Business in the Bulls-Eye? Target Corp. and the Limits of Campaign Finance Disclosure

Abstract

Abstract The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United has generated a storm of debate about the role of corporations and unions in American elections. Since organizations may not be barred from participating directly in elections, the political agenda turned to whether disclosure of corporate and union involvement can serve as a check or tool of accountability. In this article we argue that disclosure provides a very limited check, grounding this conclusion on the highest profile case study to emerge in the 2010 midterm election cycle, that of the Target Corporation's contribution supporting a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota. We argue that this case should have provided extremely fertile ground for opponents of direct corporate political contributions, but that even with disclosure and targeted mobilization, the effect appears to have been sharply limited.