Last week, Rashad Robinson wrote an article for Al Jazeera acknowledging how tempting is it to assume that corporations are unreachable entities that only bend to ?quarterly returns.
But Robinson, the executive director for ColorOfChange, a 501(c) nonprofit that “exists to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” is a beaming example of just how wrong that ?assumption is.
Among other successful campaigns, ColorOfChange waged an effective boycott on the American Legislative Exchange Council at the end of 2011, which Robinson suggests marked a turning point in consumer-corporation ?relations and accountability.
It should be noted that ALEC isn’t exactly your ?everyday corporation.
ALEC works with corporate lobbyists to submit and push “model legislation,” characteristically in a way that redefines the rights of the people as to better serve their own agendas.
You may recall some corporate entity pushing for voter ID laws — which was really a shallow attempt to bar certain Americans from their right to a voice — aimed to disenfranchise black people, students, the poor, etc. That was ALEC.
Robinson is adamant: despite their corporate clout, when approached the right way, these companies may be more accountable to the ?public than thought otherwise.
Because their Achilles heel is always out in the open, what could be more significant to the consumer base your company depends on than your brand image?
Robinson’s message to corporations supporting ALEC was uncomplicated — you can’t take black people’s business at day then deny their voice at night.
Through public petitioning and private outreach, public advocacy groups like ColorOfChange helped disband ALEC’s public safety and elections task force, which was also responsible for the ?ever-relevant “stand your ground” legislation.
I don’t think Robinson is saying it’s easy to hold a mega-company in check, but that he wants to sincerely assert an attitude that may be contrary to common misconception — black consumers having a lot of weight in regulating how companies ?manage their businesses.
However, I would be cautious in presuming that these corporations see much further than their own image. For example, juggernaut companies still aren’t putting people first.
Unfortunately, if these companies had simply been more inclusive and aware, this backdoor webbing of corporate influence and private practice wouldn’t be around.
Because of the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 and 2012 election cycles saw unprecedented amounts of outside spending.
Many corporations involved with these questionable maneuvers also insist on corporate personhood, so that they might have a voice like anyone else.
This is strange to me, but I don’t know many people who would put a price tag on their voice for a fatter paycheck at the expense of others.
The big picture here is that the corporate movements toward commonsense egalitarian policy are largely reactionary. Groups like ColorOfChange exist to address issues that belong in our past, not our present.
Corporations should not have to be incentivized to care about their consumers.
michoman@umail.iu.edu
