The Target on Target

So, I recently heard about this boycott on Target.....if you haven't, you can read it here.

Basically, Target gave $150,000 to a group, MN Forward, that is supporting a gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota (home to Target's corporate HQ) that has said he supports the traditional definition of marriage as "one man and one woman". This, naturally, has angered gay rights groups and sparked the boycott fervor.

Full disclosure: I have gay friends, and know gay people. I don't live their lifestyle, but I don't see the need to tell someone they are wrong because they don't believe in what I believe. Do I support gay marriage? No, not actively, but I don't not support it, either.

Looking at this issue strictly from a business aspect:

1. Target Corp. donated money to a PAC. Not specifically to a single candidate. The PAC gives money to said candidate for print and television ads, but it also backs 6 other candidates for different positions in Minnesota (3 of which are Democrats, 3 are Republican).

2. MN Forward as a PAC states that they exist to "elect a governor and state legislators who understand the importance of creating private-sector jobs and economic opportunity in our state."

3. Target Corp. touts their diversity, and some involved in the boycott acknowledge Target's hiring of gays and the benefits provided for same-sex partners.

From a business perspective, was it wrong for Target to give money to a PAC that drives tax reform and pro-business legislation? Nope, more businesses will most likely do the same soon, the benefit of a recent Supreme Court ruling. After Target donates the money, it has no say on where it goes. Is it bad form? Possibly, but the candidate in the center of the controversy is also very pro-business and in favor of certain tax reforms that will benefit large business. If Target is going to donate to pro-business candidates, why wouldn't they give him money?

Again, from a business perspective, the boycott of Target stores is a bad move. Why? If Target is an employer of gays and lesbians, and they are team members in the local stores, wouldn't a boycott by pro-gay right activists actually hurt the retail store that employs (possibly) the same gays and lesbians they are fighting for? Look, employees at the store level have no say about what executives spend the company's money on. If they happen to be shareholders, they can bring it to a vote at the next stakeholder meeting, but most likely, they are just trying to get by like most of American workers.

Look, I get the controversy. It is probably not the wisest or well-researched donation in history. But it certainly isn't the worst, either. It's not even the only donation that is controversial! Wal-Mart recently donated $30,000 to Bob McDonnell, the incumbent Governor of Virginia. Recently, McDonnell has written letters to Homeland Security asking to allow State Troopers to act as immigration and customs agents. Sounds like.......no wait, I've heard this.......AHA, sounds like SB1070 in Arizona, right? The backlash over SB1070 caused a fervor throughout the country, but I guess just asking for it instead of making it law is okay.

Plus, Mr. McDonnell is apparently pro-life, vowing to make restrictions on abortion clinics in Virginia tougher and more regulated. However, no boycott of Wal-Mart? Not even a public YouTube video of someone protesting inside a Wal-Mart? Hmmm..........

Playing politics is dangerous. Target and other businesses know this when they donate to PACs. (P.S. Best Buy, also headquartered in Minnesota, donated $100,000 to MN Forward). The boycotters have a right to make their feelings known, but a little investigation and balanced thinking may have either expanded their effort or they may have proceeded in a different direction completely.

Both sides are standing up for what they believe in, and that's what matters. Again, a country that allows for dissent, disagreement, and debate is a country that is intellectually rich. And that's the only kind of rich Soop is ever going to be. :)