I can understand why Target Corp. would want to donate to politicians who support a pro-growth agenda and oppose the sort of job killing regulations, confiscatory taxation and anti-growth spending that aims to grow unionized government at the expense of the private sector. Unfortunately, many fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives and oppose legal equality for gay people.
That may describe Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a Republican who, as a legislator, supported amending the state consitutution to ban same-sex marriage. When Target donated to an independent political fund supporting Emmer (Best Buy did so as well), activists groups went into protest mode, including the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and Moveon.org. According to one gay media report:
Activists angry at Target for supporting an anti-gay marriage gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota are pressing on with their protests after the company apologized.
The Minnesota-based retail giant apologized last week for contributing $150,000 to MN Forward, an independent political fund supporting anti-gay Republican Tom Emmer. Emmer clinched the GOP nomination for Minnesota governor Tuesday.
In a memo to employees, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel wrote that he continues to believe that a "business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future," but added he had not anticipated how the donation would affect its employees. "And for that I am genuinely sorry," Steinhafel wrote.
Of course, if Emmer were a Democrat who opposed gay marriage it's doubtful that HRC would be targeting Target, given that HRC has itself supported the campaigns of candidates such as Virginia's Sen. Jim Webb, a Democrat who favors keeping "don't ask, don't tell," as well as a great many Democrats who oppose gay marriage to varying degrees. Maybe HRC should target itself?
That being said, it's probably good to send a message that businesses that donate to candidates opposing legal equality for gay people are going to be held to account. Whether the protests should continue after the donors subsequently apologize, in an effort to get them to cough up more funds for LGBT groups and their favored causes and/or to keep activists in the news and gin up their fundraising operations, is debatable.
On that matter, consider that the gay conservatives at GOProud are out and proud about violating the boycott by LGBT activists and unions of the Manchester Grand Hyatt in San Diego. Doug Manchester, the owner of the hotel, was a financial supporter of California's anti-gay-marriage Prop. 8. Manchester subsequently issued a statement saying "I am sorry for the pain and conflict I have caused and would like to take this time to apologize, clarify my views on the matter and share some background on Hyatt's long-standing and commendable support of the GLBT community" (it's quoted in the link above).
Again, I think there is value in protesting businesses that support opponents of gay equality. But at this point, GOProud believes the ongoing boycott has all to do with unions opposing the fact that Manchester's hotel remains non-union, and I suspect the group is right.
18 Comments for “Targeted Protests”
posted by Bobby on
I love shopping at Target, it’s nice, clean, and has low prices. I don’t care who they donate money to, my shopping preferences come first.
posted by esurience on
Crucial fact that Stephen Miller (purposely?) left out:
Emmer thinks that people who advocate for the murder of homosexuals are “nice people.”
Minnesota Republicans In Bed With Punk-Rock ‘Kill The Gays’ Ministry
But don’t let that stop you from making moral equivalences between the positions of Democrats and Republicans, Stephen! (But seriously, can we take this guys blog posting privileges away already?)
posted by avee on
esurience, I don’t see Miller defending Emmer in his post, and don’t know why you are spinning it that way.
Target has apologized and I think learned a lesson – endorsing a candidate for one (valid) reason but not looking at his total record is foolish and can get you into trouble. The post is about the value of continuing to protest against Target at this point. You don’t address that issue.
posted by Arthur on
OMG! You mean businesses contribute to both left and right political causes? I am shocked.
A homegrown billionaire in my Midwestern city is known to have fundraisers at his estate for Democrats one weekend and then the next weekend it is for the Republicans. It is just political CYA, nothing more.
Target may or may not have known about the ‘bad’ boy band, they are just spreading money, like manure, around.
posted by Dives on
“Unfortunately, many fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives and oppose legal equality for gay people.”
Because it doesn’t matter who fat you are, “Jesus” will squeeze you through the eye of the needle.
posted by Bobby on
“Emmer thinks that people who advocate for the murder of homosexuals are “nice people.””
—Does Emmer think they’re nice because they advocate for the murder or gays or for other reasons? I would suspect it’s for other reasons.
Besides, Target is quite liberal compared to Wal-Mart, Target sells neither guns nor tobacco, so if the libs boycott them I don’t know where the hell they plan to do their shopping.
posted by Amicus on
This company’s leaders, board and CEO, have enough gravy left over from their sales to pay for politicians, and yet SM would have us worry about “confiscatory taxation” in 2010 America.
That teacup seems upside down.
posted by Bobby on
Amicus, are you complaining about outrageous CEO salaries? In a free market people get paid what they’re worth, so if you’re Richard Branson you make billions and if you’re Joe the Janitor, you make peanuts. Why be jealous? The great majority of billionares and millionares come from modest backgrounds.
posted by Amicus on
I don’t know their compensation – is it outrageous? Last I recall, Ackman was trying to get around the nominating committee, to get some real managers aboard.
Anyway, the post was about targeting protests; and, if one wanted to protest ‘confiscatory taxes’ in 2010 for some reason, Target is hardly a candidate. I mean, if their tax burden were so high, they wouldn’t have enough money for payroll, let alone to make donations to freaky politicians.
[Although I would also say this: Is there a free market, somewhere, that I missed? Almost everywhere I look I see companies conspiring to get privileges, not to be subjected to the brutal competition of a “free market”. And, in general, the top layer at most companies is paid what their friends say they should be paid, not subject to any market discipline at all.]
posted by Jorge on
Unfortunately, many fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives and oppose legal equality for gay people.
This is a very interesting observation.
Because it doesn’t matter who fat you are, “Jesus” will squeeze you through the eye of the needle.
LOL!
I don’t understand the relevance of that statement here, but I will bow to your wisdom.
posted by A.G. on
This published letter helps explains many of the comments leftists make on this blog:
posted by another steve on
I believe another factor underlying the ongoing HRC+Moveon.org protest against Target post-apology is that progressives despise “big box” retail stores. They see them as the worst violators of “small is beautiful” localism, which often delivers inferior and higher cost goods but fits with their basically anti-capitalist worldview.
posted by Bobby on
“Anyway, the post was about targeting protests; and, if one wanted to protest ‘confiscatory taxes’ in 2010 for some reason, Target is hardly a candidate. I mean, if their tax burden were so high, they wouldn’t have enough money for payroll, let alone to make donations to freaky politicians.”
—Who are you to judge whether a company is a candidate or not of confiscatory taxes? America has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and in spite of the shenanigans some companies engage in to pay less taxes, it’s still cheaper to set up a factory in Canada and Mexico than in America. Target has the right to defend their bottom line, if they pay less taxes they’ll be able to hire and promote more people, open more stores, spend more money in advertising, make more money and spread the wealth the right way.
Seriously, if you had a chicken that was laying a golden egg, would you give it hormones and pressure it to make more eggs which would eventually kill the chicken, or would you lower its burden to ensure that the chicken not only keeps laying more eggs but perhaps hook up with a rooster and breed some more golden egg chickens?
Businesses need encouragement to operate. If you raise their taxes, increase their regulation, force them to offer health insurance, force them to accept unions, then who the hell wants to go into business?
“And, in general, the top layer at most companies is paid what their friends say they should be paid, not subject to any market discipline at all.”
—You’re wrong, people work really hard to become CEO’s, it takes years of climbing the corporate ladder, getting MBA’s, closing the right deals, and proving that you’re worth a CEO job as opposed to VP of Marketing or some other title. I don’t see what’s the big deal, companies pay what they can afford. If a company makes a billion dollars in sales they can afford a $50 million dollar salary. If a company goes public and millions of people buy their IPO, they can dispose of that money as they see fit.
As someone who’s not rich, whose dream is to make $60,000 at my next job just because I made $45,000 at my last, I can tell you that I don’t envy the rich, I’m not outraged by their salaries, I admire them, learn from them, and hope to someday be rich myself.
Unlike Michael Moore who tells people “you can never make it,” I believe anyone can make it, or at the very least go from $45k to $60k, $90k, $100k and eventually have enough money to retire, investments, and no credit card debt.
God help us if someday a CEO has to pay 90% of his salary in taxes and live on a $100,000 a year salary. Because if that’s the salary progressives think a CEO should make, then it’s not gonna be worth for most people to reach that level. Why do you think in countries like Denmark people like to take long vacations and work less hours? When you’re making shit and the government will tax you so much that any salary increase will be minimal, why work hard at all?
If the government gives me welfare, healthcare, free education, pension, then what’s the point of working hard or aspiring anything beyond the basic needs big daddy government is already paying?
posted by Jorge on
This idea that it is a good thing to be rich is one of the oddest things about this country. What purpose does it serve to measure people by how much money they make? You take someone who’s a CEO, who becomes a self-made multimillionaire, he or she certainly has a lot of talent, but to what end? To think that we live in a day and age where it is an aspiration to retire with enough money not to end up on the poorhouse. Where one has to choose at an early age between doing good, honest work, and making a decent living.
I think maybe those welfare breeders are onto something. Reject the system and at least focus on one good thing in life. Although, that lowers your life expectancy by a lot (that’s why you keep popping them out).
posted by Bobby on
“This idea that it is a good thing to be rich is one of the oddest things about this country. What purpose does it serve to measure people by how much money they make?”
—That’s not how I measure people, I measure the success, the things they buy, the fun they have. I’d rather be Richard Branson than Warren Buffet, at least Richard knows how to enjoy his money while Buffet wasted years refusing not to buy a private jet.
You have to think big, Jorge. How the hell can you afford a 100-day world cruise on $45,000 a year? Americans like money because they like the stuff they can buy with it. ATV’s, top-of-the-line riffles, Hummers, bus-sized motorhomes, powerboats, yachts, small private planes… you name it.
Now, I will agree with Suze Orman that you should live the life you have and not pretend to be worth more than you are with financing or credit cards. Still, during the real estate boom it was nice seeing poor people become rich by buying cheap homes, fixing them up, and selling them for a profit. And I hope that after Obama leaves office, we can go back to being the land of opportunity instead of the land of false hope.
“You take someone who’s a CEO, who becomes a self-made multimillionaire, he or she certainly has a lot of talent, but to what end? To think that we live in a day and age where it is an aspiration to retire with enough money not to end up on the poorhouse. Where one has to choose at an early age between doing good, honest work, and making a decent living.”
—All work is good, honest work. I feel no pity for the talentless artist who complains that the state won’t pay for his art education or for the crappy filmmaker who bitches that he can’t get anyone to finance his films or the teacher in Miami who makes $65,000 out of my taxes and bitches that the Principal makes $150,000. So getting back to the CEO, we admire him because he has freedom. He can work 12 hour days or he can take 2 months vacations, he can retire early, write a book, start a new business, and most importantly, have FUN doing something he loves.
“I think maybe those welfare breeders are onto something. Reject the system and at least focus on one good thing in life.”
—I don’t think they’re happy, welfare recipients know they’re useless bastards, leeches that feed of the taxpayer. They may get enough money to live, but it’s not a nice life. It’s food stamps, living in the projects, watching TV in a roach-infested apartment all day. In fact, I’m not surprised the welfare people have time to protest Wall Street and join ACORN or the SEIU in one of their political protests. To them it’s probably the highlight of their day, something new to do.
posted by Jorge on
You have to think big, Jorge. How the hell can you afford a 100-day world cruise on $45,000 a year? Americans like money because they like the stuff they can buy with it. ATV’s, top-of-the-line riffles, Hummers, bus-sized motorhomes, powerboats, yachts, small private planes… you name it.
Pride is a sin. In a country where the gap between the rich and poor is widening, money should be used to benefit society. The poor do it. The rich do it. The middle class seem to lose sight of it.
I don’t think they’re happy, welfare recipients know they’re useless bastards, leeches that feed of the taxpayer.
How do you know what they are thinking?
It’s food stamps, living in the projects, watching TV in a roach-infested apartment all day.
I don’t know about other places, but in New York you usually don’t get welfare without being sent through a blizzard of work programs woven seamlessly into a web of red tape. Unless of course you have very young children or a disability. There is something else I forgot to consider. I was thinking a source of pride for people on welfare is raising children. For many people there is also the dangerous fringe benefit of great sex.
There actually are such things as great marriages among welfare families. There is also a constituency of New York City gay conservatives who will go to HomoCon to see Ann Coulter.
posted by BobN on
Warren Buffet seems like a nice man. Branson seems like someone with “issues” but it probably more fun to be around if you like loud, gregarious people.
I will, of course, never meet either man, unless I win the Mega Lotto and, even then, only if I bought something big from one of them.
posted by Bobby on
‘Pride is a sin. In a country where the gap between the rich and poor is widening, money should be used to benefit society. The poor do it. The rich do it. The middle class seem to lose sight of it.”
—It’s a myth that the gap between rich and poor is widening, I watch Stossel and he proves that nowadays the poor spend less on food (percentage of their budget) unlike the 1970s. Go to a home in the ghetto and you’re gonna find they have Plasma TV’s, cellphones, computers, you name it.
“How do you know what they are thinking?”
—I’m speculating of course, I read different things and form my opinions from different sources.
“I don’t know about other places, but in New York you usually don’t get welfare without being sent through a blizzard of work programs woven seamlessly into a web of red tape. Unless of course you have very young children or a disability.”
—Good point, but you have to admit there are people who are willing to put up with the red tape in order to live of the taxpayer’s tit.
“There is something else I forgot to consider. I was thinking a source of pride for people on welfare is raising children. For many people there is also the dangerous fringe benefit of great sex. There actually are such things as great marriages among welfare families.”
—Is it great being a welfare mother when you can’t afford to buy your kids shoes? When you have to join a church just to get food, or dress them in second-hand clothes which subject the kids to ridicule and scorn?
“There is also a constituency of New York City gay conservatives who will go to HomoCon to see Ann Coulter.”
—I’m proud of that, and I’m proud of her. Ann Coulter was recently attacked by the World Net Daily editor for her participation on Homocon, and then she said:
“”I’m sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences,” she told WND. “But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I’m speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, I think you’re nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!).””
http://advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/18/Coulter_Dropped_from_Conservative_Event/