Whoever it was at Target headquarters who decided to give $100,000 in cash and $50,000 in in-kind services to MN Forward never met Randi Reitan.
The UpTake reported the story of a suburban grandmother, in response, cutting up her Target credit card at the company’s Chanhassen store. The UpTake published the video on its site and on YouTube, where it now has been viewed nearly 200,000 times. Just as important, portions of the video were featured Monday night on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, meaning another 1.5 million viewers saw her emotional action.
Reitan, along with her husband, Phil, has been actively supporting gay causes since the late 1990s, when their son, Jake, then a high school student at Mankato West, told his parents he was gay.
For the first year after he came out, the Reitans, on the advice of psychologists, kept silent.
“It was horrible in the closet,” she said. “Jake kept saying he needed to come out.”
In his junior year in high school, he came out, forming a gay-straight alliance at the high school.
“We were awed at his courage,” Reitan said. “It wasn’t easy in a small town then. He brought a gay speaker to the school, and there were parents who actually kept their kids home from school that day. Phil and I looked at each other and said, ‘This is crazy. It’s the parents who should be leading this fight, not watching their son.’ ”
Ever since, the Reitans — mother, father and son — have taken on causes.
They’ve been arrested at a convention of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. (This was before the church opened up its doors to homosexual pastors.) Jake has become a national leader in opposing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policies. Name the gay rights cause, and you’ll likely find a Reitan involved.
But there was something intensely personal about the MN Forward-Target connection.
“It felt like the money I was spending at Target was going right into the pocket of Tom Emmer,” Reitan said.
Emmer, the Minesota Republican Party’s endorsed candidate for governor, has been a strong advocate of a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage.
“I had always thought of Target as so sensitive,” Reitan said. “I couldn’t believe it.”
Her first response was to attempt to call executives at Target headquarters, seeking a chance for a face-to-face meeting with the corporation’s CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, or at least one of Steinhafel’s assistants. No luck.
Instead of a face-to-face, she was left a phone message from Target asking her to make no more calls.
“We know how you feel” was the gist of the message, she said. “Please make no more calls.”
It was then she decided to take the video action. The first attempt ended with security people at the Eden Prairie Target ejecting Reitan and the people who were filming her. So, they moved on to Chanhassen where the video was created
The response has overwhelmed her and given her hope that Target will somehow attempt to undo the deed.
A national organization, Human Rights Campaign, has called for Target and Best Buy, which made a $100,000 contribution to MN Forward, to make equivalent donations to organizations supporting expansion of gay rights.
On the Olbermann show last night, it was reported that Target now has made contributions to candidates in six Minnesota legislative races. Three of the donations reportedly went to Republicans, and three to DFLers.
Target did not respond to questions about whether that report is accurate and, if so, which candidates received donations.
It’s not clear if all this media attention — more than 750 stories about the contributions have been published nationally — has changed minds at Target headquarters.
From the beginning, Steinhafel has tried to make the point that the decision to contribution to MN Forward/Emmer was “a jobs creation” decision, not an attack on gay rights.
In an open letter to Target employees last week, Steinhafel wrote: “As you know, Target has a history of supporting organizations and candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth. MN Forward is focused specifically on those issues and is committed to supporting candidates from any party who will work to improve the state’s job climate. However, it is also important to note that we rarely endorse all advocated positions of the organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda.”
Reitan questions that. She believes that earlier generations of Target leadership never would have made such a decision.
“I believe he has a very socially conservative agenda,” Reitan said of Steinhafel, who has been CEO since 2008.
This is a story that’s not going to go away quickly, because it has become a test case from the recent Citizens United Supreme Court case allowing corporations much more direct access to political campaigns.
The UpTake’s YouTube video may give other large retailers pause before they run the risk of offending customers.
Emmer, for one, said he’s “sad” about the reaction Target’s contribution has received.
In a Fox News interview last week, he said, “The sad part to me is I thought we were supposed to be able to exercise our rights of free speech. We’re supposed to celebrate the fact that we have different perspectives, and it doesn’t seem like that’s what this is about. This seems to be more personal, and we’ve got to get over that.”
Reitan, however, says nothing could be more personal than those who would limit the opportunities of her son.
Doug Grow writes about public affairs, state politics and other topics. He can be reached at dgrow [at] minnpost [dot] com.
Correction: The source of the video has been corrected. It was The UpTake that reported on the story and published the video.
And just think, if Ms. Reitan is really successful, hundreds of low-waged Target employees will lose their jobs due to lack of business. But that’s ok, Ms. Reitan’s point will have been made and that’s what’s important.
I want to thank Bill Sorem and The UpTake for filming my last trip to Target and for getting it out on YouTube. They have made this a news story and I am grateful.
I am really amazed that Steinhafel is this out of touch with who shops at his stores — or who did shop at his stores, anyway — and with the particularly new-GOP (i.e. Tea Party politics) vibe attached to Emmer in particular and MN Forward in general.
The idea that MF is simply advancing business interests is highly comical. It was clearly just Brian McClung rushing forward in the wake of Citizens United, from his time in the service of Tim Pawlenty’s office, where he missed no opportunity to trash the opposition, to push corporate cash into GOP efforts.
I am also surprised that this is only being a presented as a problem related to Emmer’s position on gay marriage; the guy represents a prolonging of the movement of capital out of the social fabric and into the hands of the very rich — a turning of Minnesota into a cold Alabama.
If the Target board does not punish Steinhafel for using this fine corporation as a way to express his personal politics, they deserve every ounce of the blowback that will come their way. I just wrote Steinhafel an email and put this in the subject line: “we used to spend $200 a month at Target, but not anymore.”
If she really wants to put her mouth into action she’ll try to convince Target to quit giving so much to gay/lesbian causes. I’m sure those causes don’t want that “dirty” money.
I have to comment on the company town remark by Dennis Tester: so let’s get this straight, Target has an extra $150K laying around to promote the institutionalization of tea party politics in MN, but not enough money to keep employees on board in the wake of of a well deserved boycott. There is nothing more sad than seeing how frightened people are at the feet of this short-sighted CEO.
Mr. Tester has pretty succinctly expressed the essence of big-business politics: Shut your mouth or lose your job.
Mr. Tranberg, the point is that the people who will lose their job most likely don’t even have a dog in this fight. They’re just trying to pay the rent. But that perspective is so bourgeois, I know.
Paul Scott defines the issues well. Randi and family demonstrate courage and compassion. Sanders and Tester hide their real agenda behind som much bs. Because most people don’t read the paper or study the issues or take principled stands stands, this won’t cost Target much, certainly no jobs.
//And just think, if Ms. Reitan is really successful, hundreds of low-waged Target employees will lose their jobs due to lack of business.//
And many of them would be able to walk across the street and get a job at the retailer that’s seen the business walking out of Target walking into their stores.
One company’s lost business is another company’s growth opportunity.
High five to Randi Reitan!
Dennis Tester; Low wage employees will lose their job at the company that buys government officials? The employer should be put in jail for his employment practices and run out of the country for legal bribery.
Paul Scott; Steinhafel isn’t out of touch with whats happening at his stor or in the political arena. He’s just plain lying about his motives. He clearly supports the whacked out fringe of the wing. He thinks that he can get away with the donation because most people will keep buying at Target.
Hal Sanders; You seem a little confused. Read the article again.
I won’t shop at Target again. I despise the practice of paying low wages to employees and I hate Fascism. I’m fed up with the screaming baggers and their insane policies. They should be deported to Nazi Germany where they’ll find plenty of people to agree with them.
No doubt it took a lot of courage for a middleclass woman to cut up her Target card.
Mr. Tester, the point is that the mistake was made by Mr. Steinhafel in supporting a divisive candidate whose views are objectionable to many Target customers. Pointing to those who protest as the cause for people losing their jobs is a specious argument. It ignores who is truly responsible for this situation.
You can’t defend free speech on the part of Target, then condemn it when exercised by others.
This is the first day in five that the Daily Glean has not made a mention of this topic; I see they handed it off to Doug Grow, to help keep it alive.
Single issue advocacy aside for a moment, has anyone else stopped to see to whom Target gives? A quick check of Politicalaccountability.net linked me to Target’s 2009 Corporate Responsibility Report:
http://sites.target.com/site/en/company/page.jsp?contentId=WCMP04-041196
Some notable excerpts, “Target contributes to political candidates, caucuses and causes in a bipartisan manner based strictly on issues that directly affect our retail and business interests.”
In 2008, Target’s giving split out like this, Republican 19%, Bipartisan 28%, Democrat 53%. The single largest recipient of Target dollars in 2008 was the Democratic Leadership Council. This news is quite an indictment of allegedly uber-conservative Target CEO, Gregg Steinhafel. Perhaps, conservatives should be boycotting Target.
Mr. Testers defense of corporations paying government officials is typical of his previous rantings onj other sites. His views are about as far right as the screaming baggers can get without leaving the country.
Mr. Galtz said: “many of them would be able to walk across the street and get a job at the retailer that’s seen the business walking out of Target walking into their stores.”
Please cite your evidence for this cock ‘n’ bull statement.
Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel justified the contribution to MN Forward as promoting “pro-business candidates” who would create jobs, which to Republicans means tax cuts, tax cuts and more tax cuts. Well, we’ve had a decade of state and federal tax cuts, particularly for big business and the wealthy, and I don’t see a whole lot of job creation, do you? All I’ve seen is job cuts, job cuts, job cuts, resulting in unemployed consumers who can’t afford to consume and employed consumers who are too scared to consume for fear they’ll be next on the chopping block. Great strategy, Republicans. One would think a Fortune 500 CEO might be smart enough to recognize that, but apparently not.
Mr. Galitz, isn’t that retailer Wal-Mart?
Is anyone going to demand Senator Klobuchar give back the $1,000 she received from Target this cycle? I think I’ll be waiting awhile for those calls.
Just goes to show you that this has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with politics.
What a joke.
Sanders, it’s called supply and demand, something you should be familiar with coming from the right.
Mrs. Reitan’s love for her son is touching, but allow me to put this thing in perspective.
If the comments are any clue, of the 199,660 views the Youtube video has attracted, 1/2 of them were from people that stopped by to express their objection to the Reitan’s street theatre.
Many comments included promises to shop Target all the more.
And as for Olbermann’s 1.5 million viewers, well not so much.
According to Business Insider (http://tinyurl.com/3ajhba6), among the people that are likely to care about this subject one way or another, the 25-54 demographic, Olbermann reached a meager 452,000 in 1Q2010. (His ratings have been tanking steadily for the past year)
I was in Target on Sunday (spent $130.00).
I didn’t spot anyone running around filling baskets to return, and I didn’t spot any leftist bloggers filming anything.
All I saw was lines of shoppers and busy registers.
I’m sure Mrs. Reitan and her supporters would love to believe that Target is chaffing, but the leftist media’s attempt to whip up support withstanding, the facts don’t bear that out.
Hopefully this will sooth the anger of those out there that are steaming about the cash that trade labor unions pick from their pockets to pass along to leftist causes they despise…you may not be able to protest, but it wouldn’t make much difference anyway.
//Mr. Galitz, isn’t that retailer Wal-Mart?//
There are any number of retailers that a person can go to. K Mart, Costco, CVS, Walgreen, etc. An those are just the big box stores.
Of course we all have “free speech.”
But sometimes our free speech has consequences for us. To scream “free speech” when you don’t like the VERY PREDICTABLE consequences of your actions, is to prove yourself a moron and a demagogue.
CEO Steinhafel has made a very uncomfortable bed for himself and the corporate board of Target. Now they’ll have to lie in it.
Steinhafel has managed to single-handedly create for Target a much more negative business climate, likely with far more negative consequences than anything Tom Emmer might have been able to accomplish in Target’s favor should he be elected.
If I were a member of Target’s Board or a Target shareholder, I might have serious reservations regarding the CEO’s willingness to place his own personal political biases and predilections above the well being of the company he’s supposed to be running in ways that maximize profit on our behalf.
With Target’s financial support in 2008 going to Democrats over Republicans by a 3:1 ratio, I have to ask, what ratio do liberals require? What is the standard for being a shop-able store? Would 10:1 do it?
It seems that you want it all, and this whole thing is coming off like a tantrum.
This kind of thing is nothing new for Target. Almost a decade ago I uncovered a “secret” $25,000 donation from Target to the execrable Center of the American Experiment. Only – Target didn’t mention it on their foundation’s 990, and calls to PR at the company were either not returned or stonewalled. Who knows how much Target gives to other right wing think tanks or organizations under the table, with no reporting. I quit shopping there long ago – they aren’t the only place with cheap plastic crap from China.
Nice to know that Mr. Swift saw customers at Target today. That really clears things up a great deal. Regarding the idea that Target gave equally or even preferentially to Dems last cycle, all I can say is, if that’s true, that makes his decision on MF even more stupid. In one move, Steinhafel has made himself the issue, which, if you read, I don’t know, Jim Collins’ Good to Great, is the last thing a successful CEO is supposed to do. Did he have no idea what this would look like — hell they are practically making themselves the test case for the public response to Citizens United. In a recession! Smart! Not!
Target leapt into the fray,
putting stockholder money in play.
Emmer is lax
with rich peoples’ tax.
So much for respecting teh gay.
Let’s put this is terms that the Dennis Testers of the world will understand: What of all the poor shareholders who are going to lose money as Target share prices sink due to the poor business sense of the current CEO?
Henk – maybe some of these people boycotting Target have some Target stock in their 401k. That would be fitting.
Dear Randi Reitan —
I’m not from Minnesota, but when I’m in California (I now live in Canada), I’ve often shopped at Target and Best Buy. I really agree with you about your boycott and hope others will join you (I’m not gay and have no gay people in my family; but I can certainly understand your feelings). I thought that those companies were sensitive to issues like this. Guess not.
Thanks,
Mike Hertz
Tom Emmer: “We’re supposed to celebrate the fact that we have different perspectives”.. but somehow Emmer cannot make the connection that this standard should apply to people with alternative lifestyles… Emmer needs to open his mind.. and Target needs to close its checkbook.
I stopped shopping at Target when the Star Tribune mentioned that a Somali cashier refused to check out a pepperoni pizza!
The Wal Marts in Bloomington and University Avenue in St. Paul both hire Somalis, who are courteous and helpful but not for checkout duties.
This was an Astroturf event with a long time gay activist with a gay son who “just happened” to buy a lot of stuff at Target and then “just happened” to get an epiphany about the contribution and then “just happened” to decide to return the goods. Surprise, a lefty video maker “just happened” to be there when she returned the merchandise.
Gay activists often “spin” the story. A few weeks back someone from Lavender Magazine was on KTCA “Almanac” citing Mathew Sheppard. Sheppard was a methamphetamine user making a buy from the two meth head dealers/users who had a “meth rage” by their own admission. It was a drug deal gone bad far more than a gay hate crime.
Why the Emmer contribution is a big deal:
http://minnesotaindependent.com/59337/emmer-campaign-donated-to-you-can-run
In America, Emmer has a right to run. Target has a right to donate to him. And the neo-Nazis had a right to march in Skokie. But any candidate who supports executing homosexuals is a monster, any corporation who supports him is monstrous, and people of conscience have an obligation to call them out on it. Looks like I’m going to need a CostCo membership.
It’s not news that Target gives to Republicans among a great many other groups, both liberal and conservative. I think it’s interesting that the specific issue about Tom Emmer that is causing all of this is not just that he’s conservative or even that he’s really conservative; it’s that he’s anti-gay. I think that says a lot about where society (or at least Minnesota is going.
Erica, Tom Emmer isn’t “anti-gay,” he’s against same-sex marriage. But then again, so are most democrat politicians including your president.
I’m not sure I agree, Erica. You are right in seeing Randi Reitan’s activism for gay rights and the prominence of gay activism in politics does say a lot about where Minnesota is at and is going. But Target’s donation to Forward Minnesota is not about “teh gay” here. The issue is corporate so-called “free speech” which is a legitimization of the corrupt influence of corporate money in politics. To me, the fact that conservatives see nothing wrong in this also says a lot about where the right is at and where it’s going.
This is a very important story and one that should not be allowed to fade away!
We have shopped for years at Target and are appalled that they would take this political stance for Emmer.
Even Goldman Sachs which announced that they would NOT make such politically partisan contributions knows better.
Target cannot count on my business any longer until they make a comparable contribution to the DFL’s governors candidates.
I see this as more of a question of good corporate citizenship. Target has long fostered sensitivity to diversity issues in their corporate culture and their non-profit relations. Emmer is not just intolerant of GLBT issues, he thinks the poorly considered Arizona immigration law is a “wonderful first step.” http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2010/04/29/17746/a_wonderful_first_step_emmer_says_of_arizona_law This decision by the Target government relations group and their CEO seems poorly considered because it erodes the company’s carefully developed and longstanding reputation as a respectful corporate citizen, and places them into the partisan fray. This type of corporate act takes America further down the road of partisan divide and is not helpful to our national dialog. The CEO’s suggestion that this is to support a better business climate is based on an assumption but not supported by any evidence. MN Fwd’s reputation is as yet unproven. The assertion is further eroded by the fact that Target is very profitable and recently increased their dividends, showing they have more cash than they have good places to invest it.
Shawn (#37):
It depends upon what you mean by “diversity”. For some it is all about skin tone, for others it is about sexual orientation. I see these as micro-views. I prefer a macro-view that is broad enough to encompass what we think, and what we believe in all areas of life, including politics. To truly embrace diversity, we must respect one another’s political and social perspectives. It is easy to do when we agree; when we disagree, not so much.
The Daily Glean picked up this Target issue again today, after letting Mr. Grow carry it for a day. Regarding Mn Forward, the Glean reports, “of six other candidates queued to get ad support via Mn Forward, three are Democrats”. It seems that they are not the one-trick-pony they are portrayed to be on these pages.
Attempting to portray Target as a bipartisan (or even Democratic leaning) campaign contributor by selectively using only 2008 figures gives a very false impression.
If you look back past the 2008 election year when many large corporate interests migrated their political contributions (investments) across the aisle you’ll find a much different picture. And even in 2008, a sizeable portion of Target’s contribution went to the DLC, a group that many perceive as the representing the more corporate-friendly segment of the Democratic Party. This same fudge factor appears on a number of the ‘nonpartisan’ groups included in Target’s own statistics.
Target PAC* contributions to federal candidates for
2008: 52% to Democrats, 48% to Republicans
2006: 43% to Democrats, 55% to Republicans
2004: 21% to Democrats, 78% to Republicans
2002: 39% to Democrats, 61% to Republicans
2000: 42% to Democrats, 58% to Republicans
1998: 46% to Democrats, 54% to Republicans
So far, in 2010, at least in the race for MN Governor, it looks like it’s 100% for Republicans and 0% to Democrats.
Follows nicely with CEO Steinhafel’s thousands of dollars contributed directly to the Emmer for Governor campaign ** – but that has nothing to do with the $150,000 contributed to MN Forward only a few weeks later by the corporation headed by Mr. Steinhafel.***
Which fits nicely into Steinhafel’s overall political investment strategy:
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=Steinhafel&state=MN&zip=&employ=target&cand=&c2010=Y&c2008=Y&c2006=Y&sort=N&capcode=xg6bk&submit=Submit
If we add previous Target CEO Bob Ulrich’s political spending habits, the circle is complete – it’s elephants all the way down.
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.php?name=ulrich&state=MN&zip=&employ=target&cand=&c2010=Y&c2008=Y&c2006=Y&sort=N&capcode=xg6bk&submit=Submit
*http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00098061&cycle=2004
** Page 81 of 95: http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2010/CampFin/A/16914.pdf
***http://www.cfbreport.state.mn.us/pdfStorage/2010/CampFin/B/41035.pdf
The issue is not whether Target gives more money or less money to one or the other political party. The issue is whether Target should have any “right” to give any money at all, for advertising or any comment on a public issue. I make no exceptions. Corporations are not “natural persons” period. Citizens United was an outrageous decision.
Did Target pick red as it’s major color for a reason ?
Joel (#39): You’ve intentionally neglected to report Target’s state and local giving, which is overwhelmingly DFL. Some of the money given to MN Forward will support DFL candidates.
For people deciding where to shop, Target’s political spending in the 1998 election cycle is not as meaningful as the spending in the 2008 election. Of the partisan dollars donated in 2008, 74% went DFL.
Joe (#41): On the NBC Nightly News, the states that Jimmy Carter won in the 1976 election were shown in red on the U.S. map; Gerald Ford states were shown in blue.
Love the “Free Market” frauds like Tester. They pop up here and in the BP case. Suddenly, these corporate schills are concerned about the Little Guy. Hey, in the free market, bad corporations go out of business and their market share (and those lost jobs) get picked up by good corporations.
Anyways, if these people lose their low wage Target jobs, they can always become $100,000/year servers.
“I want to thank Bill Sorem and The UpTake for filming my last trip to Target and for getting it out on YouTube. They have made this a news story and I am grateful.”
Randy Reitan
It seems like Randy knows who made the video, but no one else does!
TPM, Minnpost, MSNBC all don’t mention TheUptake.org–how come?!
It would be like you Doug Grow hatched this story, only everyone went out of their way to not mention Doug Grow or Minnpost.
But, you should from now on.
Craig Stellmacher
TheUptake.org
I believe Mrs.Reitan’s comment below says it all:
“I believe he has a very socially conservative agenda,” Reitan said of Steinhafel, who has been CEO since 2008.
That and the majority of the comments posted (albeit not surprising on Minnpost) typifies the liberal left’s “tolerance for diversity.” It is not okay for a corporation to use it’s own money at its discretion for political support but it is okay for unions (with millions of members nationwide) with no discretion to extract from “union dues” money directed only for political purposes. Target has been known for years as leaning liberal and is the poster child for PC; anyone who can read their public policy statements can see that.
What a bunch of hypocrisy and b.s.!!
i have a message for mr Gregg Steinhafel. the reason our country is in a mess is because of leaders, to quote sarah palin, lack the cojones to do the right thing. all to often our leaders have bowed to a minority load voice instead of doing what they feel is the right thing. why is it wrong for a company to support candiates that are pro-business and yet it is ok for larbor unions to force members to contribute money and give it, without their permission, to big govenvement anti-business, socialists. Mr Gregg Steinhafel – ITS TIME FOR YOU TO STAND UP FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS RIGHT.
If you look up the DFLers supported by MN Forward, you will find they are at the far right edge of the DFL or hold a committee chair that MN Forward does not want to be on the wrong side of.
The whole assertion that the “conservative”, “pro-business” Republicans actually help promote business is laughable. Minnesota was a leader in business and job development when it was among the highest-taxed states. Why is it so easy to ignore that fact?
Donald:
You are correct; Minnesota WAS a leader in business and job development when it was among the highest taxed states. But, it is not sustainable.
I do business with a local company that expanded their operation; they did it in Watertown, SD, which is just over the border. I visited their facility, it was an industrial park consisting of 12 independent companies that are all headquartered in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Sioux Falls has done the same thing, but on a larger scale.
When NWA and Delta merged, they considered headquartering in Minneapolis, for about five minutes. They moved to Atlanta. 3M does not expand in St. Paul; they expand in Austin, Texas. Why?
Correction: The source of the video has been corrected. It was The UpTake that reported on the story and published the video.