Buying blue

…and 3. whether or not a Law of Unintended Consequences bites would-be boycotters.

Unintended consequence one. Moral hazard.

Companies main aim is to make money. If a company feels it will make a bigger profit by saying it supports the Democrats, it will do so. Problem is that while the Democratic Party may think that it is gaining the support of “business”, the company does not sincerely support the Democrats. So if it starts issuing policies that don’t appeal to Business people its not going to get honest feedback from these bribed companies. Result is that the message over time becomes increasingly unattractive to the business community.

Unintended consequence one;- sends out the message that Democrats are a) divisive b) dependent on “bought votes”.

But my main question is why? The Democrats raised more money than the Republicans this year and still lost. More importantly (I think) Kerry didn’t spend all his cash implying that his problem was having too much rather than not enough funds. Why does anyone think that raising even more money is somehow going to help?

“Effectiveness” of boycotts aside, I don’t think any of the above commenters have caught on to the central issue – and Eszter only hints at it in using the word frustration:

Angry Dems don’t want to give their cash to companies that turn around and give it to the likes of Bush and DeLay. We (more “we angry Dems” than “we BuyBluers”) don’t see any reason to support companies who work against our interests. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Whenever I hear someone argue that boycotting – or avoiding – a given business over a moral issue is pointless, ineffective, counterproductive, or even somehow immoral, I wonder which of two bakers they would patronize: Bull O’Connor’s Firehose o’ Flavors or Coretta’s Cupcakes? Put in those terms, it’s a no-brainer. But somehow, we’re supposed to look past the sins of corporations, lest we somehow subvert the free market by considering any factors other than price per pound.

There is a visceral repulsion at supporting businesses that support all of the sickening things that the Republicans are doing to this country. I don’t care whether they give less money to the Other Side; I just care that they don’t give MY money to the Other Side.

Funny related story: when I was young, foolish, and conservative, I would discourage people from buying Domino’s Pizza (run by an anti-abortion zealot). People would ask, “Oh, because of the owner?” and I’d say, “No, because it’s crap.” But I don’t really have a problem with the former reason, either.

Giles–

Did you go to the sites? Many business owners do not vote for the so-called “low-tax right wing.”

In any case, I have long favored sending my money in the direction of good companies, by which I mean not necessarily companies that donate democratic, but rather companies that treat their employees well and do not drag down the entire salary structure of the U.S. with their low pay and benefits. The companies that tend to treat their workers well, interestingly, do tend to donate to the democratic party. One example: Costco, whose founder insists on paying a living wage to his workers and who refuses excessively high compensation for himself. Every progressive should cancel any memberships they have in other price clubs–especially the ones associated with Walmart–and immediately join Costco. That’s one thing we could do today to make the country a slighly better place, and at little to no cost to ourselves.

I think that we should expect companies to be moral institutions, and should absolutely punish them if they are not. There are enough progressives in this nation to do these companies harm. The righties already know their financial power well–from getting the Reagan series cancelled, to promoting companies owned by right-wing religious folk, they’re already doing it. Why would they be doing it, if there’s no point? And who else, frankly, is going to hold immoral companies accountable?

I’ve found the arguments surrounding the boycotts rather muddled. Is it to punish “red” companies? To make “blue” companies stronger? By emphasizing campaign contributions, the sites seem to make a more specific argument: To shift campaign donations away from Republicans and to Democrats. If so, then these boycotts are a poor way to go about it.

Firms make donations for two reasons: To get favored candidates elected, and to gain access among those who win. While the first may be driven by ideology (or at least by policy positions), the latter is much less so. In fact, the single best way to shift donations to Dems is for them to win back the majority in the House and Senate. In a post I put up a week ago, I gave some figures comparing donations before and after the ’94 GOP victory. Whereas before there was parity overall and the Dem incumbents received the largest share of donations, after the election it swung strongly to the GOP. Among open seats, the GOP held a big advantage before and after. In other words, business PACs prefer to elect Republicans, but if the Dems are in the majority they’ll gladly donate to them as well.

Boycott as an expression of outrage? Sure, if it makes you feel good. But as a way to leverage campaign donations for Dems? A highly inefficient and almost certainly ineffective strategy.

One followup to Giles, on companies as “moral institutions.”

First of all, ever since conservative activist judges read an anti-slavery amendment as bestowing personhood on corporations, we have the right – responsibility – to treat them that way. The notion of the “death penalty” for corporations who do harm is one I endorse – if the American people can bestow personhood on a business, then we should have just as much right to rescind. Horrifying? Potentially, yes. Give up your claim to the 14th Amendment, and I’ll give up my claim over your existence.

Aside from that rather radical (absurd?) stance, it’s no use, giles, pretending that companies can be anything other than moral actors. Just as no reporter can be “unbiased” in his reportage, no company can avoid making decisions with moral impacts. The thought of CEOs dictating employees’ personal lives is old-fashioned and, indeed horrifying, but of course it’s also contemporary reality. When WalMart chooses to place health insurance beyond the reach of all but a few employees, they are making a profoundly (im)moral decision, one that resonates deeply into a society that will have to pay dearly for emergency care for ailments that should have been prevented, had the victims had the means to address them.

It’s like Libertarians pretending they can act without impacting others. We’re all in a society together, and it does no good to act as if we’re not, because we find the implications hellish.