The focus of the case to understand the contributions of firms lobbying campaigns and strategies - and their limits. The case centers on a dispute in front of Target Corporation in 2010. In light of Citizens United, the problem was one of the first companies to take advantage of their newfound freedom to use corporate money to the Treasury (and not related to money in corporate PAC), to contribute to the independent committee of the costs (aka "Super PAC"). The company decided to make a donation to Minnesota Forward, political action committee, which was the main purpose of supporting the creation of jobs in the state. Pro-gay rights activists found that Minnesota forward primarily supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who previously supported traditional marriage. After that, Target, despite its liberal and socially responsible position, was exposed to harsh criticism and activists protest as a donation is seen as a contradiction to his social policy. Events put general manager Gregg Steinhafel in a position to review the company's policy on political activity. Should there be limits on what the firm would do on the political front? If so, what should those be? "Hide
by Brian K. Richter, Anisha George Source: Richard Ivey School of Business Foundation 14 pages. Publication Date: November 29, 2012. Prod. #: W12350-PDF-ENG
Related Case Solutions & Analyses:
Sarah James in Mexico: Often Wrong but Never in Doubt
Leveraged Buyout (LBO) of BCE.: Hedging Security Risk
La-Z-Boy
BC Metal (A)
BC Metal (D)
Rogers Cable: First Time Right
Honey Care Africa (B): Opportunity Knocks
Steve Jones – Stonehill Capital
The Common Final Exam (B)
Chicken and Egg: Study of the Poultry Genetics Industry
