I am sure you have all seen the recent news regarding Target Corporation. Here is a brief summary, with links for more details, to what has transpired:
- In January, the Supreme Court ruled that government cannot ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
- Target Corporation made a $150,000 donation to a political group, MN Forward. MN Forward was established to focus on job creation and economic growth during elections. The organization has endorsed Republican Gubernatorial political candidate, Tom Emmer.
- Tom Emmer is against gay marriage.
- Gay-supporters have demonstrated against Target. Moveon.org is organizing a petition, “I won’t shop at Target until it stops spending money on elections. Companies like Target should stay out of elections, period.”
- CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized to Target employees and reiterated the corporations commitment to “fostering an environment that supports and respects the rights and beliefs of all individuals.”
There are many ways this blog post could go. At Michael Caputo’s MPR Insight Now they discuss the Supreme Court’s decision and the free speech topic. Also, worth noting is that Target isn’t the only corporation making donations – their donation has just received most of the attention. But what I would like to know is what people think the role corporations should take in political campaigns. At the heart of Target’s contribution was their support of fiscal policy. The criticism they now face is the result of a candidate’s social policy. Target doesn’t take their civic activity lightly. The clearly define their role on their corporate website.
I am wondering what people think about corporations being involved in political campaigns. How do you think corporations should be engaged in political campaigns? How should corporations define their civic responsibility? What happens when there are contradictions? Would a corporate donation to a political campaign affect your buying decisions?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Corporations have a lot of money, and money is power. They have the power to influence, to run smear campaigns, to do the greater good, etc.
I do not think that it is appropriate that financially successful people should have a greater say in our democratic process than those less well off.
Companies operate based on “the bottom line”. And the bottom line is *not* for the greater good and welfare of the people.
‘CCO’s Don Shelby made an interesting point last week: MoveOn.org is blasting Target for endorsing a political candidate (although indirectly). But MoveOn.org endorses and raises money for candidates.