Companies Accused of Seeking to Influence Elections

Companies have been doing their civic duty by encouraging consumers and workers to get out and vote on Election Day. Some, such as Wal-Mart, have had employee voter registration drives.
While retailers have been lauded for promoting the need to vote, some have begun to question whether companies have crossed the line from urging employees to vote to seeking to influence their votes.
Target, for example, made the case that voting was the “patriotic duty” of its employees in its in-house magazine. While there is no fault to be found in that sentiment, Target has also set up a web site, www.targetvoters.com, to make its employees aware of federal politicians who voted in line with the company’s position on issues.
Alex Knott, political editor for the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, told the Star Tribune, “It’s a completely new way to influence an election. Instead of working behind the scenes and handing out checks, they’re going directly to their employees.”
Getting employees to vote the company line can make a big difference in elections. Wal-Mart has 1.3 million employees in the U.S. while Target has 330,000.
Some involved in the electoral process are concerned that companies are not being forthright about their involvement in partisan politics.
Target, for example, has contributed 75 percent of its political action dollars to the GOP while www.targetvoters.com points employees primarily to Republican candidates.
“It’s hard for a company to maintain the argument that it’s nonpartisan when it has thousands of dollars in campaign contributions going to Republicans, and built around a very specific agenda,” said Mr. Knott.
For its part, Target maintains it is not telling employees how they should vote.
“Our goal is not to tell team members who to vote for but rather to get team members to vote and to be educated on the issue at hand,” said Carolyn Brookter, a Target spokesperson.
Critics of the approach taken by Target and others say the company is doing a disservice to employees by focusing on a just a few bills that pertain specifically to its business while ignoring other issues more important to the country’s welfare.
Massie Ritsch, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics, said, “Companies may say they’re nonpartisan, but they’ll describe the issues in such a way that their employees or their customers will agree their point of view.”
Discussion Questions: Is there anything wrong with companies telling employees how they would like them to vote? Do you believe that, in the privacy
of a voting booth, most workers vote how they believe their employer would want them?
Join the Discussion!
17 Comments on "Companies Accused of Seeking to Influence Elections"
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It makes sense for a company to let its employees know how issues and legislation will affect their company and job. The unions are certainly out pounding the campaign turf. A company should communicate with its employees as that makes for better relations. Good employee relations, like good marriages, need great communication. A vote to unionize is not a vote for the union, it is a vote against poor management.
I don’t see why a business can’t “influence” employees choices in an election. There are PAC’s and independent groups that try to influence through advertisements and this is no different. Look, the facts are most people don’t actually pay a lot of attention to politics so if their company says, that issue or this person is good for the company (that they work for), why not have that be an influence just as many other items that persuade people to vote one way or the other. Voters don’t choose in a vacuum plus influence is about as American as it gets (good or bad).
Serendipity has placed me in what I suspect will be the “clean up” position in this great discussion. Herewith some closing observations.
I am impressed with the diversity of opinion in our RetailWire community.
I am impressed with the candor and forthrightness with which we both express our own opinions and rebut those of others.
I am MOST impressed with our system of governance which allows us to do so.
Vive le vote!
“Some involved in the electoral process are concerned that companies are not being forthright about their involvement in partisan politics…”
And the same, of course, can be said about those expressing this “concern.”
Suggesting how employees vote is fine, coercion, or using company time/resources to propagandize is not.
Everyone tries to influence the vote one way or another. Nothing wrong with that as long as one faction doesn’t try intimidation tactics.
I would hope that the American public makes up its own mind and votes on the facts once the curtain closes. But who knows? Maybe Argentinian-manufactured voting machines really decide American elections. That’s even scarier.
Companies along with trade unions, professional groups and religious organizations with a partisan agenda have every right to try and sway the vote of those associated with their group. It would be refreshing, however, if they would stop suggesting that the vote has something to do with saving America instead of simply furthering their own self-interest.
Although I totally and vehemently disagree with David’s views that employees are obliged to support the business’ political preferences, I am forced to agree with his conclusion. If the “right” politicians don’t get elected, employees may well find themselves unemployed. Would it really be any different, or better, if one employee turned up on another’s doorstep trying to influence them? Elections are all about influencing voters. Much as it goes against my grain to not disapprove of employers trying to coerce employees, I have to admit that it is all part of life’s great tapestry. The question is where the line between influence and coercion is drawn. How people live their lives, what they do and don’t believe, and how they vote should remain private. Paying someone’s salary does not entitle you to dictate or intrude in their personal affairs. Blackmail may be illegal but if it is merely emotional, probably classifies as unethical only, more’s the pity.
There is nothing wrong with employers telling employees how to vote. Companies like Target and Wal-Mart contribute a lot of money and they would like to see a return on this investment. It is the employees duty to help assure their company’s success. Having influence over government officials pays big dividends and helps with the ongoing success of the business. In return companies hope to get tax breaks, approved building permits, traffic lights, roadway changes, and less regulation. Employees certainly should not vote for candidates who would oppose such favors for their employers. They might just be voting themselves out of a job.
If the organization is tax-exempt, then the government should either pull the group’s tax-exempt status or ask the group to cease and desist.
If the organization pays taxes, well, the organization, or those who can lay claim to publicly representing the organization, have a right to let people (read employees) know how a particular vote may impact the organization…positively or negatively.
Should an employer try to influence employees vote? Probably not. The relationship is already “employ at will” and no job description includes listening to the boss tell an employee who or why to vote a certain way.
Looking at the literature I’ve received during this election I think every group I belong to is sending me information telling why one candidate or position on an issue is better and why I should support it. After awhile, I really don’t want to read any of it! If information about positions and candidates is on a website that employees have to choose to seek out, I don’t see the harm because I’m not sure many people will choose to seek it out. Encouraging employees and consumers to register and vote is a great idea.
It’s odd that retailing, an industry known for exceptionally high staff turnover, would think it could sway its employees’ votes. High staff turnover implies alienation. An alienated audience is a low potential source of political support. Many retail employees would love to leave their employers. Why would they take their political advice?