Boycott...Target?

[scaeagles]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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

Nope

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

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]

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.

[Gemini Cricket]

My new mantra: "Save money, boycott everything!"

[Ghoulish Delight]

Alex took the words right out of my mouth. Then he added a whole bunch of other words that said way more, far more astutely, than I would have.

[innerSpaceman]

Yeah, i haven't felt compelled to post my latest thoughts either, since Alex expressed them better than I could myself.

[Snowflake]

Apparently Target has apologized.