Corporations owning our Goverment in full force! - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

DeliveryValve · #1 08-03-2010, 08:56 PM

Target Spending Company Money on Candidates
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/politics/main6717307.shtml
ST. PAUL, Minn., July 27, 2010

Quote:

(AP) Here's something Target Corp. isn't advertising in its Sunday circular: The discount retailer is now a major donor to a group backing the Republican candidate for Minnesota governor.

And that's not sitting well with every Target shopper.

Under new laws allowing corporations to spend company money on election campaigns, the Minneapolis-based chain gave $150,000 to a Republican-friendly political fund staffed by insiders from departing GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration. The group, MN Forward, is running TV ads supporting state legislator Tom Emmer, the presumptive GOP nominee.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Campaign 2010

Electronic retailer Best Buy Co., another major Minnesota-based corporation, gave $100,000 to the group, according to an MN Forward report made public Tuesday.

The corporate money has been flowing since the U.S. Supreme Court threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that prohibited companies and unions from donating to campaigns for or against candidates. The decision, which came earlier this year, changed rules in about half the states. But the change is so new that experts don't have a good handle on the likely impact nationally.

"This is the leading edge," said Ed Bender, who heads the National Institute on Money in State Politics in Montana.

In Minnesota, where Target has its headquarters and opened its first store 48 years ago, Democrats are grumbling about the large donation, and some are talking about striking back at the popular brand.

A few voices are even calling for a boycott in the state, one of Target's top three for sales. One Democratic-backed group is reaching out to Target employees through Facebook ads urging them to sign a petition opposing the donations.

"I think Target is making a huge mistake," said Laura Hedlund, a former Democratic campaign worker who picketed outside a suburban Minneapolis Target store on Saturday, urging shoppers to spend their money elsewhere.

A Target spokeswoman said the company supports causes and candidates "based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives." Spokeswoman Lena Michaud said Target has a history of giving in state and local races where allowed, but wouldn't provide detail on those donations.

She added that TargetCitizens, the company's federal political action committee, has spread donations evenly between Democrats and Republicans so far this year. Political action committees contribute money collected from employees and shareholders, not from corporate funds.

Target's donations to MN Forward - $100,000 in cash and $50,000 in brand consulting - slightly exceeds the total amount the company has given this year to all campaigns and causes at the federal level. By contrast, individuals can give a maximum of only $2,000 to candidates under Minnesota law.

Emmer is a fiery conservative who opposes gay marriage, lauds Arizona's strict approach to illegal immigration, once advocated chemical castration for sex offenders and wants to lower taxes. His profile contrasts with Target's moderate image in Minnesota, where the company is known for donating to public school programs, food shelves and the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival.

Three Democrats, House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton and former state Rep. Matt Entenza, are running in the Aug. 10 primary. Pawlenty chose not to seek a third term and is instead exploring a 2012 presidential bid.

Although corporate donations are now legal, they could be sensitive for companies that serve customers of different political orientation. "You're never going to please everyone," said Elliot Schreiber, a professor at Drexel University in Philadelphia and consultant on corporate image management. "Taking sides is only going to exacerbate the situation."

MN Forward is technically nonpartisan, but executive director Brian McClung, Pawlenty's former spokesman, said Emmer is the only gubernatorial candidate the group supports. As of Tuesday, Target was the largest single donor to the group, which had raised more than $1 million from industry trade groups and companies, including Pentair Inc., Hubbard Broadcasting Inc., Davisco Foods International Inc. and Polaris Industries Inc.

"We believe that everybody has the right to express their opinions and we're going to run a fair and factual campaign," McClung said. "Our first ad is a positive ad talking about a candidate's vision for creating jobs."

The Supreme Court ruling left in place state prohibitions against companies giving directly to the candidates. The money can go to independent groups supporting the candidates. But individuals can donate directly to the candidates' campaigns.

Money from Target's top executives has gone mainly to Republicans. Former Chief Executive Officer Robert Ulrich, who retired last year, gave $617,000 during his time as Target's leader, most of it to the state GOP. Current Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel has donated about $25,000, almost exclusively to Republican candidates and causes.

Outside the SuperTarget in Roseville, on the site of the original Target store, most customers hadn't heard about the donations. Some weren't pleased to learn of the company's new political involvement in the state.

"Target usually has the appearance of wanting to be neutral," said Kevin Enberg, a 50-year-old dad from Arden Hills, who said he visits Target daily and wants to know more about the company's role in Minnesota politics.

He added: "You need to know where your money ends up."

.

DeliveryValve · #2 08-03-2010, 08:59 PM

This is brought to you by the January 21, 2010 ruling in of the Supreme Court to allow Corporations, unions and non-profits to spend freely on elections.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/21/campaign.finance.ruling/index.html

.

wbain5280 · #3 08-04-2010, 12:10 AM

Time to repeal the 17th amendment.

RichC · #4 08-04-2010, 01:49 AM

Our political reality and the movie Idiocracy are becoming one in the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I fear for the people, and the country.

I dont think it will be as fun as it was in the movie to be controlled by corporations.

I hope we can find a better path.

MS Fowler · #5 08-04-2010, 05:19 AM

I'm sorry. I do not see much difference between this and political campaign spending and poll working by Unions.
Is there a significant difference?

raymr · #6 08-04-2010, 07:50 AM

They will have to take the wrath and ire of their constituency - i.e. Target shoppers.

#7 08-04-2010, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I'm sorry. I do not see much difference between this and political campaign spending and poll working by Unions.
Is there a significant difference?

It is exactly the same issue, the difference is that unions are well on their way to extinction (a good thing, IMO), and large corporations are gaining power and political influence. In extreme cases, these industries can stack the deck to their advantage. The court decisions that have equated money with free speech and extended those rights to corporations could be abused. A small group of managers/owners could exert a lot of influence; unions could have the same issues, if anyone actually cared about them.

#8 08-04-2010, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymr

They will have to take the wrath and ire of their constituency - i.e. Target shoppers.

Now, that's a scary group.

MS Fowler · #9 08-04-2010, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

It is exactly the same issue, the difference is that unions are well on their way to extinction (a good thing, IMO), and large corporations are gaining power and political influence. In extreme cases, these industries can stack the deck to their advantage. The court decisions that have equated money with free speech and extended those rights to corporations could be abused. A small group of managers/owners could exert a lot of influence; unions could have the same issues, if anyone actually cared about them.

I do not share your rosy outlook that Unions are on the way out. The way the current administration is working to further unionism, I expect a resurgence.

JollyRoger · #10 08-04-2010, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I do not share your rosy outlook that Unions are on the way out. The way the current administration is working to further unionism, I expect a resurgence.

Since unionized industries in countries like Germany, Sweden and Italy are resulting in industries that are beating our brains out, tell me how that's a bad thing? The decline of unions in the US seems to be mirroring the decline of the US middle class, and the decline of our international economic fortunes. IMO, this is because when unions are weak, wealth gets concentrated among the top 1%, something else we know is true, and they are just as likely to spend it on building factories or outsourcing jobs to China. Unions are a means of distributing more of the profits of a corporation among it's employees, who can then have a decent middle class life, and who spend the money here in the US, where it helps the US economy. The Europeans have learned that. We haven't.

I also find it an apples-to-oranges thing. Corporations are doing this because a right-wing majority of rich white guys and their one uncle tom have been slowly granting corporations the status of "personhood". I have yet to see this novel, and IMO, fascist, idea apply to unions, which are simply organizations of voters.

aklim · #11 08-04-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger

Since unionized industries in countries like Germany, Sweden and Italy are resulting in industries that are beating our brains out, tell me how that's a bad thing? The decline of unions in the US seems to be mirroring the decline of the US middle class, and the decline of our international economic fortunes. IMO, this is because when unions are weak, wealth gets concentrated among the top 1%, something else we know is true, and they are just as likely to spend it on building factories or outsourcing jobs to China. Unions are a means of distributing more of the profits of a corporation among it's employees, who can then have a decent middle class life, and who spend the money here in the US, where it helps the US economy. The Europeans have learned that. We haven't.

I also find it an apples-to-oranges thing. Corporations are doing this because a right-wing majority of rich white guys and their one uncle tom have been slowly granting corporations the status of "personhood". I have yet to see this novel, and IMO, fascist, idea apply to unions, which are simply organizations of voters.

Conveniently forgot China, Vietnam and other Asian countries, did we?

aklim · #12 08-04-2010, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeliveryValve

This is brought to you by the January 21, 2010 ruling in of the Supreme Court to allow Corporations, unions and non-profits to spend freely on elections.

Besides the blather, what EXACTLY changed? IIRC, the last time it came up, the changes were about whether the corp can give money all the way to the end vs being able to give to a certain date. If that is all the change, what is the difference? Instead of giving you one lump sum, I can spread it out.

Kuan · #13 08-04-2010, 12:07 PM

Next thing you know bribing will be considered free speech.

#14 08-04-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I do not share your rosy outlook that Unions are on the way out. The way the current administration is working to further unionism, I expect a resurgence.

I'm just looking at the trend over the last 50 years, but I'm sure unions will hang on for another generation or so. I think the bottom line is that they have really become unnecessary due to labor laws. Their influence will be more under democratic administrations, but I think the overall trend is clear. It's just too easy to oursouce work and avoid them completely.

cmbdiesel · #15 08-04-2010, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm just looking at the trend over the last 50 years, but I'm sure unions will hang on for another generation or so. I think the bottom line is that they have really become unnecessary due to labor laws. Their influence will be more under democratic administrations, but I think the overall trend is clear. It's just too easy to outsouce work and avoid them completely.

Well, maybe it's time to level that playing field. Remove the benefit of cheap labor with tariffs and taxes.