Problematics of Progressive Solidarity

By Ryan McNeely

You may have heard that retailer Target was caught up in a controversy last week after it was revealed that its corporate PAC had donated (thanks to the Citizens United decision) $150,000 to an organization backing extreme anti-gay Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. LGBT advocacy organizations and blogs expressed outrage, and MoveOn.org sent me an email arguing that since “Target just gave a huge contribution to a anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-progressive candidate for governor in Minnesota,” I should sign their petition calling for a boycott of the store. Somewhat surprisingly, this campaign actually worked, and the CEO took the unusual step of apologizing for the contribution and promising that “later this fall, Target will take a leadership role in bringing together a group of companies and partner organizations for a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.”

So I thought this was the end of the story — until I received another email from MoveOn.org. They are still angry, and they want to hold Target accountable. “As long as corporations like Target think that it’s OK to plow money into political campaigns, we’re in trouble. Corporations are not people. We need to make sure that Target and each and every corporation in the country gets this message: Stay out of our elections!” So MoveOn has a problem with — as I do — corporate influence over elections as such. It turns out that Abe Sauer noticed the wording in MoveOn’s original campaign, and was concerned about their involvement from the beginning:

Jumping aboard, MoveOn.org launched a petition calling for 150,000 consumers to commit to a boycott. While welcomed by many, there is reason to be wary of MoveOn.org’s particular involvement. For starters, its statement reads “If we don’t push back hard, this will just be the tip of the iceberg. Other corporations will learn that they can pour money into elections to buy the outcome they want.” It essentially lessens the anti-gay rights part of the Target donation outrage in exchange for a focus on a larger battle about the post-Citizens United campaigning world… one in which MoveOn.org’s side benefits greatly. Some, like me, might use a stronger word than “lamentable” to characterize MoveOn’s failure to even once use the term “gay” in its petition.

My first reaction was that this is a perfect example of left-leaning advocacy groups engaging in turf wars rather than — like their right-leaning counterparts — keeping an eye on the big picture and working together in the spirit of solidarity. To put it bluntly, why can’t LGBT organizations keep hammering away at Target even after the apology as part of a common cause with the left regarding corporate influence over elections, much as the “pro-family” right backs the right-wing anti-tax movement?

But I’m not sure it’s so simple. For starters, a lot of the anti-gay family groups have lost a lot of credibility with Republican office holders, so it’s not clear that this strategy has worked to advance their narrow interests. But more broadly, there’s a simple incentive structure at work — you want to punish people who harm you and reward people who help you — and in this case, the Target CEO’s apology was something to be applauded.