Is it a cult?
“Fixing the debt” is hardly an uncontroversial imperative. There are, for example, economists who object to the “austerity” it requires. (Schultz could order baristas to write “F–k Krugman” on their cups–now that might have some impact.) There are also activists on both sides who argue, with varying degrees of sincerity, that going over the “fiscal cliff”– the “time-sensitive” part Schultz mentions– is better than “coming together” on one of the deals that’s being talked about. There are even those who note that going over the cliff is a way to “fix the debt,” since the “cliff” is made up of tax increases and spending cuts.
I’m not saying what Schultz did is or should be illegal, certainly not in a Citizen’s United world. If he wants to run a hybrid coffee-shop-political-organization, that’s fine with me. But maybe he should have made that clear to his workers when they signed up.
Why bother? What “right thinking” person would disagree?