Or, as Robert Kelner, a Washington campaign finance lawyer, told NPR’s Overby:
Given all these different ways that you can spend your money without generating a national news story, certainly I think a lot of corporate executives are saying this is just a reminder to use all those other tools that we have in our tool kit…
…adding, Call me! (Not really).
The lesson, in other words: When using company money to make political donations, be sure to do so in a way that does not also make headlines. It turns out, it could get easier for Target and other Minnesota-based companies to do just that: supporters of gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer filed a motion in U.S. District Court to overturn the state disclosure requirement that brought Target’s contribution to light.
Could we all stop saying "perfect storm" when something more specific is meant, like "political mistake"?
A perfect storm, if there is such a thing, should only be invoked when there is loss of life.
#1 Posted by Walter Underwood, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 03:24 PM
Walter Underwood,
How about this: "Target remains up Poop Creek without a paddle." Does there need to be a loss of life before we can invoke such a term?
#2 Posted by DJ, CJR on Tue 14 Sep 2010 at 11:40 PM
In defense of the $150,000 contribution that Target made to the campaign of the anti-gay candidate for Governor of Minnesota, Target CEO, Mr. Steinhafel said it was for economic development reasons. If shareholder value is a measure of success of a business this is hard to understand. Target stock was valued at $6.43 in February of 1993, $37.98 in February of 2001, and $31.20 in February of 2009. It is now at $53.75. So, in the supposed anti-business years of President Clinton the stock rose by 491%, in the supposed pro-business years of President Bush the stock fell 17% and in the supposed anti-business years of President Obama the stock has risen 72%. I thought it was the responsibility of the executive leadership of a corporation to create share holder value. Therefore, Target is using shareholder money to promote policies that are adverse to shareholder interest. Could the primary interest of Mr. Steinhafel be in promoting tax cuts for himself and he is using shareholder money to satisfy his own personal agenda?
#3 Posted by Dale F. Stein, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 01:09 AM
news flash for you the LGBT comunity is up set not because of emmers anti-marriage stanse but that he also backs and supports a so called christian rock band called(you can run but you cant hide) they support the killing of LGBT people also steinhafel his wife and the board of target donated to emmer directly so now do you get the picture!!
#4 Posted by Erin Fuller, CJR on Wed 15 Sep 2010 at 10:48 AM
@Dale F. Stein
TGT also paid out dividends throughout that entire period, so you're looking at a massive ROI for the investor who bought at the beginning of Clinton's term, a fair to poor showing during the Bush years, and some renewed expansion during Obama's term. I don't think the shareholder value would necessarily have been negative at any time, because of the dividend payout; on the contrary, the lowered price during the Bush years would make TGT that much more attractive to investors.
#5 Posted by MM, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 01:29 AM
Oh, and TGT split three times during the Clinton years, but hardly any such movement since Bush's election. If I had invested even a few hundred in TGT in 1992, I may be sitting on a rather comfortable nest egg today, but alas, I was a kid who didn't care much about stocks and such.
#6 Posted by MM, CJR on Thu 16 Sep 2010 at 01:32 AM