A letter from Target

We at Vox Verax, like many fellow citizens, view the growing influence of corporations on the U.S. political system as a cancer upon the country. (For fairness sake, we view union influence the same way.) The United States system of government was built on the concept of "one man, one vote" — thankfully amended in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to mean "one person, one vote."

But nowhere in the Constitution is the word "corporation" mentioned. Yet since the constitution was adopted in 1787 corporations have achieved political powers far greater than any individual or other collective group, perhaps even more than the two major political parties. The U.S. claims to be a democracy or a republic, but it is arguably an oligarchy (some would say a legalized kleptocracy) using quasi-democratic processes to legitimize its money-driven governing system. These are strong words, but who can logically argue against them?

Corporations have long influenced the American political system either directly through bribery or indirectly by lobbying lawmakers to enact legislation favoring their interests or by campaign contributions made through political action committees (PACs). Now the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations can bypass the thinly disguised PAC system and contribute directly groups advocating for a particular candidate.

There is no room here to go over the history of how corporations achieved such power, but those who are interested can study Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and most recently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). Interestingly enough, these are all Supreme Court decisions. They have become the supreme law of the land not by constitutional amendment or legislative action but by the votes of as few as five sitting members of the Supreme Court — hardly rule by democracy.

The cardinal reason why the influence of corporations and unions is fundamentally undemocratic (and, if one is a true strict constructionist, unconstitutional) is this: The corporation or union speaks with one voice, either for or against an issue or for or against a candidate, yet corporations and unions are made up of many individuals — employees, board members, stockholders, members — not all of whom have a say-so on or are in agreement with what the corporation or union does. Nor do the have the easy choice of separating themselves from that corporation or union without economic harm to themselves. In some cases — for instance, if they are indirect stockholders via a pension plan — they may not be aware that they are part of a particular corporate community.

In many cases, the corporation or union acts in direct contrast to the interests of some or maybe even most of its stakeholders, because the decisions of the corporation or union are vested in just a handful of powerful individuals acting in what they claim to be its best interests. Not surprisingly, these decisions most benefit themselves, even though they claim that they make the decisions to best benefit the stockholders or stakeholders. And thus they use the numbers and economic power of the group to enhance their own influence on the political process.

This obviously makes a mockery of the "one person, one vote" concept if that implies that all members of a democracy have an equal say-so in the governing of the nation. No one would argue that political influence is grossly unequal in the United States, and yet we pretend that it is equal when we go through the charade of voting every two years or so.

Citizen action

That said, there's one action citizens can take to protest the political stance of a corporation, and that is not do business with a corporation whose practices they disagree with. Joan Binder of Mankato, Minnesota, did just that recently, when, in opposition to the Target Corporation's funding of political ads supporting Minnesota Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, she wrote Target saying she was not going to shop there anymore. In all fairness to Target, this is the letter they sent back:

From: guest.relations@...  
Subject: Target® Political Contributions
To: mankatojoan@...
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2010, 7:09 PM

Dear Joan Binder,

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.

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.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Hanson
Target Executive Offices

Ms. Binder is just one voice among many. Yet if each of us, in whatever small way we can, takes action to oppose the corrupting influence of corporate money on the political system, maybe — just maybe — we can begin to turn around what has been an ominous and truly dangerous trend since the latter part of the 19th century.