Bull’s Eye on this Target

Views: 304

I got a response from Target and this is a good one.

Dear David Brooks,

Target has long believed that engaging in civic activities is an important and necessary element of operating a national retail business. What’s more important than any one candidate’s stance on a particular issue is how we nurture thoughtful, long-term growth in the state of Minnesota.

Our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives. To continue to grow and create jobs and opportunity in our home state, we believe it is imperative to be engaged in public policy and the political process. That is why we are members of organizations like the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Chamber of Commerce and many others. And that is why we decided to contribute to MN Forward.

MN Forward’s objective is to elect candidates from both parties who will make job creation and economic growth a top priority. We operate best when working collaboratively with legislators on both sides of the aisle.  In fact, if you look at our Federal PAC contributions year to date, you will see that they are very balanced between Republicans and Democrats. For more information please visit www.target.com/company, and view the Civic Activity page.

Target has a large stake in Minnesota’s future, which is why it is so important to be able to provide jobs, serve guests, support communities and deliver on our commitment to shareholders. As an international business that is proud to call Minnesota home, it is critical that we have a business environment that allows us to be competitive. Our guests, team members, communities and shareholders depend on Target to remain competitive.

Thanks for taking the time to share your feedback.


Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

Here is my simple response:

To whom it may concern:

Thank you for your response.

I am sorry that you believe that Tom Emmer will bring “thoughtful, long-term growth in the state of Minnesota.” The fact is that he will not. Due to your affirmation of his beliefs and your continuation to support his ultra right-wing ideology, I will not be able to support Target Corp. in any manner in the future.

Transparency in our Electoral process is important. It is good to know that Target believes Emmer will Create jobs and economic growth, regardless of his stances on civil rights, the environment, unemployment benefits, gay rights, or many other issues that he takes ultra right-wing stances on.

“Our support of causes and candidates is based strictly on issues that affect our retail and business objectives.”

That is very good to know that social stewardship, equal rights, civil rights, equal opportunity or many of these other issues are not important to Target when they decide to support a candidate. I get it, only economics matters to Target Corp.

Also, I would like to hear more about the economic theories as to why Emmer would best create jobs or economic growth. I assume that Target corp believes in trickledown economics then? What about unemployment benefits. I guess Emmer wanting to get rid of those benefits would also stimulate our economy?

I will be posting this on my websites as well. I will be quoting from this response.

Thank you,

David Brooks.

This is not a single incident for Target.

Remember when they sold the highly offensive “Illegal Alien” outfit?


Comments: 4

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

  1. This is a correspondence I have recently had about this particular article and feedback. I felt inclined to present it to anyone else who felt this particular exchange was quite civil and engaging on a different level from the main stream media.

    Matt Sudduth:
    This is the first place I have seen a non partisan assessment of the Target incident. David Brooks gives his own perspective, but which side are we to take? Morality or Liberal freedom(by this I mean liberties not partisanship)? I honestly can’t decide.

    Shannon Elizabeth Marlow Blanchard:
    Why are morality and liberal freedom on opposing sides???

    Matt Sudduth:
    That is a deep question indeed. I would say it is because morality is generally an abstract interpretation of right and wrong which people can disagree with. Whereas Liberal freedom is derived from individual interests but is dependent on laws and enforcement.

    i.e target, either they are allowed to give funds to representatives they choose on both sides of the isle, or there needs to be a law which restricts them from donating at all. The liberty of free speech is mutually exclusive with restriction of certain donations based on moral objections to candidate opinions.

    However deplorable their current expenditures, we must ask ourselves does this mean we actually need to change the laws of political donations? Or is this just right and wrong moral bickering between to increasingly partisan parties?

    After careful consideration of this, I would say I am in favor of changing the laws about all corporate political donations for parties based on the knowledge I have received in my education.

    I believe that Corporations are in fact corrupting the democratic process and should not be given the same freedom in political matters which are granted to individuals because individuals do not have the limited liability of corporations to evade the criminal system.

  2. David! Here is my reply – just messing with you on the military killing thing – I don’t care. Here’s my reply though as posted.

    Why do you feel that gay people are not equal? – fair question.
    I do – who you want to have sex with? Doesn’t involve me in the least (as long as it isn’t with me). My beef involves the idea your sexual proclivities make you “special” and deserving of special treatment and accomodations. We are born equal. It’s what you do after that which counts. I don’t know when “equal” got perverted into “special” – but I got a good idea who started it…

    Between us – I really, really don’t have any problem with gay people. I am a hard-core conservative – but I break with them on the religeous stuff. Same with abortion – the second I can get pregnant – I’ll have an opinion. Until then? None of my business. I do pick up a racist vibe on some of the pro-lifers. If you look at the REAL out there groups – a lot of cross-over. Eric Rudolph/white supremacists, etc. Anyhow – I do enjoy a spirited debate. Do respect others opinions (even if I don’t agree) – and if I do hate – it’s the ideology – NOT the person…

    1. Thank you for your post Tom!

      (In case anyone else is wondering. I was posting some things regarding the Target boycott on the Startribune.com website. Tom is the only person to have responded to my posts. He responded to me weeks ago and I just recently moved this comment to the Target post.)

      I honestly do not disagree with you on your first statement. I also do not care if people are homosexual, heterosexual or bisexual. The only thing that is not acceptable is anything with children, obviously.

      I, as a straight white man, do not notice the special treatment a gay person receives, in fact I notice quite the opposite. I see jokes, gay bashing and other dehumanizing things. These jokes or actions by others does influence the equality of gay people or whoever is the butt of the joke.

      I think we are similar that we feel that with a lot of these “in the bedroom” issues gov’t should not be involved. I feel that if 2 consenting adults want to have sex, go for it! It is not Joe Taxpayers business.

      I see a strong similarity between the fear associated with homosexuality with the fear associated with black people pre- civil rights. These are similar issues.

      I know it will take time for equal marriage laws to be affirmed nationally (maybe not that long since the recent California Court decision) but it is important and it is about maintaining equality.