I’m rather tired of the equating opposition to so-called mixed-race marriage with fear of other races or hatred of other races. Common sense tells me marriage is between members of the same race. Unfortunately, common sense seems to be lost in discussions about this topic.

See, that one works just as well!

But single positions don’t get elected, entire people do. By contributing to the candidate they did, they ARE contributing to a anti-gay candidate.

Heteronormativity tells me marriage is between members of the opposite sex. Unfortunately, heteronormativity seems to be lost in discussions about this topic.

Fixed that for you.

At first , I thought your vote’s private, but your donation is not. Then, I think why should votes be private?

Some may say , so that people are not harassed.
Shouldn’t we punish harassers instead. When a judge makes decision , they make public their decision along with their reasoning. When someone accuses another of crime, the accused has the right to face/question their accuser who cannot hide.

Won’t we benefit if politicians have to provide reasons for their votes instead of a plain yay/nay and have their reasons examined by the public?

Shouldn’t we know who politicians meet and what they talk about?

I think we’re better off if we’re force to be honest with each other. If so , what good is a vote if someone cannot support it with reason in public.

Like bkad , I would be interested in how others feel.

Target picks its candidates based on their economic positions, which seems like common sense for a major retailer.

Target shouldn’t get to pick candidates, period.

Especially since Senator Joseph McCarthy died in 1957.

that is the McCarthy you were talking about, right?

the one who got dozens of Known Homosexuals fired from their government jobs, for being security threats?

unless you’re talking about Eugene McCarthy… but i admit, that’d be kinda ridiculous.

If full disclosure has a chilling effect on corporate donations, so be it. Most shareholders get companies stock through mutual funds. It is arguably impossible to form a consensus for non-business related political action.

People here started a boycott of Target, Best Buy and some others who gave to MN Forward (a “non partisan” group who has now hastily donated to some Democrats in very safe races). Now the reason the GLBT issue came up is because Target has always supported the gay community, even sponsoring the MN Pride Parade, one of the biggest in the nation. Natch the GLBT community made a stink, as they should have, about Target supporting an extremist, homophobic fundamentalist nutjob for Governor.

Target apologized for making the GLBT community and other supporters of equal rights upset. Unfortunately they did not apologize for embracing the execrable Citizens United decision and they have not taken back their money from MN Forward.

In typical mediocre journalistic fashion, this is being reported that “Target apologized” and it’s all over with little to no mention of Citizens United. We activists are keeping the boycott alive by noting that a portion of every dollar you spend at Target and Best Buy supports Tea Partiers.

This is appropriate data to compile, to expose companies which might try to conceal their corporate contributions by having their employees ‘contribute’ to those campaigns.

However, working in reverse, to show the employers of people who contributed to campaigns can lead to (misleading) effects like this.

As an employee, I should have the right to contribute to campaigns or candidates I support.

As long as it’s my own money (time, front lawn space, etc), this should NOT reflect on my employer nor suggest a corporate or institutional support.

From the trifling amounts, it’s hard to believe that megacorp Target (or Dayton Hudson, the parent corp) made these contributions.

ALL corporate donations should be public.

What if it is an untraded corporation, held exclusively by a few family members? Does your attitude change if it is a big company or a small company? What if it isn’t a corporation, but a sole proprietarship or limited liability company (the income being taxed on the owner’s personal income tax)? Should the owners of the pizza shop down the street be forced to disclose their donations?

I disagree with you. I don’t like how big companies give big dollars and exert an influence that it is very hard for me to match. But I don’t see how you can play favorites in this without just falling into prejudicial thinking. That is, one would end up proposing some entities are not worthy of privacy (big companies, rich people, organizations one disagrees with) while other entiteis ARE worthy of privacy (‘regular people’, mom-and-pa shops, organizations one agrees with). Better to be consistent. You say, oh, big corps would take much greater advantage of private donations than individuals would. But, big corps take much greater advantage of public donations too; they take much bigger advantage of ANY situation. That’s what money does for you. So I’m not sure that’s a strong counterargument.

Agree with UniAce that sufficienlty large corporations are ‘super entities’. They can’t want or believe things; they can’t be good or evil (anymore than “the city of Chicago” can be good or evil). However, they show behavior that can be interpreted that way, and it is a useful way to talk about them — as long as we remember the limits. Probably saying “Target opposes gay marriage” is a lot like saying “my cat enjoys trying to trip me when I walk up the stairs”. It certainly seems that way, and the effect is the same, but my cat just isn’t capable of that kind of intentionality and emotion.

Commenters so far seem to be overlooking the concept that donation to a cause does not always equal support of that cause, whereas there could be several reasons to donate to a cause that opposes other issues you are in favor of. I am interested to learn of any communication to the supported groups between Target regarding the donations, such as if they were matching-style offers, or if they had been arranged in a good-faith agreement to cover a cost that Target could more easily provide (such as a donation of tables and chairs) that ended up equaling that amount — or was it specifically a check written for that amount? The motive isn’t clear in a Truth sense, only in manners of haphazard guessing. Could assets (like phones, or water coolers) have been donated to the office in which the current group resides, whereby they would pass on those assets once the need for that groups duty had expired, in a good faith donation, whereby technically the donation had to be written out as to that group? Could they have donated services like computer networking setup by their in-house tech gurus, and written out as a retail equivalent for current rates of such service? All we have is a number, and not motive at all.

As a part time grunt employee of a Target store for the past 2 years, I can tell you by experience they are very pro-LBGT in both treatment of employees in an official capacity, as well as hiring. The LBGT employees are treated just as nicely as the rest of us (without sarcasm, my store has superb managers).

Apologist much?

Um, that’s not out of the kindness of Target’s corporate hearts, that’s because of progressive laws on the books that would get them sued for discrimination if they behaved otherwise.

Meanwhile, they undermine that same community by giving money to causes that, well… undermine them.

Have you hugged a progressive today? You should. And thank one while you’re at it.

If that means unions, corporations, MoveOn, and the NRA alike are out then fine.

I think all it proves is that Target picks its candidates based on their economic positions, which seems like common sense for a major retailer.

“Protectmarriage.com” is a single-issue political action group, not a candidate. As for “economic positions,” Target has one of the biggest wedding registries in the nation. Financially the company would be much better off with more weddings taking place, not less.

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1302592&session=2007&view=received

I don’t feel corporations should be allowed to voice personal political views at all…not under anything to do with their company name or logo anyway. If they would like to make “personal” contributions, with money out of their own pockets, as private citizens, then go for it!

To make a contribution, when you employ people with various political views, in a manner, is holding them accountable for your own private philosophies! I highly doubt the gay man or woman, running the checkout, appreciates working for a company that opposes their views! Same goes for any political view offered!

If the CEO, or whoever made the contribution, wanted to do so…it should have been under his own name, with money from his own account. I find this act disrespectful to all its customers. The next donation could be in opposition to something you find important!