Big Business in Politics Causes a Big Stir

Businesses that contribute to political campaigns are nothing new.  Lobbyists have to work for someone, after all, so if companies aren’t spreading their influence by greasing the campaign wheels, they certainly have people in place in Washington to further their agenda.  However, a recent decision by the Supreme Court in January of this year (in the Citizens United case) may have changed the political landscape in terms of corporate contributions, and not necessarily for the better.  The ruling gave corporations and unions heretofore unparalleled freedom to contribute funds to political campaigns.  And controversy followed fast on the heels of the falling gavel.

Minnesota-based retailers Target and Best Buy have both gotten themselves embroiled in this scandalous behavior, not necessarily through the act of campaign finance, but rather because of the politician they have chose to support.  Each corporation has contributed dollar amounts in the six figure range ($150,000 from Target and $100,000 from Best Buy) to MN Forward, an organization that is currently funding ads for the political campaign of Republican Tom Emmer, who is openly opposed to gay marriage.  While gay rights are certainly the hot-button issue of the moment, and the actions of these two companies have drawn criticism from human rights and gay advocacy groups, the controversy has served to highlight a larger topic of concern.  What role will this allow corporations to play in deciding public policy?

Our economy is already in the toilet because of questionable ethical business decisions made by elite corporate executives who clearly feel themselves to be above the scope of the law.  Do we really want these same types of people spending their mega-bucks to push a corporate agenda on the American public?  Consider for a moment the current case of Target and Best Buy.  What purpose do their actions serve?  There are always the rumors of shady back-room dealings in which CEOs back a political candidate financially in order to ensure that favorable legislation will come their way when said politician is in office.  But beyond that, consider the issue of publicity.  How much do you think these companies would have to pay for the kind of media attention they are getting from this move?  Probably a lot more than $100,000.  And yet, by spending what could be considered a drop in the bucket in the arena of advertising, and attaching themselves to a controversial topic, they have effectively put their names on everybody’s lips.  Does it even matter if what’s-his-name succeeds in his campaign?  Probably not.  They have already gotten way more than they paid for in terms of publicity.

But then there is a more sensitive issue to consider.  What if these companies do, in fact, harbor anti-homosexual attitudes at the highest echelons of their corporate management structure and they are using their financial standing to influence the way our government decides social matters, regardless of whether they are morally right or wrong?  Whether or not you agree with them in this instance is a moot point, since you are bound to fall on the opposite side of an issue sooner or later.  The question is: will this ruling allow corporations to push their policies into the scope of government so that big business is effectively dictating the terms by which we live our lives?  And if it comes to that point, will we be able to reverse the situation?

Shirley is a writer for PUA where you can find great tips and advice on dating.