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.

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.

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).

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.

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* with me yesterday. It applies to how I feel about this situation.

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

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.

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.