing a protective face mask walks past the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday, March 14, 2020. Elijah Nouvelage | Bloomberg via Getty Images The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracked a cluster of coronavirus cases in rural Arkansas back to a church pastor and […] More