Your so-called "Wal-mart fact sheet" is nothing more than a bunch of heavily flawed and misleading statistics.

"Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour—or $13,861 a year—in 2001. That's nearly $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three"

First of all how much more do clerks at other companies make, maybe a dollar more an hour? Secondly I like how you guys snuck in that "family of three" line. I don't know many cashiers and stockers at other companies could support a family of three so I don't see why that makes Wal-mart a bad place. Thirdly the determination of the so called "poverty line" is a very shaky concept in itself but I won't bore you with the details.

"In Georgia, Wal-Mart employees are six times more likely to rely on state-provided health care for their children than are employees of any other large company."

I love this one, maybe this statistic would actually be valid for your case if all the companies in the study depended on equal amounts of unskilled labor. Wal-mart, a company that employs a high amount of unskilled labor, is most likely being compared to companies that don't employ as many clerks, hence its only natural that employees at other companies are less likely to rely on state health care. For example lets compare a company like Microsoft and Walmart. Do you think that the computer programmers at microsoft are more likely or less likely to need state health care than clerks at Walmart? This statistic is completely misleading.

"Reliance on public assistance programs in California by Wal-Mart workers costs the state's taxpayers an estimated $86 million annually"

Again this number tells us nothing, it doesn't tell us whether or not clerks at other such similar stores or other similarly skilled employees rely on less aid proportionally to Walmart employees.

"In the first decade after Wal-Mart arrived in Iowa, the state lost 555 grocery stores, 298 hardware stores, 293 building supply stores, 161 variety stores, 158 women's apparel stores, 153 shoe stores, 116 drugstores, and 111 men's and boys' apparel stores."

This statistic itself is insufficient. Just because all these stores closed does not prove at all that Walmart was the reason. Anything could have caused these stores to close, maybe the fact that Costco moved to Iowa, maybe Best Buy and Circuit city opened up shop. Maybe Walgreens shut down these drug stores. Maybe a few malls popped up. The fact that these stores closed isn't good enough evidence that Walmart solely caused it.

"Every year Wal-Mart purchases $15 billion worth of products from China."

I hate to break it to you but lots of companies buy products from China, in fact our trade deficit with China is over 120 billion a year compared to the 15 billion Walmart buys in total. And thats just the deficit amount, I'm too lazy to actually find the total amount we import from China. If you want to fault Walmart for buying from China then you'd have to fault just about every single company and consumer in the United States.

"Today Wal-Mart uses over 3,000 Chinese factories to produce its goods—almost as many factories as it has stores in the U.S. (3,600). "

I don't see how comparing stores to factories is at all a meaningful comparison. Maybe you guys were running out of "statistics" to put in your "fact sheet"

"All else being equal, U.S. counties where new Wal-Mart stores were built between 1987 and 1998 experienced higher poverty rates than other U.S. counties"

This is the best statistic on your "fact sheet" but I am a bit wary of the claim "all else being equal", without knowing more about the study I cannot directly fault it but at the same time am a bit skeptical.

It was interesting how the first chart shows revenues but not total profits. I guess the people you are reaching out to are not accounting majors as revenues dont really tell us anything about the success of a company but rather net income does. Walmart and Microsoft have very similar net profits, Walmart is larger but Microsoft enjoys a much higher profit margin, 22% compared to 3.5% that Walmart has.

Without knowing more specifically about each foundation its hard to criticize the data from the other chart. Bill Gates happens to be very generous and the Waltons are a bit less so. I agree the Waltons probably could donate a bit more

As you can see basically every single so called "fact" on your fact sheet is completely flawed and misleading and if you guys are actually trying to pass this mess of information off as the truth I find it extremely laughable.