So it would appear that Target’s CEO is on full-fledged damage control as the story of the company’s substantial donation to Minnesota Tea Party darling Tom Emmer has finally gained some steam.  And the crisis communication that has followed has provided a pretty interesting peek into the idea, or maybe more appropriately the fallacy, of corporate responsibility.

Let’s start by deconstructing the spin.  Steinhafel defends the $150,000 donation to MN Forward as one to an independent organization that is supported by a broad base of business interests.  I suppose MN Forward is an independent group, so much as former Pawlenty lackeys are “independent” and so much as the group has yet to post a single donation to a DFL candidate.  And the group was formed in the wake of the dreadful Citizens United decision with the (express) purpose of funneling corporate dollars directly into campaigns.  Sure.  Independent.  Just like the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, right?

The spin continues, noting that Target does not really have a political or social agenda.  Of course not.  But it’s executives do, and that agenda falls right in line with Tea Party caucus governess Michele Bachmann.

And, since no good defense can exist without at least some attempt at an offense, Steinhafel proceeds to list activities that purport to illustrate Target’s “unwavering” support of the LGBT community.  Like sponsoring PRIDE because, you know, that has nothing to do with brand development and advertising.  Same with its sponsorship of the Out & Equal Workplace Summit.  In fact, of the three items listed, only one–domestic partner benefits–is divorced from advertising and brand development.  And Target’s support of domestic partner benefits is a great thing, but it is not indicative of unwavering support of the LGBT community any more than it supports its employees as a whole.  I mean, it’s not like only LGBT employees qualify for those benefits or they exist simply to advance the cause of equality in the workplace.

But more importantly, what this dust up really exposes is the fallacy that corporations ever act in the interests of anything other than pure profit, regardless if that profit comes at a moral cost.  It’s a point I was trying to make, albeit obtusely, in that last post.  And it’s a point that thankfully Kevin Drum helps out with.

It’s an argument I made during the health care debate and during the financial services reform debate.  That is, some sectors of our economy should not exist as for-profit.  Period.  One of the reasons I appreciated Drum’s post so much is because we share a neither-here-nor-there approach to business regulation.  I’m certainly not for micro-management of business decisions.  I believe in the free-market yet I don’t buy for a second most of what business tries to sell (both literally and figuratively).  I love my union brothers and sisters but want to see them work in partnership on big issues rather than getting so bogged down in minutia.  I know.  I’m difficult.

But the reality is business is always a purely economic actor, regardless if we try and ascribe moral purpose behind its actions.  And that is precisely why the Citizens United decision (and its predecessors, I mean, it’s not like this came out of thin air) is so fundamentally destructive to our democracy.  Yes it is bad to have an unfettered flow of corporate dollars into campaigns, but the WHY it is bad is rarely addressed with any nuance.  It’s bad because, snark aside, those crafting policy are, or should be, moral actors while those funding those initiatives are by virtue of their very existence not.  Economic actors versus moral actors.  It’s like I’m in grad school all over again.

Business will continue to craft decisions and products that are horrible for consumers if it means they can profit off it.  Business does not care if people die, lives are ruined and communities destroyed because business does not have the capacity to care.  But people do.  Or they should. Or perhaps they would if they were run by more than just the boy’s club.

But our moral compass has gone so far askew that we’ve allowed our politicians, and frankly the public, to pass our responsibility onto businesses in the name of support of the free market and then reverse-engineered our election laws to justify, in consitutional terms no less, that total abdication of responsibility.

So yeah, I think Target sucks.  But I thought so before this whole story.  And yes, I continue to shop there even though I know their “community stewardship” is more spin than substance.  Perhaps had Congress actually done its job today and passed the DISCLOSE Act (seriously Republicans WTF?!) we could make some progress on the kind of transparency necessary to change bad political platforms.  In the meantime it’s not like when I check out at Target they cashier will ask me if I’d like 10% of the proceeds of my purchase to go toward funding anti-LGTB initiatives they way they do for education.  And why should they- Target doesn’t give a shit.  But it would be nice if my representatives did.