The case for Target

Since I already interrupted my normal post schedule of law school, dog shit, and Lake Calhoun, I’ll address one more topic…

A lot of my facebook friends are incensed at Target’s political contribution to Tom Emmer, a local Republican candidate.

For background see: ABC News, MPR, and The Awl.

There are anti-Target posts, profile pictures of crossed-out Target logos, and a boycott.

I think all of the commotion is unwarranted, and this quote from Target’s CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, is why:
“Target has a history of supporting organizations and candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth,” wrote Steinhafel. “It is also important to note that we rarely endorse all advocated positions of organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda.”
If Target supports a political candidate, I expect it to support a candidate based on his or her economic agenda, and not the candidate’s social agenda.

I think a corporations’s internal policies towards its employees are even more important than the corporation’s presence at a minority group’s events. The presence of the company at a minority event is usually more economic than social. For example, gays have spending power, which is why a corporation is more likely to have a float at a pride parade instead of opening stores or investing in Indian reservations or inner city neighborhoods.

Target is a large retailer, not a GLBT advocacy group. Target’s stockholders do not get paid for Target’s GLBT lobbying activities.

Abstaining from political contributions (or at least going through a shell company) is probably a wiser approach from a public relations standpoint, but this gay man is not scandalized by Target’s political donations.

Speaking of PR, Target’s twitter responses are underwhelming, impersonal, and inadequate.

Target’s support of Emmer is not an endorsement of his social agenda, but rather his business agenda.

Emmer is not running on a solely anti-gay platform, and frankly he’s a fairly generic Republican candidate.

I think a company’s internal policy towards its “diverse” employees is a greater indication of its social priorities than the company’s political contributions.

And I’m not going to tout a Tea Party sticker or waive a Ron Paul flag around these parts, but I do think the bigger issue here is the lack of a viable pro-business candidate who is not socially conservative. The Tea Party movement is so successful (Sarah Palin fans aside) because there are many people who are passionate about “conservative” or “pro-business” economic issues while being socially liberal or apathetic.

And until the Republican party embraces the more socially moderate candidates (or the democrats change their tune) you can expect more businesses to endorse the socially conservative candidates with the favorable economic positions.

And one aside – one notable difference between politics in Minneapolis and Miami is how nasty the liberal discourse is in Minnesota. I suspect it is a lack of empathy for other people’s perspectives. None of my Miami friends have ever unadded me on facebook for respectfully disagreeing with them. Just saying.

That’s all. Now back to the dog posts…