The focus of the case is on the understanding of business campaign contributions and lobbying strategies – and their limits. The case revolves around dispute in Target Corporation in 2010. In the wake of the Citizens United decision target was one of the first companies to use the advantages of their newly acquired freedom, corporate treasury money (instead of money in a corporate-linked PAC) to make a contribution to an independent committee to take spending (aka “Super PAC “). The company decided to m … Read more »

The focus of the case is on the understanding of business campaign contributions and lobbying strategies – and their limits. The case revolves around dispute in Target Corporation in 2010. In the wake of the Citizens United decision target was one of the first companies to use the advantages of their newly acquired freedom, corporate treasury money (instead of money in a corporate-linked PAC) to make a contribution to an independent committee to take spending (aka “Super PAC “). The company opted for a donation to Minnesota Forward, a political action committee that the primary goal of supporting the creation of jobs within the state had to make. Pro-gay rights activists discovered that Minnesota forward mainly backed Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, the previously supported traditional marriage. Afterwards, target, despite his liberal and socially responsible position, was the subject of intense criticism and protests activist was viewed as a donation as contrary to its social policy. The events put CEO Gregg Steinhafel in a position to rethink the company’s policy on political activities. Should there be restrictions do what the company would be on the political front? If so, what should it be?
«Hide

from
Brian K. Richter,
Anisha George
Source: Ivey Publishing
14 pages.
Release Date: 29 November 2012. Prod #: W12350-PDF-ENG
Rethinking Political Activity at Target HBR case solution