Retail Giant Target Under Fire for Political Donation

I see your point, but came to the conclusion that it is much easier to make change within the system. Getting arrested for making this a public statement could ruin the opportunity to affect change from within.

Whether it be interpreting and writing rules based upon passed legislation, shaping policy and procedures based upon those rules, or in practice, insuring that an applicant for government services obtained the legal maximum for which they were eligible.

It is a direct application of personal politics administered within existing law to obtain a concrete change and result.

 

Eh. I went to policy grad school - I have no problem with sharing opinions publicly or whatever else you're referring to. You asked specifically if I joined protests - I think their effects are overrated and they are generally much more focused on complaining about problems rather than developing solutions (see the Tea Party as an example), so no, I haven't joined them. There are lots of other ways to affect change that don't involve standing in a crowd saying you don't like something. I prefer the policy development side - the part involves facts, logic, analysis, data, etc to actually develop solutions rather than complain about problems.

 

Is it fair to assume that you have never participated in a public demonstration or protest yourself, Rashmon? I've participated in many, and a few times I simply made a sign, walked up and down a sidewalk by myself, and let my feelings be known to the public about what was bothering me. The vast majority of the protests and demonstrations I was involved in were during the Vietnam War, usually with hundreds of others, sometimes thousands. I protested in Houston, where I lived then, and traveled to Austin, as well. I was never arrested for doing so. I came close a couple of times, especially protesting the cutting of large, mature trees at a major Houston university campus, but the cops let most of us go that they'd shoved away from the trees we were trying to save.

I'd like to think we made a difference, particularly with regards to the war. You should try it sometime. It's refreshing.

 

Eh. Careful, Major, or someone will start to think you might be a bit of an elitist. I never said the other things you mentioned were not important. Of course they are. So is public protest. And who gives a damn about the "tea party" in the context of public protest? I certainly don't. Simply because they are the "flavor" of the moment doesn't automatically devalue public protests and demonstrations. They were important during Vietnam in getting policy changed. They were important during the Civil Rights era in getting policy changed. I think you are too eager, and even flippant, about their value. You should try it sometime.

 

I have participated in many demonstrations throughout the years and don't deny they can serve as a vehicle for change. My main claim to fame was being ejected from a Moral Majority speech by Jerry Falwell and later detained for bombarding him with pine cones when he spoke in Nacogdoches. It was immensely satisfying, and I expressed myself quite eloquently, but what did I accomplish?

As I grow older, I am much less inclined to risk my future. Don't take it personal.

I believe that participating in a demonstration elicits less immediate change than direct action within the system. By influencing and/or controlling the means in which legislation is turned into policy, procedure, or practice, I have, within reason, more tangible and immediate influence.

 

I'm glad to hear it! What did you accomplish? You expressed yourself "quite eloquently" and found it "immensely satisfying." That was something you did for yourself, and it shouldn't be underestimated. As for what impact you had with the public regarding the issues you publically expressed your opinions about, how can you know? You hope that it had some positive impact, even if it was an impact on one person. I think you are too concerned about being arrested for participating in a public protest or demonstration. When you were involved in that way, you were personally involved, publically involved in the democratic tradition of this country, going back to its founding. There is no shame in that. In fact, quite the opposite.

My point is that despite all the ways we have today to effect change, and there were many other ways to effect change besides public protest prior to Major's "information age," today public protest and public demonstrations still have very real value. If the public becomes so concerned about arrest, a concern way overblown, that they do not take a public, physical stand on the issues they deeply care about, then we have tossed away an important part of the American political tradition, and I would find that deeply distressing. Hey, I rarely participate in demonstrations and protests any longer, but it is not for fear of arrest, fear for my "future," but rather simply being too physically beat up to walk and stand for the hours required. I won't say too old, because I know people older than I am who still get out there and walk the walk.

I just believe that some are too cavalier about dismissing the value to getting out there and expressing yourself. And I honor what you once did. I would have loved to have given a public "finger" to Mister Falwell. Kudos!

 

I'm not sure why I should particularly care. I think the elitist label is one of the dumbest things in politics, as though valuing education and analysis is a bad thing. But I didn't refer to policy school in the sense that "hey, I'm smart". I referred to in the sense that "I have an actual real-life interest in it" since you seemed to think if I don't protest, my other option is to post about it on a message board.

You certainly did suggest that by presenting it as though there are two options - that I can either join a protest or anonymously post on a message board. That presents it as one or the other and is, frankly, silly. That said, protests certainly have value - I just think they have relatively little and are highly inefficient for the amount of time spent on them. In part, that's because, in many cases, address the problem but don't address the solution side of the equation. Other people can certainly choose to do that and it's not my place to say how they should spend their time - but I prefer to focus on the solution side.

I never said Tea Party = devaluation of protests. I stated that they were an examples of protests being used to complain about problems but without solutions.

I specifically mentioned the value of protest in the information age. Neither of these two examples was in the information age, and thus don't really have any relevance to the inefficiencies that I mentioned. I wasn't commenting about the effectiveness of protests prior to the current information age. Times change, methods of communication change, effectiveness of different actions change.

No thank you. If given the choice, I'd much rather take whatever hours I would have spent protesting and simply use that to volunteer somewhere. I'd be able to have a more direct impact that way.

 

Whatever you say, Major. I just hope there is some passion somewhere in that skull of yours.

 

I have no problem with Target giving 100's of thousands of dollars to politicians.

That's not what worries me.


What worries me is what these corporations get in return. Seems to me we're setting up our political system to serve companies, not citizens.

We the people should now be changed to "We the stockholders"

 

To follow up on what Deckard's saying I don't think this is an either / or. You can both protest publically and still work on policy.

While if you are talking about crafting specific pieces of legislation you are right protests don't do that but what they do is help to raise societal consciousness about the issue. For instance the March on Washington didn't directly lead to the Civil Rights Act but it raised consciousness about the issue among the wider society.

The other thing that is important about protest and why I think that even the Tea Party protests are valuable is because they provide a means of catharsis for the protesters to express their outrage over an issue.

 

I'd like to add another facet to this discussion...

Target TV commercials NEVER show a non-white person in them. Target is RACIST!

 

Thank you. Excepting your takes on Jack Kennedy, I can always count on a reasoned, intelligent, relatively unbiased post from you, Sishir.

 

Right - because people who don't protest must just not care.

 

Sure - but it's inefficient. If I can make more of an impact by volunteering than protesting, and the goal is to make an impact, why on earth would I pick protesting?

Again - people keep referencing things that occurred outside of the information age. I agree that raising social awareness is a big part of protests - and it's also one of the key pieces that the information age has impacted. In all the griping about my saying protest is overrated in the information age, it's amusing that no one has actually thought to address the issue of what has changed in the information age and why that may or may not have affected the effectiveness of protest. Instead, people are just arguing that they worked in the Civil Rights era or that they make people feel good - neither of which was remotely relevant or inconsistent with anything I said.

Sure - and that's great for the individual. But the goal of changing things is not about me feeling good - it's about helping other people. If it makes me feel good, that's a great secondary benefit - and that's very helpful if it encourages me to then do more. But knowing I spent a bunch of time standing and complaining about a problem when that time could have been better spent doesn't make *me* feel good - I would think it's a big waste of time, so that benefit doesn't apply to me. Regardless, that's neither the end goal, nor is it applicable to everyone since what drives people varies by individual. I didn't say Tea Partiers shouldn't protest - I just said the effectiveness of what they are doing is overrated.

If you took the tens of millions of man-hours spent protesting the Iraq war and those people spent all of that time simply volunteering for anti-war causes or for veterans organizations or whatever, they'd have had a whole hell of a much larger impact. Now, those opportunities may not have been there or they may not have satisfied them as much, so maybe protest was the better choice for those people. But that is irrelevant both to (1) the effectiveness of protests and (2) whether I need to participate in a protest.

 

I'm ok with them giving contributions.

What sucks is that our contribution disclosure rules are terrible. The only lesson Target and other corporations learned is not to donate money to people or organizations that are required to disclose people or organizations that contributed.

Instead, Target and every other corporation will learn to disclose to advocacy groups and certain PACs that aren't covered by political contribution disclosure laws.

Of course after the Citizens United ruling, Democrats did try and require that all contributions to advocacy groups and others get disclosed but predictably Republicans filibustered and the bill died.

I think Target is getting the response that comes with public disclosure and protests against Target are an adequate check on corporate donations. (especially since Target likes to pride itself on hiring GLBT people and consequently got burned by donating to an ad for an anti-gay politician)

But if disclosure laws continue to suck, corporations will be able to donate in stealth and do what they want without the threat of public protest and boycott.

 

For every Target that gets under the spotlight there are 100's of other corporations in the shadows that are using money to influence law.