Putting their money where their mouth is

December 2, 2005

James Dobson’s Focus on the Family has a lot of money. After millions of people have bought the group’s books, magazines, videos, and children’s stories, on top of the generous donations that go directly to Dobson, we’re talking about a not-so-small fortune.

For years, Dobson has deposited his riches with Wells Fargo, but not anymore. Apparently, it’s too gay.

Dobson and [Focus on the Family President and CEO Jim Daly] jointly announced that Focus on the Family had severed ties with Wells Fargo because of that company’s heavy commitment to the gay agenda.

“From a technical standpoint, they did the job well,” Dobson said, “but their corporate headquarters is in San Francisco, and they are heavily committed to the gay and lesbian agenda.”

On the broadcast, they explained how the company had increased contributions to gay-activist groups, while cutting support to the Boy Scouts.

In fact, in explaining the decision on Dobson’s radio show yesterday, Daly suggested that most of corporate America is dangerously pro-gay. According to his analysis:

* 49 of the Top 50 Fortune 500 companies have adopted what Focus considers to be pro-gay policies.

* 85% of all Top 500 companies have done so.

* 230 of the top 500 companies offer some form of domestic partnership health benefits.

“What this means,” Dobson said, “is that the gay and lesbian activist groups have picked off all the big companies in the United States — I mean you can hardly do business with corporate American if you want to establish your own policies or maintain them or spend your money wisely. It’s a tidal wave across this country.”

Of course, Focus considers this development to be a blight on society, but I was pleasantly surprised by such sweeping success. If Focus’ numbers are accurate, corporate America is far more progressive on this issue than I’d realized. Good for them.

Corporate america believes profits are more important than anything else. Heck, all the scandals prove this. But this also means that they do ordinarily wish to hire the best and brightest, and retain the best and brightest. That is just good business, and generally leads to profitable business. And to have access to, and to maintain the best and brightest minds in the world, these companies generally must have open, non-discriminatory policies that provid equal benefits for all employees regardless of personal factors, such as sexual orientation. The bottom line is these policies are just neutral policies–they are neither pro-gay or anti-hetero. Sort of policy I think Jesus would promote.

  • I like how he mentions how their corporate headquarters are in San Francisco…you know, “San Francisco”.

  • Hmm, maybe we should punish them by increasing corporate tax rates and removing the ability of corporations to be claim the rights afforded to citizens. I’m sure we can count on Dobson’s support.

  • Would be nice if Wells Fargo would issue a press release saying, “we will do fine without the business of ignorant bigots.”

  • Now that Dobson/FotF are actively engaged in setting U.S. policy at the U.N. —
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/dobson-meets-with-bolton-_b_11561.html
    — I wonder if we can revisit the complaint filed with the IRS by CREW?

    IRS regs ban tax-exempt orgs from campaigning or endorsing candidates, but what about lobbying and consulting the government to set policy? Do IRS regs have provisions similar to piercing the corporate veil when the activities of the private person and the organization he leads constitute a common plan?

  • Now that Dobson/FotF are actively engaged in setting U.S. policy at the U.N….

    Stay tuned; I’ll have a post on that later this afternoon.

    IRS regs ban tax-exempt orgs from campaigning or endorsing candidates, but what about lobbying and consulting the government to set policy?

    Actually, that’s 100% legal. And as much as I detest Dobson and his cohorts, there’s no way I could support a legal prohibition on tax-exempt groups speaking out on policy. That’s why many tax-exempt groups — including countless progressive organizations — exist.

  • “If Focus’ numbers are accurate, corporate America is far more progressive on this issue than I’d realized. Good for them.”

    Before we start the celebration, I’m willing to bet that Dobson sets the bar pretty low in defining a “pro-gay policy.” Does inviting life partners to the annual holiday party count?

  • As it happens I work for Wells Fargo and I find the culture to be accepting of non-business lifestyles and chioces. Benefits are available to partenrs. We have stagecoaches in Pride parades around the country. We state that discrimination agains individuals and groups is unacceptable as a policy (no matter what group it is). I have gay friends who work here and they find it a positive place to work.

    I can only assume that since gays are not repressed, taunted, harassed, and flat out fired that Dobson thinks Wells Fargo is pro-gay. From a business perspective I see two things influencing this policy. 1) Some very tallented people that bring great value to an organization happen to be gay. 2) Roughly 10% of people are gay (to usea standard assumption) why not go after 10% of the population as customers? On a side note the business seems to believe that treating people well is important if you want to succeed.

    We also have billboards that are completely in Spanish. I wonder if we are pro illegal immigration too? What a jackass.

    I wonder who the new bank is? I wonder if they will be advertising that they are anti-gay enough for Focus so they should be anti-gay enough for you!?

  • Speaking out on policy is one thing — I should not have included the word lobbying. Consulting and setting policy seems like quite another. Do the regs make such a distinction, and do they establish parameters? My knowledge of IRS regs is limited, so I am just wondering where, or if, such lines are drawn.

    Btw, I’m not suggesting that you are defending Dobson. If he is keeping within the regs, then kudos to his lawyers. I suspect, though, that CREW’s lawyers must have someting more than idle allegations.

    Shall we establish an over-under for number of business days before CREW amends its Complaint to include this story?

  • Bubba said it best about business. They aren’t in business to discriminate, they are in business to make money.

    I wonder if Dobson routinely rejects donations or membership from conservatives who live in San Francisco. Just on the principle that they live in SF. There’s got to be a few. I wonder if he requires his donors or members to sign an affidavit swearing their firm heterosexuality.

    Let them continue to isolate themselves and save their money in their mattresses. Any influence they had will quickly evaporate, just as any company that decides discrimination is more important than being successful quickly fails.

  • Considering how low Dobson, et al. set the bar, they could soon find themselves burying their money in a tin can in the back yard. I hope the field mice don’t find it.

  • I like how he mentions how their corporate headquarters are in San Francisco…you know, “San Francisco”.

    Comment by circlethewagons — 12/2/2005 @ 11:03 am

    —————

    This reminds me of when Wingut Linda Chavez was running against Barbara Mikulski for the senate seat in Maryland. Ms. C referred Mikulski as a “San Francisco Liberal Democrat.” I suppose Dems could return the favor, and refer to W. as a “Waco Republican”. But I can’t think of any city (or planet in the known universe) suitable to categorize Ann Coulter.

  • In Dobson’s view anyone or any company that isn’t actively anti-gay *is* pro-gay.

    You gotta love “pro-family” people who believe that refusing to discriminate against gay people and extending health insurance benefits to people is responsible for destroying America.

  • Looking at the high percentage of ‘pro-gay’ companies in the fortune 500, there’s an abvious conclusion Dobson is missing. Businesses do not succeed by openingly discriminating against a portion of the population.

  • The best response to “gays” and “gay marriage” will destroy the American family is the 50-60% marriage failure rate. Socially conservative policies did just fine destroying the family and marriage on their own.

    Corporate america believes profits are more important than anything else. Heck, all the scandals prove this. But this also means that they do ordinarily wish to hire the best and brightest, and retain the best and brightest. That is just good business, and generally leads to profitable business. Don’t forget employment law. Hiring women and minorities would have been “good business”, too, but didn’t happen till the laws demanded it. Like most profit-motives, often our own personal biases don’t allow for a strict cost-benefit decision.

  • This is a perfect example of the difference between the GOPand the Democratic Party. Or it should be.

    Here’s a bank of which Dobson says “From a technical standpoint, they did the job well, BUT….” since they don’t come up (or down) to Dobson’s level of exclusion and hatred, they’re to be shunned.

    The Dems should always call attention to things like this, as CB has done here. The Dems want real world RESULTS – jobs done well from the technical standpoint – AND THAT’S ALL WE WANT. We leave personal and market choices and the reasons for them to individuals. We don’t foist our personal likes and dislikes on others.

    • Comments are closed.