Retail Giant Target Under Fire for Political Donation

Its kind of ironic but the Dem. candidate is Mark Dayton whose family founded Dayton-Hudson which is now Target Corp.

I am going to take this time to encourage people to support Tom Horner the Independence Party candidate for Minnesota Governor. http://www.independenceminnesota.org/

In MN the Republicans and Democrats are putting their worst feet forward in this election with Tom Emmer who is about as far right as you can get and not be Michelle Bachmann in MN and Mark Dayton who was terrible as a US Senator.

 

I think its absolutely stupid for anyone to expect Target to give money to the opposing candidate as well. They have a right to donate to the candidate of their choice. If they wanted to give to Ralph Nader, let them. I don't agree with Naders views..but I wouldn't be angered over there donation to him and demand they give money to his opponent.

sometimes it seems as if people are all for freedom of speech..until that speech holds a different point of view.

 

Or people are all for freedom of speech, but don't feel that corporations giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to political candidates should be constitutionally protected.

That said, I would never vote for this guy, but it's not going to stop me from shopping at Target.

 

Where are the people challenging their freedom of speech? All I see is people using their own freedom of speech to criticize them.

 

They're demanding that they give an equal amount of money to the other opponent, which would mean that their expression of support for the organization of their choice means absolutely nothing.

Maybe I shouldn't have said "freedom of speech"..maybe I should have said "expression". This is Targets way of expressing their support of MN Forward.

The point is..if Target had given money to an organization that supported the other opponent...these people wouldn't being calling for Target to apologize and demanding that they give money to MNForward would they? of course not, because they agree with the other candidate. They only want to silence Target when it helps their candidate.

I'm not crazy about the law myself, but If you don't like it..protest the law..not Target.

 

I disagree. Political contributions, boycotts, protests - they are all forms of freedom of expression. Target has every right to make contributions to candidates of their choice. But similiarly, these organizations have every right to publicly campaign against Target for it and to make it clear to Target that they don't approve. It's up to Target to then decide what's in the best interest of their business - but Target doesn't have the right to donate to a political candidate with no potential for consequences from their employees and/or customers. Whenever you jump into a political contest, you automatically risk alienating the other side - that comes with the territory.

I just don't see a real difference between what the two groups (Target and the protestors) did. Target did what they felt what was in their best interests, and then the protestors did so as well. Now, Target will have to decide what it's in their best interest from here.

 

I disagree. Governments are designed to protect their people, not corporations.

 

I don't disagree with that - I'm just referring to the way the law is currently set up.

 

I think we're closer to agreement with each other than we realize - again, my Major issue is with the protesters DEMANDING that target also give money to the organization the protesters support. To me, this would cancel out Targets first donation, therefore suppressing their freedom to express support for MN Forward.

 

Target is free to make whatever donation they see fit. Customers are free to criticise that donation and to shop wherever they see fit also. There is nothing wrong with people taking action to oppose or even silence expressions they find wrong as long as they are not invoking GOVERNMENT authority to do so.

Freedom of speech or freedom of expression doesn't mean you can do what you want without consequences at all, it simply means you can speak/express your views without the GOVERNMENT coming down on you.

 

"donation" = bribe

 

Fair enough - yeah, I kind of glossed over the "demand" part of it. I just looked at it as the standard babble of protestors.

 

Just as much of a right as the protestors have to criticize them for it, including demands for restitution, or any other silly things they want to be appeased.

 

I agree 100% - I just think its absolutely stupid to demand that they give $$ to the other opponent...doing so would essentially negate Targets expression of support for MN Forward (which interestingly enough supports candidates of both parties quite evenly)

 

"the standard babble of protestors"

I was just curious, Major. Have you ever gone out on the streets, or even on a sidewalk, with a group or alone, and protested anything?

 

No - I think it's a fairly inefficient form of enacting change in the information age - especially for lesser issues like this. But the protestors & the babble I was referring to here weren't people on the streets - it was an interest group that's in behind-the-scenes talks with Target.

 

I'm not at all surprised. You should try it sometime. It's healthy to get out of doors, express your opinions publically, instead of behind an anonymous moniker on a message board, get publicity for whatever issue(s) interest you, and they can be surprisingly effective. I think saying, and I truly mean no disrespect, that "it's a fairly inefficient form of enacting change in the information age" is a cop-out. It's backing away from putting yourself on the line, in public, in your real persona, and says more about the flaws of "the information age" than it does about the "inefficiency" of public protest, for whatever the issue or cause. At least in my opinion.

 

QUESTION: Why does it?
It's not a person.

I think this is where we started getting into trouble.
The members of Target's board giving money is one thing.
Them pooling they money to do is another thing.
Them hiding behind a corporate sheild and accessing money beyond their individual wealth and claiming it as a good business practice is QUITE another thing indeed.

It is this that allows an incredible amount of favor purchasing.
Which is all that it is.
Which is a major loophole in our democratic process.
It basically undermines it.

Rocket River

 

It does because the law of the land at interpreted by the Supreme Court says it does. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not commenting on whether the law is good or bad (I'm not a fan of it), but as of now, Target has the right to make those contributions.