Friday, August 20, 2010

Right on, Target!

Let me just ask... What would happen if Target Corporation had donated to a PAC that was supporting Mark Dayton's gubernatorial bid for the Democrats in Minnesota? Crickets...

Yeah that's right, nothing would happen. But it seems that Target should be scorned and boycotted because their executives made a political judgment that Republican Tom Emmer would be better for their business, for their customers and better for their shareholders.

Today we find out that at least one network will have none of it. MSNBC rejected political ads from the leftist crowd. FTA: MSNBC spokeswoman Alana Russo said Thursday that the commercial submitted by the liberal advocacy group violates its advertising policy by attacking an individual business directly. The ad features Target's bullseye logo and accuses the chain of trying to buy elections.

The predictable backlash from gay-rights supporters against Target Corp.'s political donation drowns out all reason. In this era of ultra sensitive political correctness and multi-culturalism has some institutional shareholders raising their eyebrows.

Three management firms that collectively hold $57.5 million of Target stock namely, Walden Asset Management, Calvert Asset Management and Trillium Asset Management, have filed a proposal asking Target's board members to undertake a comprehensive review of Target's political contributions including the criteria used for such contributions.

The facts: for one, $57 million is a minuscule fraction of Target's public stock, and two, these three firm's investment strategies have less to do with effective investing as much as promoting knee-jerk leftist causes. For obvious reasons you will never read about this in the StarTribune, Washington Post or the New York Times .

It seems these firms also questioned Best Buy who contributed to the same PAC. But what of the companies that donated to Dayton's PAC's? Crickets...

It comes down to this, supporting the definition of marriage, a definition that is thousand's of years old, as one man and one woman is radical. Politicians who hold such a view are radical. Worse than that they are evil. Ola Fadahunsi, spokesman for New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the sole trustee of the state's pension fund which hold's millions in Target stock, told the newspaper. "It's troubling to think that they [Target] can fund controversial candidates without properly assessing the risks and rewards involved."

At least thirty two states have put the definition of marriage up for a vote and thirty two states have declared that a marriage is one man and one woman. Repulican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer wants to allow the voters of Minnesota to have a chance to decide this question and Mark Dayton doesn't. Simple as that. Apparently this is what makes Emmer radical and evil and undeserving of ANY political contributions.

Mark Dayton has only one theme and one solution - soak the rich. To me he is controversial and quite frankly simply nauseating. Unfortunately, Mark, there just aren't that many rich guys.

As I told a friend, I'd vote for a moldy tennis shoe over Mark Dayton.