As part of what he called his “greater crusade against Wal-Mart,” Rep. Anthony Weiner joined union members yesterday to protest the retailer outside ABC’s Times Square studios, railing against the network for permitting Wal-Mart to sponsor a feature of “Good Morning America.”

During taping of the morning show, the Brooklyn-Queens congressman, one of the four Democrats seeking the 2005 mayoral nomination, stood with members of the United Food and Commercial Workers’ Union pressing anti-Wal-Mart signs against the studio’s glass panels for the benefit of network cameras. The protesters’ wrath was provoked by Wal-Mart’s sponsorship of the show’s “Only in America” series, which a network spokesman described as “segments which spotlight unique and courageous Americans and their inspiring stories.”

Denouncing the “hypocrisy” of having an American-values feature supported by what is, in their view, a corporation inimical to those values, the union workers and Mr. Weiner demanded that ABC terminate Wal-Mart’s sponsorship.

With a Broadway sidewalk as his stage, the congressman also delivered prepared remarks condemning the retailer, which he called “an adjunct of China,” referring to allegations that Wal-Mart relies excessively on Chinese imports to stock its American stores. Mr. Weiner denounced the company as exploitative, anti-worker, and anti-immigrant, alleging it “devours” small businesses in the communities it penetrates, eventually eliminating competition and increasing prices for consumers. Mr. Weiner’s collaborators yesterday represented organized labor’s long opposition to the company for resisting unions.

The congressman’s vinegar was not reserved for the discount chain.

“To ABC News, shame on you for getting in bed with Wal-Mart,” Mr. Weiner said, adding that the “Good Morning America” sponsorship was part of the retailer’s attempt to clean up an image “tarnished” by allegations of wrongdoing and worker abuse. In a letter to ABC’s president, David Westin, Mr. Weiner was joined by several House colleagues – including an anti-corporate 2004 presidential candidate, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio – in labeling Wal-Mart’s connection to the morning program “misleading” because it implied Wal-Mart “favors American-made products.”

A vice president of ABC, Jeffrey Schneider, said, however, that the company’s sponsorship of “Only in America” was disclosed on-air by the phrase, “Brought to you by Wal-Mart. Always low prices. Always.” The sponsorship acknowledgment made no reference to, and implied nothing about, the origin of the retailer’s products, Mr. Schneider said. In a letter responding to the congressmen, the network, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, suggested that the politicians take up their Wal-Mart grievances with the retailer directly, writing: “It would be inappropriate that ABC News should be used to act as your intermediary for this purpose.”

Mr. Weiner, however, maintained that the ABC-Wal-Mart affiliation misleads viewers and consumers. “They’re not being a good neighbor,” he said of the retailer, “and we’re pushing back with the facts.” He pointed to a report his office produced when Wal-Mart announced plans to open a store in Rego Park, Queens. Entitled “Wal-Mart: The Anatomy of a Bad Neighbor,” the document is a compilation of anti-Wal-Mart allegations, ranging from claims that Wal-Mart crushes competition to accusations of employee abuse and illegal labor practices.

Pledging to combat Wal-Mart’s public-relations campaign, Mr. Weiner said: “We’re going to follow through everywhere they try to clean up their image,” adding that ABC’s “chutzpah quotient” made it stand out from other vehicles for Wal-Mart advertising, inviting yesterday’s demonstration.

Last month, opposition from anti-Wal-Mart activists – including Mr. Weiner, whose district includes Rego Park – led the retailer to scrap its plans for opening its first New York City store there. Crowing over the victory yesterday, and displaying optimism for future Wal-Mart battles, Mr. Weiner said: “We stopped them in Rego Park, and we’ll stop them in Staten Island. “The congressman was referring to Wal-Mart’s plans to open a store near other “big-box” retailers in Richmond County. To that end, the would-be mayor said he favors the City Council’s using land-use review to keep Wal-Mart out of New York.

When asked about proposed council legislation that would make it more difficult for large discount stores to open in New York, Mr. Weiner said that in theory he has no problem with such vendors. “I don’t believe big-box stores are necessarily problematic,” Mr. Weiner said. “My case against Wal-Mart isn’t against its size, it’s against their behavior. They’re not just a big-box store, they’re a very bad big-box store.”

And to keep that “very bad big-box store” away from New Yorkers, the congressman said, “Our land-use decision should have an element of our values in it.” When properties are being rezoned, the mayoral candidate said, council members and communities should consider the “values” of the corporations looking to build on those properties, and to make decisions based on whether “Company A is preferable over Company B.”

The Wal-Mart issue, Mr. Weiner said, was a “defining difference” between himself and Mayor Bloomberg, a supporter of bringing Wal-Mart to New York. The congressman’s opposition to the retailer, he said, “shows a lot of New Yorkers that I get it.”

“It,” according to Mr. Weiner, is the understanding that small businesses, not big-box retailers, are the key to New York’s economy.

A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, Ed Skyler, responded by e-mail: “The last thing New York City needs is pandering politicians making decisions about our economy. City government should analyze the impact any proposal would have on the affected community, but we shouldn’t allow New York to be closed to new businesses and lose the jobs, economic activity, and tax revenues they could create.”

While Mr. Weiner’s statements do not bode well for the prospect of a Staten Island Wal-Mart were he to become mayor, a fellow member of New York’s congressional delegation, Vito Fossella, said his colleague’s proposed interventionist approach ran counter to the wishes of his constituents.

Mr. Fossella, a Republican who represents parts of Staten Island and Brooklyn, said “the vast majority of Staten Islanders have already voted to endorse a store like Wal-Mart – they go to New Jersey every day. “The congressman added that by shopping at out-of-state Wal-Mart stores, Staten Islanders “take tax revenue, purchasing power, and jobs to New Jersey” that would otherwise benefit New York.

Saying he didn’t understand the “reflexive knee-jerk” opposition to Wal-Mart from Mr. Weiner and other activists, Mr. Fossella – who accepted a position with the Bloomberg campaign yesterday – said the role of government was not to exercise a heavy hand in keeping companies out of the city through regulation, but instead to create an environment in which consumers had free exercise of purchasing options.

“I happen to believe in the free market,” Mr. Fossella said, “and I think competition allows for greater choice and freedom for consumers, and causes other businesses to improve value to consumers.”

“Over time,” the congressman said, “I think history’s been the best judge of that.”

Arguing that excessive regulation and policies that inhibit competition hurt consumers by keeping prices “artificially high,” Mr. Fossella said that, in his experience, “the people who benefit most from competition are low-income people.” Defenders of Wal-Mart have argued that rather than harming working-class Americans, the retailer affords them greater economic freedom by providing low-cost products and increasing the availability of entry-level and part-time jobs that provide supplemental income.

Mr. Fossella said he was surprised by the resistance to Wal-Mart in New York. “Especially in a city that’s always got an insatiable thirst for tax revenue to spend on projects, some questionable, you’d think they’d foster a climate to attract businesses here, and thus expand tax revenue,” the congressman said. “If you want to put money into schools, parks, roads, fire and police safety, giving our cops a raise – those are things you can do more easily when you attract and expand the tax base, rather than say, ‘Don’t bother coming to New York City.'”

One of Mr. Weiner’s mayoral rivals, investment banker and Republican candidate Steven Shaw, concurred with Mr. Fossella’s free-market assessment. Mr. Shaw wrote a letter to Wal-Mart’s CEO, H. Lee Scott, after the company abandoned its Rego Park plans, encouraging the retailer to open in New York. “The important thing for us to realize is this: Since June 2002, New York City lost 75,000 private-sector jobs,” Mr. Shaw said yesterday. That is because “New York City is one of the most hostile places to do business,” Mr. Shaw said.

“To totally rule out a company’s coming to New York without even giving it a chance is just the wrong approach,” he added, saying the kind of intervention Mr. Weiner endorsed would be harmful to New York’s economy. “The City Council can’t hold all New Yorkers hostage to its activist ideals.”

Wal-Mart’s director of corporate affairs for the eastern region, Mia Masten, also disputed Mr. Weiner’s allegations, saying the retailer’s studies have shown that when a Wal-Mart opens in a community, it helps local businesses. For every new Wal-Mart store, there is a net gain of 15 new retail establishments, as the attraction of a Wal-Mart drives greater traffic into strip malls and other commercial districts. Ms. Masten also said Wal-Mart teams up with local small businesses to provide well-rounded service to customers. “We’re generalists. The smaller shops are specialists,” she said.

She denied Mr. Weiner’s allegations of employee abuse, too, touting Wal-Mart’s open-door policy, which gives employees direct access to senior management without having to go through a union or other third party first. “We have 1.2 million employees in the U.S. alone,” the spokeswoman said. “We would not have such a large work force if we were such a bad employer.”

Addressing Mr. Weiner’s comments about China, Ms. Masten explained that Wal-Mart believes in a free-market system and added that while it, like many other retailers, imports goods from overseas into America, its worldwide operations allow it to bring American-manufactured products to foreign markets.

Nor was Wal-Mart misleading ABC viewers, Ms. Masten said. The misleading, she said, was being done by Wal-Mart’s opponents.

“For way too long, others have had the main voice in talking about Wal-Mart, and there’s been a lot of disinformation out there – including comments like Weiner’s, which are just incorrect,” she said. The “Only in America” sponsorship, she said, was part of a plan under which Wal-Mart has “formally and aggressively started fighting back.” On January 17, Ms. Masten added, the retailer held a “Just the Facts” day to initiate the self-defense campaign, part of which included the launch of a Web site, online at www.walmartfacts.com, which aims to dispel anti-Wal-Mart myths.

ABC, meanwhile, maintained in its letter that Wal-Mart has no influence over its editorial policy and said the retailer is still sponsoring the “Only in America” series and will be for several more months.