Few would deny with the recent on-air meltdowns of personalities like Dr. Laura, that the age of political correctness is over. Rants from Laura-types can be expected, but organizations, like Target, that used to keep quiet about their beliefs have joined what was only a handful of shock-jocks in saying out loud what they've always felt inside.
Yet, what used to be a one-way conversation (the jock says or does something completely inappropriate with little or no consequence) has evolved into a political pillow fight both for and against their actions.
Target is still under heat for donating $150,000 to conservative Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who opposes gay marriage. Today, MSNBC (owned by General Electric Co.) struck back by rejecting a TV ad calling for a boycott of Target Corp. Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel has since apologized, but he wasn't entirely in the wrong, at least legally.
At the beginning of 2010, the Supreme Court opened to cookie jar by allowing corporations to make political contributions to individual candidates in what President Obama called "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."
The fine print behind the ruling is that corporate heads who aren't without personal interest are now allowed to use the backing of the company to support political candidates, either in the best interest of the company or themselves. When Gregg Steinhafel issued his apology, he did not say he supported gay rights. He apologized for involving his company. The fact is, whether we're talking about Target or any other major corporation, we can't be certain what the personal beliefs of the CEO, board, executive team, or the employees are when it comes to politics.
By allowing corporations to make contributions to single candidates, individual beliefs can be supported with corporate funds without a survey of the employees or the community where some of these companies receive public tax incentives. The Supreme Court has left advocacy and equal rights organizations alone to find their own clearing in a forest of influence. Boycotts and grass roots campaigns will have to compensate for what used to be protection from the political sway power of others.
Target's bulls eye against gays is the first high profile case since the Supreme Court ruling, but it won't be the last as we begin to see the true colors, as Cyndi Lauper so eloquently calls it, of the places where we spend our money.
Yet Target has done way MORE for gay rights than this one blemish on their record. It truly upsets me that we completely ignore their history as LGBT supporters (and outspoken ones at that) and instead have to completely destroy and obliterate any goodwill they DID have with us.
The saying goes “Sometimes you have to pick and choose your battles” and realistically, this fight isn’t so much about Target itself as it is about the problem with the ruling that went into effect earlier this year. Target has just become a scapegoat for our minority… and, IMO, wrongly so. Why are we not going after Best Buy? They contributed the same amount, yet I hear VERY little outcry against them. They are nowhere near as supportive as Target is to us… So why aren’t we chasing them instead?
Target was probably looking at what was best for business like lower taxes rather than an issue that affects a small portion of the population. The trouble before the law was struck down was that unions were free to squander member’s union dues at their whim regardless of the member’s feeling. Look at the mess that produced with the bailout of the auto industry. The taxpayers are shoring up their pension fund and healthcare. What we really need is term limits.
Joe
There are enough stores out there. I’ll stop shopping at Target, thats it.
I agree, i’m not giving them money ever again.