“Assassination is the extreme form of censorship.”
─ George Bernard Shaw
Retailers are the place where commerce meets the public. As recently as 15 to 20 years ago, their role in the process was pretty simple: put the stuff that other companies make on the shelf and sell it. The mega consumer-product companies were the innovators running the show; the retailers were merely the delivery system. Then, with the ascendency of Walmart and other big-box discounters, all that changed. Thanks to a variety of factors — chiefly technology and cumulative buying power — a power shift occurred. Now a relative handful of retail giants can, at least to a degree, dictate terms to their suppliers: We want your product to be this size, this color, at this cost — and make it in an environmentally sustainable manner.
Of course, power attracts scrutiny and profile creates vulnerability. So, today it is retailers — and not just product brands — that are caught in the crossfire when “concerned citizens,” or more precisely, aggressive activist groups, endeavor to attack or promote an issue. At one time or another, protests over biotech foods, animal rights, globalization, labor and race relations, to name just a few, have raged in retailer parking lots because campaigners understand that controversy is bad for business. I’ve worked on issues where, literally, two people with picket signs garnered front-page coverage in a major city newspaper. As a result, most retailers are exceedingly quick to capitulate. It just ain’t worth the fight.
Enter MoveOn.org, a Democrat-aligned group opposed to many things, including most recently the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for corporate funding of political advertising. Eager to make an example out of someone, MoveOn saw its chance last summer when it learned that Target Corporation, the nation’s second largest retailer, contributed $150,000 to a pro-business group which, in turn, supported a Minnesota gubernatorial candidate who opposes same-sex marriage. Ironically, Target is widely known as one of the most progressive corporations in America with a long history of open support for its gay employees and a welcoming posture toward its gay customers. Its intention was not to take a stand on same-sex marriage, but to support pro-business politicians.
Target’s liberal track record, however, is apparently irrelevant to MoveOn and its allies because, despite their call to “boycott Target until they cease funding anti-gay politics,” their campaign has little to do with same-sex marriage and everything to do with dissuading other companies from giving money to pro-business candidates. And it’s had an effect. For its part, Target has run as far and fast from its contribution as possible, including a letter of apology from the CEO. No surprise, there. MoveOn’s message to other businesses: stay out of electoral politics or we’re coming for you.
My view on all this is mixed. While I disagree strongly with MoveOn on just about everything it stands for, it has every right to agitate legally and to the full extent allowable. It has a constituency and they are speaking. Fortune 500 retailers and consumer product companies have the means to defend themselves and, if they chose not to, so be it. What’s disturbing is, unlike most retail pressure campaigns that are designed to attack an objectionable product or practice, this is an effort not to inform but to silence. Political censorship is ugly no matter how you dress it up. The Supreme Court has spoken. Now, shouldn’t everyone, including businesses, have a right to freely support their candidates of choice?
John Weber is president of Dezenhall Resources and author of Damage Control.
