Here's my latest column. The online forum will be up a the paper for a week and the comments there are fairly amusing.
-Dr.DRL-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Times Writers Group: Can businesses afford politics?
Heads were scratched nationwide last week when public records revealed both Target and Best Buy had made $100,000 donations to a political organization called MN Forward. Its major activity to date has been funding ads in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, a staunch social conservative who has been endorsed by Sarah Palin.
This was perfectly legal since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case eliminated most restrictions on corporate donations to political organizations. With legal rights to free speech akin to individuals, corporations can use their resources to support any candidate or cause they see fit — but that doesn’t mean doing so is always good for business.
Target in particular has come under fire for its donation because Emmer’s conservative social positions are not shared by all of its customers. The company has a reputation as being pro-GLBT, in part because it offers health benefits to domestic partners. But Emmer has spoken strongly against marriage equality and even embraced a controversial Christian singer widely criticized for stating that Muslim countries that put homosexuals to death are “more moral than even the American Christians.”
A backlash against the donation to MN Forward started on social networks and blogs. In less than a week, a new Facebook group called “Boycott Target Until They Cease Funding Anti-gay Politics” gained more than 27,000 members, and virtually every story related to Target now refers to the flap.
This raises two basic questions: Is the political value of supporting a controversial candidate or organization worth negative publicity? And will consumers care enough to change their shopping habits if they disagree with a corporation’s choice of causes?
A Target representative explained that “our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives” while CEO Greg Steinhafel told critics “Target’s support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company.”
Consumers may not be as willing to separate economic policy from social positions.
In this case, consumers did take notice when Target engaged in political spending perceived as contrary to their values. Small-scale boycotts and storefront protests of Target have been organized. Target’s official Facebook page has been flooded with protests, and complaints have poured in to the Human Rights Campaign, a pro-GLBT organization that had given Target good marks.
Time will tell if this is simply short-term outrage or if consumers will really change their shopping habits.
But what if all our shopping choices became politicized? Will we carry a list of stores that share our political values? Will consumers pledge loyalty to a single store not due to “low, low prices” but for political, cultural or religious reasons?
Among the first department stores in the United States was the Zions Cooperative Mercantile Institution, formed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1868. The “ZCMI” department stores didn’t sell exclusively to Mormon customers, but for many Mormons the ZCMI was the only proper place to shop for more than 130 years, until it became part of Macy’s in 1999. Was Brigham Young ahead of his time in believing consumers should spend their money at stores that shared their values?
While surveys show most Americans base their retail choices on pocketbook issues, our polarized political climate may challenge that. In the future, we may shop at liberal or conservative stores, eat at progressive or conservative restaurants, and hire plumbers or mechanics who are affiliated with our own political parties.
Until that happens, any business directly or indirectly taking a political position on a divisive issue runs the risk of alienating customers. Meanwhile, boards and shareholders may want to ask if the potential political gain of exercising this “free speech” is indeed worth the cost.
-Dr.DRL
