The Wall Street Journal
Target Corp. sought to take advantage of new campaign-finance rules, but ended up putting a bull's eye on its back.
The Minneapolis retailer recently donated $150,000 to a political group, Minnesota Forward, that backs pro-business candidates in statewide races, including a candidate for governor who opposes same-sex marriage. On Friday, hundreds of gay-rights supporters demonstrated outside Target stores in locations nationwide, and a petition promising a boycott, signed by more than 240,000, was delivered to Target.
The Target flap shows the potential downside for companies that want to get more involved in politics since a January Supreme Court ruling on campaign contributions. Brand-oriented companies, in particular, worry about getting embroiled in controversies that can tarnish their reputation. It is a rare political black eye for the trendy discounter, which has a track record of supporting gay causes, including extending partner health benefits to its employees.
The campaign against Target was orchestrated by liberal-advocacy group MoveOn.org. It included a note on the retailer's Facebook page that said, "Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics."
"We made Target the target," said Ilyse Hogue, the group's director of public advocacy. Ms. Hogue said MoveOn and its members plan to gin up bad publicity for any company venturing into political campaigning.
Target Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel apologized in a letter to his employees Thursday, a day before the protests. "The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation," he wrote. "While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry."
Target declined to address the question of whether it would withdraw the donation.
The January Supreme Courtruling, known as Citizens United, loosened restrictions on corporate and union activity in elections. The court said these entities could dip into their treasuries to pay for ads supporting or opposing candidates. Previously, they were prohibited from paying for ads directly, and could use only funds contributed by employees or members.
Democrats blasted the ruling, saying it would lead to a gusher of donations that would give companies disproportionate influence in elections. Republicans called it a win for free speech.
Despite the ruling, most corporations remain reluctant to donate money to outside political organizations. People involved in politics say most companies remain risk-averse, worried about what would happen if they supported the loser. Labor unions remain larger contributors to elections than corporations.
"It's harder to get corporations to do this than a lot of people thought it was going to be," said Vin Weber, a former Republican lawmaker from Minnesota who is now a lobbyist and political consultant. "People think that most businesses are Republican, but by and large, companies don't think that it makes much of a difference which political party controls Washington."
Minnesota Forward was created in the wake of the court decision precisely to collect donations from corporations. Established in part by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, it is funded by a handful of companies in the state, including Target, Best Buy and snowmobile-maker Polaris Industries.
"The group decided to create Minnesota Forward to put jobs and the economy at the top of the agenda during the 2010 campaign," said Brian McClung, who runs the organization. "We think it's appropriate that the business community weigh in about the best candidates."
Polaris didn't return a call for comment. Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Nehring Busch said: "Our political giving strategy is based solely on the need to help elect candidates who will make jobs and economic issues a top priority this election."
The organization isn't overtly partisan. It announced Thursday that it would support three GOP and three Democratic candidates in the state. Earlier, the group backed Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who supports a constitutional amendment protecting "traditional marriage."
Mr. McClung said his group picked candidates based on their fiscal, not social, positions. He said Minnesota Forward had raised about $1 million for its campaign and had pledges for about $1 million more.
The Target skirmish is likely to be the first in a series heading into the November elections. The court decision was a "watershed event for our members," said Ms. Hogue of MoveOn.org.
Ms. Hogue said MoveOn.org wouldn't let up until Target stops "meddling in our elections."
Mr. McClung responded: "We all lose when activists think they can shut down legitimate speech they disagree with."
The Minneapolis retailer recently donated $150,000 to a political group, Minnesota Forward, that backs pro-business candidates in statewide races, including a candidate for governor who opposes same-sex marriage. On Friday, hundreds of gay-rights supporters demonstrated outside Target stores in locations nationwide, and a petition promising a boycott, signed by more than 240,000, was delivered to Target.
The Target flap shows the potential downside for companies that want to get more involved in politics since a January Supreme Court ruling on campaign contributions. Brand-oriented companies, in particular, worry about getting embroiled in controversies that can tarnish their reputation. It is a rare political black eye for the trendy discounter, which has a track record of supporting gay causes, including extending partner health benefits to its employees.
The campaign against Target was orchestrated by liberal-advocacy group MoveOn.org. It included a note on the retailer's Facebook page that said, "Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-Gay Politics."
"We made Target the target," said Ilyse Hogue, the group's director of public advocacy. Ms. Hogue said MoveOn and its members plan to gin up bad publicity for any company venturing into political campaigning.
Target Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel apologized in a letter to his employees Thursday, a day before the protests. "The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation," he wrote. "While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry."
Target declined to address the question of whether it would withdraw the donation.
The January Supreme Courtruling, known as Citizens United, loosened restrictions on corporate and union activity in elections. The court said these entities could dip into their treasuries to pay for ads supporting or opposing candidates. Previously, they were prohibited from paying for ads directly, and could use only funds contributed by employees or members.
Democrats blasted the ruling, saying it would lead to a gusher of donations that would give companies disproportionate influence in elections. Republicans called it a win for free speech.
Despite the ruling, most corporations remain reluctant to donate money to outside political organizations. People involved in politics say most companies remain risk-averse, worried about what would happen if they supported the loser. Labor unions remain larger contributors to elections than corporations.
"It's harder to get corporations to do this than a lot of people thought it was going to be," said Vin Weber, a former Republican lawmaker from Minnesota who is now a lobbyist and political consultant. "People think that most businesses are Republican, but by and large, companies don't think that it makes much of a difference which political party controls Washington."
Minnesota Forward was created in the wake of the court decision precisely to collect donations from corporations. Established in part by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, it is funded by a handful of companies in the state, including Target, Best Buy and snowmobile-maker Polaris Industries.
"The group decided to create Minnesota Forward to put jobs and the economy at the top of the agenda during the 2010 campaign," said Brian McClung, who runs the organization. "We think it's appropriate that the business community weigh in about the best candidates."
Polaris didn't return a call for comment. Best Buy spokeswoman Sue Nehring Busch said: "Our political giving strategy is based solely on the need to help elect candidates who will make jobs and economic issues a top priority this election."
The organization isn't overtly partisan. It announced Thursday that it would support three GOP and three Democratic candidates in the state. Earlier, the group backed Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who supports a constitutional amendment protecting "traditional marriage."
Mr. McClung said his group picked candidates based on their fiscal, not social, positions. He said Minnesota Forward had raised about $1 million for its campaign and had pledges for about $1 million more.
The Target skirmish is likely to be the first in a series heading into the November elections. The court decision was a "watershed event for our members," said Ms. Hogue of MoveOn.org.
Ms. Hogue said MoveOn.org wouldn't let up until Target stops "meddling in our elections."
Mr. McClung responded: "We all lose when activists think they can shut down legitimate speech they disagree with."
