Gay activists have Target in their sights
Updated on 15 August 2010
A row between the giant retailer Target and gay rights protesters could herald the end of big-bucks corporate donations to political parties in the United States, writes Felicity Spector.
It's one of America's most successful retail chains, selling everything from homewares to cut-price clothes designed by some of the biggest names in fashion.
But now the giant Target Corp - known as Tar-zhay to the congnoscenti - has become a target itself, with gay rights protesters rallying daily outside its stores.
The row began after the Minneapolis-based company decided to donate $150,000 to a group backing the state's Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who has a long record of opposing gay rights and was a vocal opponent of same-sex marriage.
Last week the retailer's CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, was forced to apologise, promising that any future contributions would be closely scrutinised by Target's board. After gay employees protested against the donation, he wrote a letter to staff saying: "I realise our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry."
Company spokeswoman Lena Michaud insisted: "Target doesn't have a social agenda; we have a business agenda. So in the context of that, it’s apologising more for the lack of anticipation on our part and the disappointment that it caused, as opposed to the donation itself."
But the controversy isn't going away, and the firm is now holding talks with the nationwide gay rights organisation Human Rights Campaign, which wants the firm to give an equivalent amount to candidates who support its cause.
A Facebook campaign calling for a boycott of Target stores has already gathered some 54,000 followers, while another group is organising a national "no shopping day of protest" this weekend. Supporters of immigrant rights are also joining the campaign over Emmer's tough stance on illegal immigrants.
According to a report by the NY based website The Awl, Target's executive vice-president Timothy Baer has also made some personal donations to Republican candidates who support the Christian right, as well as the anti-gay rights PAC Freedom first - although he has also given $250 to the pro-gay rights campaigner Ember Junge.
But the row now threatens to affect Target's expansion plans, with some city officials in San Francisco, where the chain was hoping to open two stores, turning openly critical. The LA Times reports that two of the city's supervisers had an angry meeting with the company after Target said its donation had been a "business decision".
One superviser, Bevan Dufty, told the paper they had been very upset, adding: "You can't brand your company as one that values (gay and lesbian rights) and then make contributions to candidates who spend every waking breath to make us second class citizens.
His fellow superviser, Ross Mirkarimi, said: "It just illustrates their disconnect from a city that they would want to establish a successful business in," calling San Francisco "the epicentre of the LGBT rights movement".
Ilyse Hogue, from the campaign group Moveon.org, said: "Target is receiving criticism and frustration from customers because they are doing something wrong, and that should serve absolutely as an example for other companies."
Her organisation is also calling for a boycott of another firm, BestBuy, which has given $100,000 to MN Forward, the group backing Tom Emmer.
This isn't the first time a major corporation has attracted criticism by getting involved in politics. Last summer liberals threatened a boycott of Whole Foods Market after its CEO, John Mackey, wrote an op-ed opposing President Obama's healthcare reforms.
But it's all been given greater significance by January's Supreme Court ruling giving free reign to companies and unions to spend money on election campaigns. By a 5-4 majority, the justices overturned the so-called McCain-Feingold act of 2002 which banned corporate or union-funded commercials for 30 days before a presidential primary or 60 days before a general election.
Activists are hoping if the anti-Target campaign proves successful, it could affect future corporate donations - already under pressure because of the recession. If getting involved in politics proves to be bad for business, companies might become more reluctant to come forward.
Take a recent statement by Goldman Sachs, which said it "also does not spend corporate funds directly on electioneering communications".
The price of open giving, it seems, is open scrutiny - although lobby firms say that businesses will just become more likely to give funds anonymously, and there are many ways to influence campaigns without having to disclose anything.
Add to that a memo circulated by Democratic party officials last month, warning that the party was likely to be outspent by Republicans in the forthcoming midterms, with conservative organisations thought to be spending more than $300 million, and the era of big-bucks campaigning looks anything but over.
