1388
(0 votes, average 0 out of 5)
Aug 25, 2010
Conservative judicial activists on the U.S. Supreme Court opened a can of worms in January when they lifted a ban on political spending by corporations. But when Target used the Court’s newly created First Amendment freedom to bait an election in Minnesota, the big retailer ended up hooking itself.
Target contributed $150,000 to a right-wing group that used some of the money to support Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a staunchly anti-gay, anti-choice Republican who is a fan of a ministry that has called for the execution of homosexuals. All the work Target has done to cultivate a progressive brand image, including maintaining perfect workplace policies for LGBT employees, was seriously undermined by that contribution.
LGBT activists began demonstrating at Target stores in large markets. The Human Rights Campaign and other LGBT groups called for a boycott of Target and Best Buy, which gave $100,000 to the same right-wing political group.
Target officials apologized. Then the company floated the idea of making a contribution of the same size to a progressive political action committee. Unfortunately for Target, that idea didn’t sit well with anti-gay conservatives, who threatened a boycott of their own. The company backed down, and LGBT activists became riled all over again.
So, how’s that political contribution thing working out for you, Target?
WiG heartily endorses the boycott of Target, Best Buy and any other corporation that’s caught with its pants down in this way. The nation’s corporate right has for too long exploited the guns, God and gays mantra to trick voters into supporting their agenda of low taxes and weak consumer and environmental regulation. Look behind the curtains and you’ll find that their brand images seldom match their corporate strategies.
Target serves as a reminder that big-box retailers are bad, bad, bad. They’ve driven all the local retailers out of business and now they use their customers’ money to pursue hidden agendas that are often contrary to their customers’ interests. Unlike the corner shopkeepers of days gone by, they are removed from the feelings and the scrutiny of the people they serve.
In this case, the Supreme Court has inadvertently flushed out the creeps. We must respond with a fervor that prompts other two-faced giants to think twice before going down the same path.
