Emmer Says Corporate Donations are Free Speech
July 30, 2010 by James Hipps
According to a post on WDAY, Tom Emmer, the Republican candidate that has Target and other Minnesota based companies in hot water with the LGBT community and our allies has spoken out against the reaction to the donations by saying the governor’s race is getting personal. Duh? Since when do you tell people they can’t be equal and expect it not be taken personally?
According to the post:
Emmer weighed in for the first time Thursday on the reaction to Target’s $150,000 contribution to MN Forward, an independent political fund running ads that support him. The state lawmaker opposes gay marriage, and some Democrats and gay rights activists are calling for a boycott of Target and posting protests on social media websites.
Emmer said in an interview that people upset over Target’s donation are missing the big picture.
“The sad part to me is, I thought we were supposed to be able to exercise our rights of free speech,” said Emmer, a fiery conservative who is his party’s likely nominee for governor. “We’re supposed to celebrate the fact that we have different perspectives. And it doesn’t seem like that’s what this is about. This seems to be more personal and we’ve got to get over that.”
How about let’s get over this Mr. Emmer. Let’s get over the fact that you think I, a tax paying citizens shouldn’t have the same rights you take for granted. Why don’t you let me have them then you get over it.
One thing Emmer seems to not understand, whether or not Target’s donation is ‘freedom of speech’ that they don’t support LGBT equality, which is exactly what he’s alluding to, it’s also freedom of speech for the LGBT community and our allies to protest! Only some rights are a one-way street Mr. Emmer. You haven’t been successful in taking away a LGBT citizens freedom of speech…yet!
“Emmer said in an interview that people upset over Target’s donation are missing the big picture.”
So the big picture here is free speech? Is is just me or does dumping a load of money into the pocket of an anti-gay bigot not sound like free speech?
“We’re supposed to celebrate the fact that we have different perspectives.”
I have a very different perspective than you Mr. Emmer, a VERY different perspective.
I emailed Target to voice my concern. And what I got back amounted to little more than “business is business”. He’s the response!
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 http://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.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices
[THREAD ID:1-7HVNRI]
I find it very hard to believe that someone who doesn’t believe in equality can in anyway be good for anyone must less good for the general public.
It’s a BS response and they probably didn’t even bother to read what you wrote.
@ dfarf
Thank you for emailing target and also thank you for sharing this response. This must be an automated response as I received the same response to my email.
What is offensive here is that anyone could possibly think of CORPORATE behaviour as having the same status as that accorded to an individual.
A corporation is not an individual, and as such is incapable of “free speech”.
The courts erred beyond the pale when they allowed free rein to corporate donations in the political arena.
The political arena needs to be returned to its original meaning. Corporations need to be stopped from supporting politicians.
Politics is reflection of the the “will of the people”, and a company – by its very definition – is not a “person”. It’s not for nothing that most democracies put strict limitations on corporate participation in the political process.
It’s sad to think that the United States, cradle of modern democracy, has succumbed to corporate pressure and tarnished one of its very founding principles. “For the people, by the people”.
Whilst it would be nice to have a commerce and political divide, it’s not really an option, a great many political parties, in most modern countries around the world would not have the funds to fight a full campaign in the approach to an election without corporate donations, gifts and sponsorship.
Tighter rules regarding such donations, and rules of disclosure may be needed, but to eradicate it completely, would I believe have a detrimental effect on the political landscape.
Mind you, I’m not advocating the interdiction of corporate donations.
There were, until very recently, strict guidelines and caps on corporate donations to political parties, which were – through the aide of a Bush appointee, if I recall correctly – struck down. Now corporations may “give” to the political party of their liking to their heart’s content.
THAT is certainly an issue that needs to be dealt with and returned to its proper place.
But limits DO need to be placed on corporate donations, and for the simple reason that companies are not voters. They are money-making entities. Their “raison d’etre” is making money, and they are accountable to boards of directors and to shareholders. As such, their place is not within the political forum. At least, not as heavily as they now find themselves.