According to the Chicago Tribune, the controversy revolving around Target’s $150,000 contribution to a PAC that supported a virulently anti-gay candidate continues.
In West Hollywood, this weekend, activists plan a day of buying and returning items to the local Target. Each return costs the company $3.
Human Rights Campaign is negotiating with the company to make an equal donation to an LGBT group. They are backed by members of the San Francisco city council. Target has proposed building two stores in that city. The commissioners are holding up approval of zoning for the stores.
In July, Target hired Matt Zabel, right-wing Senator John Thune’s long-time chief of staff to be their government affairs director. The next week, Target made their donation.
When the LGBT community objected, the company took notice. The Chicago newspaper notes that gays are among Target’s most loyal clientele.
Gregg Steinhafel, Target’s CEO, has apologized for the donation promoting the candidacy of the anti-gay candidate for governor of Minnesota, the company’s home state. He said in the future political donations would be reviewed and approved by their board. But the hiring of a partisan figure like Zabel says more about where the company stands than a make-up donation that HRC might extract from the company.
5 Comments
Steinhafel had an alarming lack of judgement as CEO when he hired Zabel to represent Target. I’ll wait to read in this blog that Zabel is no longer an employee before I shop at Target again.
What would suggested alternatives to target be? Wal-mart is much worse on lgbt issues than target. Any suggestions as to what can be done on a local level to let Target know we arent happy? Perhaps a meeting with the regional director? Thoughts?
They are demanding a “donation”? I thought donations were made by free will!! This is extrortion. As a Target consumer how are the extrorted funds benefiting me? I need to research and boycott businesses that are owned by gays and lesbians.
ed,
Target is owned by stock holders who are both straight and gay. Steinhafel and Zabel are employees of the company. Steinhafel was hired in January, 2008 and Zabel in July, 2010. Target is a very responsible and philanthropic company. The decisions to give money to a socially ultra-conservative organization was made by Steinhafel and Zabel, not the entire company.
Copied from the internet (and of unknown accuracy),
“Target defines diversity as individuality. The company states this individuality may include a wide spectrum of attributes such as personal style, age, race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language, physical ability, religion, family, citizenship status, socio-economic circumstances, education and life experiences.”
“Target Corporation is consistently ranked as one of the most philanthropic companies in the US. It ranked #11 in Fortune Magazine’s “Top 20 Most Admired Companies” for 2007, largely in part to the donation efforts of the company as a whole. According to a November 2005 Forbes article, it ranked as the highest cash-giving company in America in percentage of income given (2.1%). Target donates around 5 percent of its pre-tax operating profit; it gives over $3 million a week (up from $2 million in years prior) to the communities in which it operates.”
Ed, while writing this, I first used the word “extort” also in connection with HRC, but changed it in an attempt to report rather than give an opinion. Brian, agreed that Walmart is much worse and for me, not an option.
Of course the company is owned by shareholders but a CEO has quite a bit of power in a company and what he does represents the company. His decisions affect all employees. He decided to hired Zabel and one week later, this donation is what we got.
This donation (and a $100,000 donation to the same PAC by Best Buy) are examples of the result of the recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited political donations by corporations because corporations are people, corporations have free speech and limiting donations limits their speech.
Target is, indeed, one of the most philanthropic corporations and has a 100 percent rating on HRC’s corporate index. That’s probably why they’re talking. Had Exxon done this, there’d be no point.