Boycott...Target? [Archive] - Lounge of Tomorrow

Cadaverous Pallor

07-31-2010, 08:50 PM

Perhaps you've heard? There's some really bad news.

Target and Best Buy donated large sums (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/target-best-buy-fire-campaign-contributions-minnesota-candidate/story?id=11270194) to support an anti-gay marriage gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota.

Yup. Let the boycott begin.

Target says their "support of the GLBT community is unwavering" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011983-503544.html) and only supported the candidate for business reasons. Um, weak.

It's a huge, huge bummer. I go to Target constantly. I spent hundreds of dollars there on baby stuff and have been buying all my diapers there. Seems like any time we need anything for the house, there we are. Target gave me my first credit card when no one else would.

As the article above mentions, the gay community thought Target was on their side, so the backlash is going to be pretty big. I would gamble that before long Target will donate a large sum to a gay friendly candidate. If they made the statement (which in itself can alienate homophobes), the action must follow.

There's a group on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Target-Until-They-Cease-Funding-Anti-Gay-Politics/147077835306202?v=wall) and Target's page (http://www.facebook.com/target?ref=ts)is inundated with comments.

Sigh. I hope this resolves soon.

Alex

07-31-2010, 09:57 PM

Sure, I'll go along. But then it has been years since I was in a Target (I grew up in a town without Wal-Marts, Target was Wal-Mart and got all the cheapo associations).

But if I did go to Target, I wouldn't boycott them for this any more than I'm going to boycott every business who supports the only mainstream Republican candidate for governor in a state.

It may be weak, but I don't seriously doubt that Target is supporting Emmer over the Democratic candidate primarily for reasons related to economic and regulatory policy. I'm not exactly shocked that gay marriage is not the primary driving issue for a public corporation. I do have a problem that a corporation (or any other collective can directly fund electoral advocacy but that's now entirely legal so I can't really blame them for doing it.

If there were a viable fiscally conservative pro-gay marriage Republican running for Minnesota governor then I might find it more appalling that they threw behind Emmer. Target, in terms of how they actually treat gay people has a 100% rating from HRC; ideological purity is a lot to expect from non-ideological entities.

scaeagles

08-01-2010, 06:56 AM

There are many one issue voters, which drive me crazy. Many Republicans will sit out elections rather than vote for a pro-choice republican, and what they don't realize is that this is shooting themselves in the foot. While this isn't an election, it is basically the same idea.

I would encourage you (and everyone) not to be a one issue type of person. If Target generally supports the ideals you believe in, it seems a bit unreasonable to make this one point the driving force in your consumer relationship with them.

Strangler Lewis

08-01-2010, 07:46 AM

What Alex said. As I recall, Target contributed to a PAC that backed the Republican. If one boycotts Target, there's probably a lot more boycotting to be done. That said, as more of our local downtown stores shutter, I will happily boycott Target. At least until the one that's been the subject of all the litigation finally moves into Petaluma.

Cadaverous Pallor

08-01-2010, 08:30 AM

But if I did go to Target, I wouldn't boycott them for this any more than I'm going to boycott every business who supports the only mainstream Republican candidate for governor in a state.I think that if this boycott sticks and Target responds, it may be a bellwether moment. You're right in pointing out that most businesses donate to conservatives for economic reasons and not much has been done by liberals to respond.

It may be weak, but I don't seriously doubt that Target is supporting Emmer over the Democratic candidate primarily for reasons related to economic and regulatory policy.

There are many one issue voters, which drive me crazy. Many Republicans will sit out elections rather than vote for a pro-choice republican, and what they don't realize is that this is shooting themselves in the foot. The thing is, if one really believes that abortion is the killing of a baby that should have the right to live (which I do not, just illustrating a point), or that opposing gay marriage rights is just as wrong as prohibiting interracial marriage, it changes the game. If a candidate supported your economic policies but was a self-declared racist, would you still vote for him? Don't tell me there are no make-or-break issues.

Alex

08-01-2010, 09:15 AM

No I wouldn't vote for that canddiate. But depending on the degree to which that candidate was running on a single issue I also wouldn't boycott every business and person who donated to or voted for that candidate.

To me, boycotting Target because they support a Republican candidate who also (not supporting because) opposes gay marriage (which is still the majority opinion in this country as wrong as it is) is as sensible as Baptists boycotting Disney because they granted partner benefits.

Will there be calls for boycott of every business that directly or indirectly supports the candidacy of Meg Whitman, who also opposes gay marriage? Or Barack Obama (who also, at least publicly, does not support gay marriage)?

But if you're a single issue voter then by all means boycott. I'm just explaining why I won't join. The issue on which my litmus test is based is different.

BarTopDancer

08-01-2010, 09:22 AM

It sucks that they did that but I agree with what Alex said.

I do have make it or break it issues when it comes to my personal voting choices but gay marriage isn't at the top top of the list.

Where are people proposing you shop if you don't shop at Target? You're supposed to boycott Wal-Mart because they keep their employees hours just barely below what they need to get benefits. Or they did something else.

CVS? Rite-Aid? Their prices are high and selection is low.

innerSpaceman

08-01-2010, 09:25 AM

Lopsided as it may be, as gays - money's all we've got. We don't have the numbers to wield any political clout. But by and large, we don't have kids - and everyone seems to love our disposable income.

I try to be balanced in many things, and it's true there's no direct line from a contribution to any particular issue a candidate supports.

But gay rights is a make or break issue with me. I appreciate knowing who supports my right with deeds, or with hollow words, or not at all. I can conduct my personal spending accordingly.

I don't know if I'll "boycott" Target, but I'll think before I buy anything there for a while.

Ghoulish Delight

08-01-2010, 09:36 AM

While I understand that the reaction to this comes from the fact that Target has in the past actively defined itself as supportive of the gay community, and thus this feels two-faced, I have to agree that the fact that it was a donation to a PAC (which has zero stance one way or the other on gay marriage) that happens to give money to this candidate, rather than a direct donation to the candidate, is an important detail.

alphabassettgrrl

08-01-2010, 09:39 AM

I'm disappointed. I can see it, but yeah. I expected better. I'll feel better if they donate a similar amount to a gay-rights organization or something. Show us you mean it, yes?

I was going to say KMart sort of fills the same niche, but KMart lays off employees as they near retirement. Or at least they used to. So they're dirty, too.

::sigh:: I may avoid them for a short time. I need to remember to write a letter to Target Corporate. As has been noted, Target overall seems to do quite well as far as business practices and treating their employees well, which I'd like to support.

It's exhausting trying to be a responsible consumer.

BarTopDancer

08-01-2010, 09:40 AM

I'm going to clarify what I said in a new post instead of editing.

When it comes to voting I won't vote for someone who is opposed to gay rights.

When it comes to boycotting corporations that support candidates whose views I don't agree... well I'd never shop anywhere since most of them do it. Corporations that give money to conservative candidates are most likely also supporting candidates who want to take away my right to choose.

€uroMeinke

08-01-2010, 09:44 AM

Companies donate to buy influence. Many will support opposing sides to ensure they have a foot in the door of whoever wins. I'd judge a company based on it's own practices instead of who indirectly benefits from the company

Strangler Lewis

08-01-2010, 09:48 AM

Slightly off topic, but I actually had a "What am I doing here moment?" the other day at Top Dog on Berkeley northside. I don't know if they've changed ownership, but the last time I was at the southside Top Dog a year or two ago, the walls were papered with liberal clippings. At the northside Top Dog the other day, everything was extreme libertarianism, anti-tax, belligerently pro-gun, etc. Racks full of helpful literature.

I will probably still go there to buy a hot dog (even though they no longer cost .80 like they did in 1980.) I would feel like an asshole boycotting a place because the content of its in your face "conversation" had changed to one of which I disapproved. They could probably cross a line with it, but, in this case, they hadn't.

Still, I think most public interaction works better when people and businesses keep their opinions to themselves. During this year's Little League season, there'd be tea party parents who'd come and spend half the game complaining about Obama. What are you, gay? (I imagined saying to them.) Don't you understand the common ground of sports? Shut the f*ck up and watch the game.

Alex

08-01-2010, 10:21 AM

The Target PAC had already directly contributed to the campaigns of probably a couple dozen candidates for the Senate and House who are not supporters of same sex marriage. I see the PR value of righteous outrage, but I don't see actual underlying outrage.

But it will be nearly impossible to find a politically active corporation who has not provided money to a candidate opposed to same sex marriage. Looking at Evan Bayh, a Democrat opposed to gay marriage, if we're boycotting for supporting him then these are just some of the companies we need to avoid:

Blue Cross/Blue Shield
Members of the Plumbers/Pipefitters Union
Honeywell
BAE Systems
Mastercard
Intel
Pfizer
Ernst & Young
AT&T (I hope everybody's prepared to give up their iPhones or maybe just abandon Apple since they support AT&T who supports Bayh)
Cisco
General Electric (should we shun the member here who works for them or is that taking it too far)?
Qwest Communications
Eli Lilly (Pfizer and Eli Lilly? I hope nobody gets sick while boycotting)
Morgan Stanley
Gap Inc.

How about a moderate Republican like Olympia Snow? She's fine with civil unions but opposed same sex marriage. So we'll need to boycott

Verizon
Raytheon
Members of the American Physical Therapy Association
Union Pacific (do we just have to refuse to ship stuff by their trains or refuse to buy stuff shipped on their trains?)
Comcast
Members of the National Association of Realtors
AT&T
Bank of America
Members of the National Beer Wholesalers Association (now that's going to hit a lot of people where they live)
National Association of Broadcasters (uh oh, I suppose it doesn't count as a boycott if you just watch on Hulu)
Members of the American Association of Anesthesiologists (you can perform surgery doctor, but I hope you don't mind if I watch and comment).
Aetna
FedEx
Members of the American Bankers Association (on to credit unions, I guess).
Members of the Credit Union National Association (damn, can't boycott big banks by moving to credit unions).
Members of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Members of the Directors Guild of America (the random movie thoughts thread will go indie only)
Home Depot
Members of the American Dental Association (for some of us, this will be quite the relief)
Microsoft
Metlife
Members of the American Medical Association
Time Warner

scaeagles

08-01-2010, 10:39 AM

The thing is, if one really believes that abortion is the killing of a baby that should have the right to live (which I do not, just illustrating a point), or that opposing gay marriage rights is just as wrong as prohibiting interracial marriage, it changes the game. If a candidate supported your economic policies but was a self-declared racist, would you still vote for him? Don't tell me there are no make-or-break issues.

Of course I wouldn't vote for a declared racist, but I think you are comparing apples to oranges, at least in the time we are living in today.

At the funeral of Robert Byrd, Bill Clinton said we needed to cut some slack to him because he joined the KKK so he could get elected. That is really quite a statement about the times and area he was living in. There has been a complete paradigm shift in that while it may have been an asset in the 1940s to be in the KKK in certain areas of the country, today it would make someone so unelectable that a given main stream party would never nominate someone or select that person in a primary to run in the general.

Today, whether you like it or not, the country is mostly anti same sex marriage, and pretty evenly split on abortion. Be default this does not make those people unelectable, as there is not an overwhelimg sense of moral right and wrong on either side of the issue. We all have our beliefs on those two issues, and I don't think any of us would consider ourselves out of the mainstream on them.

This is why I said, at least in political terms, being a one issue candidate more often than not ends up hurting you. Let's say someone like ISM decides that since Obama is against (or at least has not supported) gay marriage that he will not vote for him (I don't recall if he said he did or didn't), and ISM holds such name recognition and clout in the gay community that he convinces every homosexual in the country to vote against Obama or at very least abstain. Obama then loses by 1% point or some other hypothetical number.

In reality, who is more likely to appoint a supreme court nominee in favor of same sex marriage on a constitutional basis? Or to sign legislation that would repeal DOMA? So not voting for that candidate hurts ISM. Yeah, maybe he wasn't the perfect candidate, but he was the one who was going to do more for ISM and his pet issue than the other guy, who might actaully work against that issue.

And we could do the same example with abortion, taxes, gun rights, ad infinitum. There is no perfect candidate.

In speaking that way, I am going to find myself voting for John McCain in the republican senate primary in AZ and then again in the general. I don't like his opponent (for a variety of reasons), and I am 100% certain I will not vote for the democrat opposition, because no matter how much I dislike McCain, my core values are WAY more in line with him than with his unnamed opponent. Everyone here who has read anything political before the last Presidential knows I do not like McCain at all....but why shoot myself in the foot on several issues just because I don't agree with him on several other?

Cadaverous Pallor

08-01-2010, 11:47 AM

I understand about PACs. I still feel that if you give money to a PAC and the PAC passes it on to something you do not support, you need to react. Yes, Target did not deliberately give the money to an anti-gay cause. But once the information is out there, I believe the burden lies with Target to make it right. That's what I would expect of myself in the same situation.
It's exhausting trying to be a responsible consumer. True. Target is definitely the Walmart of the liberal set, and going elsewhere is hard. This may push me to shop online more (at various stores), which would actually be more convenient in some ways.

Bed Bath and Beyond is a good alternate for certain things, though I'm sure they've done something annoying as well.

Today, whether you like it or not, the country is mostly anti same sex marriage, and pretty evenly split on abortion. True. The only way these things change is if people speak up and put their money where their mouth is.

Let's say someone like ISM decides that since Obama is against (or at least has not supported) gay marriage that he will not vote for him (I don't recall if he said he did or didn't)If I remember correctly, iSm wasn't an Obama fan at all, at least for much of the campaign, due to Obama's stance on gay marriage, and even threatened to not vote for him, though I think he did end up voting for him. Anyway, the point is taken, I knew that, and I have definitely voted for people that had issues I wasn't happy with.

Morrigoon

08-01-2010, 12:04 PM

You're supposed to boycott Wal-Mart because they keep their employees hours just barely below what they need to get benefits.
If we let THAT be cause for boycott, none of us would be going to Disneyland any more.

Oh, wait...

CoasterMatt

08-01-2010, 12:40 PM

Walmart's list of bad corporate practices goes far further than just that.

Alex

08-01-2010, 12:43 PM

But once the information is out there, I believe the burden lies with Target to make it right. That's what I would expect of myself in the same situation.

I understand why you think Target should be boycotted, my question is what makes them uniquely deserving of such since pretty much every major corporation, regardless of how gay friendly they are in practice, has committed the same sin of giving money, indirectly or directly, to impure candidates on this issue.

I know you use Sprint everyday. So far in this election cycle they've donated money directly to James Webb, Lamar Alexander, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Jim DeMint, John Isakson, John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Harry Reid, etc. All of whom oppose legalization of gay marriage. Are you equally torn about continuing as a Sprint customer as you are continuing as a Target customer?

Moving online with your shopping probably won't help much unless you're going to stay away from brands. Google isn't clean. Amazon isn't clean. Here are the direct federal candidate contributions (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00197749&cycle=2010) by Disney so far this cycle. I'm guessing there are at least 2 dozen people on that list opposed to gay marriage.

So converse to the question "if Target then why not everybody else?" I'd ask "who is sufficiently pure?"

flippyshark

08-01-2010, 01:05 PM

While I'm sure there are no completely enlightened and delightfully progressive corporate entities, Target has developed an image of being more tolerant and GBLT supportive. I can see value in choosing to pressure them because they have already demonstrated potential to be better, and in theory, they could more easily set an example for other companies to follow. In theory, they are closer to the target (pun unavoidable) so their failure is more of a shame. On the other hand, they could take steps to correct this more easily, so short term, it may be worth buying at other, even evil- er places in order to pressure Target to take the high road. Tenable?

Alex

08-01-2010, 01:07 PM

Not to me, it sounds like saying it is best to do business with the worst because that will incent everybody better than them. But if that's the logic I'm interested in hearing it.

flippyshark

08-01-2010, 01:28 PM

Not to me, it sounds like saying it is best to do business with the worst because that will incent everybody better than them. But if that's the logic I'm interested in hearing it.

Not to incent everybody, just Target.

And I never said to do business with the worst. I was going on the premise (quite debatable, I'm sure) that Target is about as good as a liberal is going to get in the mega retail category, so one temporarily goes elsewhere, not expecting the alternatives to be better (if they were better, you woulda switched already) but hoping to hurt Target enough to change course. I'm not committed to this, just tossing naive thoughts around.

BarTopDancer

08-01-2010, 01:48 PM

To a corporation taxes and business laws have much more of an impact on them than gay marriage and other social issues. Whether or not their gay employees can get married have nothing to do with their revenue or tax liability.

Target and Disney have chosen to offer the same benefits to all employees regardless of sexual orientation. That's what they should be doing. It would be nice if candidates who were supporting gay rights were also supporting business practices that the major corporations are after but for now it seems that 'business friendly' candidates are also the gay-unfriendly ones. Perhaps this is what we (collective we) should focus on changing. Personal boycotts aren't going to change anything and short of growing your own food (better get those seeds from a 'clean' organization) and making your own clothes (better make sure the fabric, and machinery is from a 'clean' organization) you're always going to be giving money to someone who supports something you disagree with.

Alex

08-01-2010, 01:55 PM

flippyshark

08-01-2010, 02:24 PM

I get what you're saying. But if you go to #2 to incent #1, why not go to #3 to incent #1 and #2. And so on. Those who get punished most are those who do the best, it seems backward to me.

Another way of saying I have a problem with the logic is a parent with two kids. One has always been well behaved and responsible. The other one is always getting in trouble and being a general pain in the ass. They both get caught stealing a car together. So you punish the good kid more because he's always been a good and you do nothing to the bad kid because he behaved as you'd expect. I know some parents for whom that logic will make sense, but it doesn't to me.

I doubt that going to #3 would incent #2, especially if I have not been a loyal customer of either. (And going to #5 would probably not even register with #'s 2 through 4 at all.) The goal is to get Target's attention. An endless regress of supporting ever more vile businesses wouldn't serve that goal, or any.

Corporations aren't individuals, so I can't quite see an applicable logic to the parenting example. (I would try to punish both kids equally - in reaction to that one incident - but would certainly be more shocked by the actions of the usually good one - at least, that's what I tell my childless self.) However, underlying a lot of the public anger is, I'm sure, a sense that Target has been and ought to be better. (Whether or not they ever have been, I just don't know) So, what is the best way to get their attention? The only leverage we've got is our dollars. I have some sympathy with those who want to take action now rather than see a store they have felt good about slowly become just like the others. (Again, it may already be, and may always have been.)

Absolutely, those we care about most can drive us the buggiest!

Not Afraid

08-01-2010, 02:29 PM

I believe the only way I could find a store that was completely aligned with my beliefs would be to open a store of my own.

€uroMeinke

08-01-2010, 02:33 PM

I kinda think Target has more influence giving $ to a bad guy to get a seat at the table with the bad guy to tell their story (e.g. we offer benefits to partners of gay employees what's the big deal?) vs. not giving $ to a bad guy and having no influence to make him/her change.

Alex

08-01-2010, 02:38 PM

We're just saying the same thing over and over. But one more try.

The goal is to get Target's attention.

Why is this the goal? Target is a company that has given 95% of what is wanted on the gay rights issues.

If the driving goal is to get the other 5% then I agree that the PR of a boycott may make sense.

What I question is why getting that 5% would be the driving goal when there are 50 companies out there that only give 5% of what is wanted. That said, I recognize that the real political game here is not targeting Target but getting press attention on Emmer's anti-gay positions. Fine, I'm ok with that political game. I just can't work up any actual outrage for Target and I suspect neither can most of the organizations presenting otherwise.

Demanding absolute ideological purity may bring personal comfort, but it can also put you on the fringes and negate any effectiveness for seeming completely unreasonable. If all being at the forefront of gay rights gets you is prominent denunciations for for any remaining lapse then why bother?

PETA ends up looking unreasonable as a whole even when making reasonable demands about animal treatment because equate as equally bad killing cockroaches in the home and shooting roman candles out the asses of cats.

flippyshark

08-01-2010, 03:07 PM

Yes, I think the driving goal is to get that other 5%. (If that other 5% can be understood as not supporting candidates who oppose gay marriage - I don't really know how percentages can be figured on such things) It doesn't strike me as unreasonable to want Target to avoid supporting candidates as outspokenly anti-gay as Emmer. (As opposed to, say, asking Target to be completely politically progressive. Demanding ideological purity would indeed be stupid, and I don't think anyone proposing a boycott is asking for that.)

I'm not feeling any outrage - more of an eye-rolling sense of "Well, of course they aren't as cool as I was hoping. *sigh*"

Actually, I hadn't considered the negative attention to Emmer angle, but, yeah, I'm totally on board with that!

Edited to add - Yes, getting better from the other less enlightened companies would be a really good goal too.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

08-01-2010, 04:31 PM

Visible mojo to Marla since Le iPhone is making it difficult to give her Mojo mojo.

Eliza Hodgkins 1812

08-01-2010, 04:33 PM

I believe the only way I could find a store that was completely aligned with my beliefs would be to open a store of my own.

Yup, yup. And succinctly said.

Ghoulish Delight

08-01-2010, 04:48 PM

In the end, it's all of course so much kabuki.

I think the outrage is understandable in this case. As Alex points out, it's the fact that Target HAS put itself out there as being particularly supportive of the gay community, in turn benefiting from the economic support of those who've appreciated that, which makes it seem like a worse offense than those many corporations for whom being neutral or anti is par for the course. And Emmer is not just one of the many Republicans who just take the default anti-gay marriage position out of popularism. He's an active opponent, aligned with ministry groups with such lovely opinions as, "Of course we don't support the middle eastern countries that execute gays...but boy you gotta admire their commitment to their ideals!" It's a central theme to his politics and his campaign, it's not just a check box on his conservative resume.

Combine those to elements and people are going to make some noise. It's perhaps out of scale, melodramatic, and not 100% logical. But it highlights one of the problems within our system that is presenting a road block for equality, so whether it's perfectly logical or not is kinda irrelevant. The emmotional response to Target's actions is an effective means to an end.

I'm not going to join an ineffective mostly meaningless boycott. But I'll add my voice to those telling Target that they'd prefer they do what they can to put their influence and money behind a better selection of candidates.

flippyshark

08-01-2010, 05:34 PM

I'll be boycotting in the sense that, at present, I won't be giving my money to anybody at all, for strictly practical reasons.

Alex

08-01-2010, 06:54 PM

I'm not going to join an ineffective mostly meaningless boycott. But I'll add my voice to those telling Target that they'd prefer they do what they can to put their influence and money behind a better selection of candidates.

Complete agreement with this. I have no problem with expressing dissatisfaction. And if dissatisfied I have no problem with a personal decision to take business elsewhere.

I just view organized boycotts as not just ineffective but, in this and similar cases, potentially counterproductive in that it discourages companies from putting themselves at the forefront of social issues if all that will do is mark you for getting most beat up.

Ghoulish Delight

08-01-2010, 07:19 PM

I just view organized boycotts as not just ineffective but, in this and similar cases, potentially counterproductive in that it discourages companies from putting themselves at the forefront of social issues if all that will do is mark you for getting most beat up.
Agreed, however I also completely understand the impetus to turn to boycott. Afterall, why are they making these political contributions to candidates that otherwise disagree with issues they, as a company, have stated they are in sympathy with? Because they feel like those candidates are better for their bottom line. So if their bottom line what they're being guided by, it's the most obvious target if you want to get their attention.

Disneyphile

08-02-2010, 12:18 PM

Personal boycotts aren't going to change anything and short of growing your own food (better get those seeds from a 'clean' organization) and making your own clothes (better make sure the fabric, and machinery is from a 'clean' organization) you're always going to be giving money to someone who supports something you disagree with.

I believe the only way I could find a store that was completely aligned with my beliefs would be to open a store of my own.Yep and yep! :snap:

The only thing personal boycotts are good for is making ourselves feel better about a situation that personally affects us.

For example, I've been personally boycotting BP since the spill because I think of "pumping the blood of dying sea animals into my gas tank" and it doesn't make me feel good. Does it make any impact, really? No. But, it makes me feel better.

My attitude is the same with Walmart. I enjoy shopping there. And, I don't see the employees being forced to work there. Yes, I've read the stories. But, I've read them from both sides, and make my own decisions. Do I avoid certain products widely known to be made in "sweat shops"? Yes. But, for general household needs, we benefit from the savings.

I think everyone has their own sense of "morals", and we should do those things that make us feel best about them in order to make ourselves happy. "But, won't someone please think of the children???" Um, yes, but at the same time, people have the power to choose their own destiny in life. (Which reiterates why I don't have personal issues with Walmart - people don't have to work there.)

If boycotting Target makes a person feel better, then they should.

Personally, I'm more concerned about my husband having to cross any possible demonstrations at his store (which has been suggested by one group). And, yes, he'd cross those lines, because I bet we wouldn't find one demonstrator willing to "show mutual support" by paying our rent. ;)

Alex

08-02-2010, 12:28 PM

For example, I've been personally boycotting BP since the spill because I think of "pumping the blood of dying sea animals into my gas tank" and it doesn't make me feel good. Does it make any impact, really? No. But, it makes me feel better.

This is irrelevant to the point of your post but I figured I'd point it out in case you care and don't know.

BP branded stations don't necessarily sell BP gas and non-BP stations may very well be selling BP gas (ARCO stations generally, but not always, are selling BP gasoline; Costco gas is frequently BP).

Disneyphile

08-02-2010, 12:37 PM

BP branded stations don't necessarily sell BP gas and non-BP stations may very well be selling BP gas (ARCO stations generally, but not always, are selling BP gasoline; Costco gas is frequently BP).Yeah, I've been avoiding Arco. But, then again, Arco has usually been last on my list of gas choices anyway, because I don't like their stations. ;)

I am starting to relax more on the issue though, since the well's finally been capped. But, I do hope I see drastic changes to BP's maintenance and emergency practices in the future. Companies screw up, because they're run by human beings which do make mistakes. It's when those mistakes are repeated that I really start to form opinions.

Like you pointed out the list of numerous companies who have supported "bad" candidates - we seriously need to sustain ourselves if we want to truly uphold our own beliefs and morals.

All along, the Amish have had it figured out. ;)

Alex

08-02-2010, 01:51 PM

Perhaps, but it's probably hard to run a viable graphics and video editing business in Amish communities.

Gemini Cricket

08-02-2010, 02:11 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about the boycott.

Kevy Baby

08-02-2010, 03:32 PM

I'm not sure how I feel about the boycott.I'm sure the boycott is having the same consternation about you as well.

Disneyphile

08-02-2010, 03:50 PM

Perhaps, but it's probably hard to run a viable graphics and video editing business in Amish communities.And, thus my point about catering to one's own personal morals and ethics to remain happy. ;)

Gemini Cricket

08-02-2010, 04:11 PM

I'm sure the boycott is having the same consternation about you as well.
Well, as a gay, I am participating in a lifetime girlcott.

Chernabog

08-02-2010, 04:17 PM

Screw target, what about best buy?!?!? I shop there all the friggin time .... *sigh*

However, I do think that Target is deserving of some sh!t slung at them.

Here's a little more on the whole subject on Towleroad (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/07/emmer.html#comments). To me it is just like Target supporting a hate group like Focus on the Family, to which I would also stop going there.

As someone commented in one of those threads (at the risk of Godwinning himself, I guess), it would be like sending money to Hitler because he had a robust economic policy, even though you had some problems with his "Jew policy." I have to say I agree, given the nasty things that Minnesota PAC candidate has said.

flippyshark

08-02-2010, 04:32 PM

Right now, it sounds like Emmer is trailing in the polls. I do wonder if his defeat would have the effect of making this controversy pretty much fade away immediately.

Strangler Lewis

08-02-2010, 05:03 PM

Say what you will about Hitler . . .

Morrigoon

08-02-2010, 08:01 PM

... but he made the trains run on time?

€uroMeinke

08-02-2010, 10:27 PM

... but he made the trains run on time?

I think that was Mussolini

Morrigoon

08-02-2010, 11:18 PM

Oh damn, you're probably right

Gemini Cricket

08-03-2010, 05:51 PM

Well, I gave the matter some thought and I have to say that I agree with the boycott. More so because it shines a light on the new law that lets corporations contribute a lot of money to political campaigns. I don't think corporations should pick our lawmakers. That is, if money equals votes which it seems to some of the time. If anything, it'll give Target some bad press and they'll rethink what was done. No, I don't think it will affect their bottom line, but it will make them pause for a sec. Even though I prefer going to Target, I am reaffirmed in my thinking that no corporation is a saint.

alphabassettgrrl

08-03-2010, 06:27 PM

Even though I prefer going to Target, I am reaffirmed in my thinking that no corporation is a saint.

Or even decent, sometimes.

I agree that corporations shouldn't pick our lawmakers and I think the Supremes decision was horrific. Money does equal influence, in a lot of ways. Buys a legislator's time, buys media coverage, that kind of thing. With nobody on the other side to balance it.

scaeagles

08-03-2010, 06:55 PM

I suppose one man's saint is another man's sinner. Most any social action a corporation takes is going to be viewed as wonderful by some and abhorrent by others. All one can do is follow ones conscience.

Alex

08-03-2010, 07:17 PM

More so because it shines a light on the new law that lets corporations contribute a lot of money to political campaigns.

While I agree with the larger point (and disagreed with Citizens United) an important distinction is that it is still against the law in Minnesota for corporations (but not unions and other non-human collectives) to contribute money directly to a state candidates campaign.

What Citizen United did (and Target and others have taken advantage of) is allow corporations unlimited advocacy. They didn't give money to Emmer they spent their own money on their own ads advocating in favor of Emmer. So long as there is no coordination between Target et al. and Emmer it's legal.

That's a slim distinction (though one that worked well to Obama's advantage in '08) but does leave open the door that uncoordinated advocacy will not be to the candidates liking since they'll generally still be held responsible for it (if Target ran an ad saying "Vote for Emmer because he's white" I'm guessing Emmer would be pissed but he couldn't do anything about it).

Finally, even though I think all non-human entities should be barred from direct participation in the political process I can't punish anybody for making use of their rights. I may disagree with the right granted but I don't disagree with the process by which it was achieved. So it just goes on the ledger with all the other personally abhorrent things that people (and corporations) have every right to do.

innerSpaceman

08-03-2010, 07:20 PM

In fact, to me, the more pressing issue is the effect of the Citizens United decision being demonstrated here.

And from what I understand, the disclosure requirements of U.S. law totally failed in this case, and it was only the strict disclosure laws of Minnesota which led to Target being uncovered as a financier of the political ads.

Apparently, between the gay thing and the undisclosed political ad contribution thing, Target is getting pretty serious flack in Minnesota - where the corporation is based.

Target has a pretty valuable brand name and image. They don't want that sullied. And if consumers start to look down their noses in general at corporations that try to secretly influence elections, maybe even more corporations will think twice (or well, more likely, just try to get caught less).

Alex

08-03-2010, 07:25 PM

No U.S. federal disclosure law would have had any impact on this situation since it was state level advocacy. So it could only be Minnesota law that lead to it being revealed (I'm pretty sure that Congress could not mandate contribution disclosure for City of San Francisco initiative campaigns; is that wrong?).

Though I imagine that many states have gaps in their disclosure laws since before Citizens United they simply made this type of activity illegal and so there was no need for disclosure rules.

€uroMeinke

08-03-2010, 08:59 PM

I just refuse to shop at Walmart - no room to exclude other big box discounters

Gemini Cricket

08-04-2010, 12:05 PM

I just refuse to shop at Walmart - no room to exclude other big box discounters
I hear ya. But, for me, I'll make room. If it means paying more somewhere else or going without... so be it.

Coincidentally, someone shared one of George Carlin's stand-up rants (http://www.facebook.com/braddoc#%21/video/video.php?v=159216125164&ref=mf)* with me yesterday. It applies to how I feel about this situation.

*I hope non-Facebook folk can see this clip... not sure tho.

Disneyphile

08-04-2010, 12:40 PM

Target has also donated towards candidates who support gay marriage. So, I imagine there's a similar boycott on the anti side of things. Being a large corporation, their main concern is laws that will benefit their corporation as a whole.

But, again, as Alex noted, there are a load of companies who have done the same. But, they're not getting nearly as much publicity on the matter, because Target is a big name and much easier to blame.

And, I still believe it boils down to one's own conscience on the matter.

Gemini Cricket

08-04-2010, 12:43 PM

DP ~ Understood. The way I'm feeling at this point in time, I think pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage a big company should not be able to donate money to anyone's campaign ever.

Disneyphile

08-04-2010, 12:46 PM

DP ~ Understood. The way I'm feeling at this point in time, I think pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage a big company should not be able to donate money to anyone's campaign ever.Totally agree. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to influence our laws. I feel the same thing about churches.

scaeagles

08-04-2010, 01:47 PM

I, for one, do not have a problem with corporations contributing to candidates or campaigns or PACs or anything. A corporation is a special interest, same as the NRA or NOW or any other number of groups which represent a certain constituency with certain interests. Their interest is profit.

Let the fire storm begin.

Alex

08-04-2010, 02:52 PM

I agree they're the same. And I don't think the NRA, PACs, union, etc., should be able to participate in political campaigns. I have no problem with issue advocacy and disagree with the attempts to limit such advocacy to certain periods of time away from elections.

But when it comes to direct campaign support or candidate/ballot initiative advocacy I think all contribution should be directly given by human individuals. Regardless of how much Target, the Teamsters, Angela Merkel, and the Sierra Club may have a preference on who gets elected, they don't get a vote and I have no problem saying they don't get to participate.

Despite my preference that this be the case, the Supreme Court has disagreed with me and the rules are they get the last say. So I don't hold it against anybody for using rights and privileges recognized, even if I disagree with how they use those rights and privileges. I may hold it against them in the specifics of their usage but to me what Target has done in this situation does not warrant that (and obviously many people here disagree).

alphabassettgrrl

08-04-2010, 02:56 PM

I agree that Target is allowed to participate in the political process (and I agree with you that I don't like it) I just don't like who they chose to support with those dollars.

Kevy Baby

08-04-2010, 02:58 PM

*I hope non-Facebook folk can see this clip... not sure tho.Nope :(

scaeagles

08-04-2010, 04:10 PM

But when it comes to direct campaign support or candidate/ballot initiative advocacy I think all contribution should be directly given by human individuals.

I suppose my thinking is just in line with supreme court rulings, but what is a special interest group besides a collection of people coming together seeking a common purpose? I don't see the difference between a single individual and a group of people combining their money into one pool for an interest or concern to be managed at a higher level.

However, you list a group that I see completely differently. Money I may give to the NRA or invest in stock or spend at Target is my choice. Union dues to the Teamsters are compulsory. I suppose the argument could be made that individuals could quit their jobs just the same as they can choose not to shop at Target, and while I would disagree, I don't think I could voice my disagreement logically except to say that there is a right to work (of which the definition varies from state to state).

Alex

08-04-2010, 05:09 PM

Except when many groups spend money it is not necessarily in the express pursuit of the interests of the individuals.

Corporate interests and the individual interests of the owners do not necessarily align and the power of owners to direct corporate behavior (I'm saying corporate but it is true of many groups) is so attenuated as to frequently be meaningless. But this is particularly true of very large publicly owned corporations where frequently the major "owners" are themselves collectives with extremely attenuated power and are in turn "owned" in an extremely attenuated manner.

I put my retirement money in a 401k fund which is managed so that some of my money is put in a mutual fund which is managed so that some of my money goes into an index fund in which my ownership in Oracle is completely automatic and Larry Ellison could hardly give a flying fig what I think my interests are as an "owner" of the corporation. He then gives some of "my" money to a corporate PAC which is managed so as to give some of that money to an industry PAC which in turn donates money to a party's general re-election fund. At some point the collective as a special interest has lost all moorings with its constituent human beings as special interests.

Plus, collectives have been given the right of participation without necessarily having the same social obligations and concerns as an actual individual human being. They are theoretically immortal, can not be imprisoned, can change identities as well, can be reincarnated after death, and are intentionally designed as amoral actors.