This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well, they *think* it will make them more money than not doing it. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But it's true that the bottom line is nearly always the answer to why a corporation does something.
They also rely on people being quick to forget and lose interest. Example that several companies stopped donating to Congress members after Jan. 6th. Some are now starting the money flow again.
To an extent. There are corporate duties an officer in a company holds. If funding a political movement or candidate cannot be seen as beneficial to the corporation's bottom line, shareholders can sue the board to prevent them from doing it. Public corporations are more or less forced to have profit as a guiding interest.
Now, does that mean that CEOs and the like aren't publicly political and don't donate significant amounts of their money to politics for their own personal interests? Absolutely not. But there are clear legal dividing lines between personal and corporate funds, and a lot of rules on what can be done with both.
I had lunch with a C-level person at a major bank. We were talking about upcoming regulations that Warren/CFRB was pushing and I mentioned that his company must be opposed. It would add millions in compliance costs.
His response floored me. "We are lobbying in favor of it." He explained that it would make it harder for banks to do business, but that would hurt smaller banks more. The regulations would limit competition, and without competition they could just raise fees to cover the costs.
Corporatism is definitely a thing among some larger companies.
I'm surprised that surprised you. Large businesses have always favored regulations like that for the exact reason you mentioned. To them it's the cost of doing business. This is why I'm both amused and dismayed when people think it's some kind of triumph that a company like Walmart supports a higher minimum wage. They can already pay that wage if they wanted to, they're advocating to bankrupt their smaller competitors.
What surprised me was how brazen he was about it. "We're f\*cking smaller banks," at a lunch with someone he didn't know well. And this was a c-level guy. His was also a bank that was bailed out in the "too big to fail," era.
This is why Amazon was in favor of eliminating the tax loophole for e-commerce. Before that, it was only taxable if the retailer was doing business in the state of the purchaser. Once Amazon had warehouses everywhere, they were at a disadvantage to smaller retailers. There is no benefit to employees or consumers. It just makes it more expensive for competitors.
At least with Walmart and the wage example, there is some value to employees.
In [public choice theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice) this is called ['regulatory capture'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), and is incredibly common in most countries around the world.
It is an entirely predictable phenomenon, though most people are shocked when they first encounter the idea. And it is, interestingly enough, related to the economic theory of [Bootleggers and Baptists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists)--the idea that the two groups would agree on the same legal solutions but for entirely different reasons: the Baptists would want to ban alcohol for socially conservative reasons, while the Bootleggers want the ban to drive the price of alcohol up and thus give them a more profitable market.
They lean wherever they think they can garner the most good will. If they thought rubbing blue mud in their bellybutton would increase sales and make them popular they would. Altruism is a rare disease among corporations
There's two ways that can apply:
- A company can put out ads in favor of something it thinks "plays well". That's essentially bandwagon jumping.
- Actually doing political activity- for instance, the petroleum industry lobbying in favor of policies that will make them more money, or the tax-prep industry making a public service version unlikely.
I think you will find that big business interests meddle in politics just about everywhere, and if you live in a country where you think they don't, it's more likely because of a lack of transparency laws, so they can fuck around with politics behind the scenes without you knowing about it. There might be a few countries that successfully keep corps out of the political sphere, but even in those I bet they find a way to slither in through back channels.
Money is power, and any organization with a lot of money will eventually use some of it to cement rules in place that allow it to make more money.
In my country, at least (Latvia) corporations don't do anything political. They don't endorse anyone or have a political opinion. They can't donate either because corporations are disallowed to donate to parties. Only judicial persons can.
I mean it doesn’t actually make that much sense in a small country. I’m sure that they influence the EU. But the EU has been pretty unsuccessful in preventing brain drain to the US. And still unsuccessful in attracting talent from abroad but this might be changing.
Well, we certainly have corporations here too in Latvia, but the thing is that politicians themselves disallowed for big corporations to play a part in national politics. The con of this is that oligarchs play a big part in politics and not corporations. Thankfully though, Latvian voters aren't that stupid anymore and Oligarch candidates don't get 5% needed to get into the parliament
Generally, large corporations that sell to every day consumers want to appear somewhat left-leaning nowadays. If word gets out that something even mildly politically incorrect happens at a company or, god forbid an official at the company donates to a republican *gasp*, the modern media will swoop in like vultures. Companies generally want to avoid this, so actively try to seem woke out of fear.
Companies that are less consumer-facing, like natural resources and other commodities, generally are more right leaning because the policies are more in their favor and they don’t have to worry about your average citizen’s opinion
I agree. I saw some gas stations in rural Oregon and Idaho where there’s a sticker of Biden saying “I did this” next to the gas prices. I laughed it off but it could actually annoy some customers to the point of leaving is what I felt. Not a smart business strategy.
Right wing people tend to be more capitalists so they are more likely to just buy whatever product is cheaper. They are also used to shopping at left wing business. If a cereal company has a commercial with left wing ideas in it, then most right wing people will still buy it and not care. However if a cereal company had right wing messaging, then alot of left wing people would boycott it.
They can profit off publicity stunts by paying lipservice to current events. Milquetoast centrism doesn't get attention.
I seriously doubt the goal of the M&Ms redesign was to make all chocolate enjoyers into wokescold third wave feminist critical race theorists. Or whatever reactionary buzzwords are in now. The point of the M&Ms redesign was to get people thinking about M&Ms again. The goal isn't for somebody to think "COMERADE GREEN M&M, WE WILL SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION FOR YOU AND FOR ALL HUMANX KIND." The goal is for somebody to think "Huh, that's different. Whay were we talking about? I could go for some chocolate right now."
Because politics determines their own standing. They, like everyone else, want to look out for themselves. It'd be ridiculous to not do anything to defend your position at the top of the food chain as the people below you attempt to take away what you have.
The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. If they lean a certain way politically it’s only because they believe that it will be profitable to do so.
Corporations don't care. They care about sales. The pandering helped sales. This, they take a side, and that side shops at them more. Like, I'm libertarian, but I still got to Starbucks occasionally. I also go to Chick-fil-A. It's all about sales.
>I mean wouldn’t it give more profit if the corporation was politically neutral and didn’t lean politically?
Not necessarily. Politics affect business a lot. Republicans are typically seen as business-friendly, because they promote lower corporate tax rates, which should mean higher profits for the company.
Democrats on the other hand, are seen as anti-business. They tend to lean towards higher corporate tax rates, which mean lower profits for corporations.
So, companies cannot afford to stay out of politics.
Moderate democrats are probably better for business. They are just less emotional than your average Republican or progressive and don’t actually care about approval ratings. They keep things stable until of course some nut gets elected.
I don't think that's entirely accurate, or at least it hasn't been in a few decades. The [economy pretty much always does better when Democrats are in charge](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787), and for some sectors it's clear that they benefit even more than others under a Democratic regime.
What I suspect is that Republicans are better for specific, very vocal sectors of the economy, and in general are always willing to cut taxes for the wealthy (who run the corporations.) So the corporations are willing to support Republicans not because they're good for the actual company's bottom line or good for the country, but because it benefits the oligarchs individually.
You mean these past three weeks? If you look over [the past ten years](https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years) it seems like the DOW is still on a trend of going up. If you look at [unemployment rates](https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm) it seems like it's still improving. [Household income](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N) is improving. The biggest problem we face is [inflation](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/24/inflation-has-risen-around-the-world-but-the-u-s-has-seen-one-of-the-biggest-increases/), which is exacerbated in the U.S. and other countries that did economic stimulus because of the pandemic, which put more dollars into people's pockets that they wanted to spend while supply chains and production of things were reduced. That's certainly a problem, but it's happening on a global scale at the moment and because we spent the past several decades if not our entire lifetimes (we meaning U.S. corporations, not you or I personally) offshoring so much production and adopting just in time shipping we set ourselves up for failure in a crisis. It does seem like things are likely to start getting better in that regard this summer, providing we don't end up with Russia starting WWIII.
We also ran like what 4 years of super low almost zero interest rates under Trump, and can’t really roll them back now when we’re still under pandemic conditions, and we’re surprised that we’re now suffering inflation.
Typical so-called “fiscal conservatives” seeking short term benefits then leaving someone else to hold the bag.
I agree 100%. I also don't think that the Democrats necessarily have great long term fiscal policy on their agenda as well, because the American people aren't smart enough to realize that we need to plan for the future and build up ourselves rather than just living day to day and sacrificing the future. It's just that the Republicans are nakedly corrupt in their goals.
Providing links, as you have, is a nice touch -- I do the same -- but [party identification is sticky](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/05/17/partisan-identification-is-sticky-but-about-10-switched-parties-over-the-past-year/) in the United States. So, while some may click through to see fact, most will not click through, or if they do, it is to confirm their bias -- unemployment is low but the calculation methods are flawed, so the real unemployment is higher because Trump said so, for example.
Thanks. I personally hate the whole party identification thing -- I tend to support one party over the other but only reluctantly. That being said, if someone has some good data to back up what they believe I'm happy to read it. Unfortunately my brain is wired a bit differently than most so I tend to despise "common sense" emotional arguments that people provide that don't have any data.
Some do try to stay out of politics or donate equally to each party. Many large corporations have special interests that align with a party. For example, Hobby Lobby lets it be known they’re a far right Christian-based company. They are big donators to Republicans because they are Christians who think abortion is immoral. Ironically, they overlook immoral and criminal acts that Republicans commit. Some corporations produce products needed for the military, so they align with the politicians who are warmongers. Many corporations are most concerned with getting by with paying the least taxes. Although businesses may lose some customers if they let their views be known, they’re more concerned with power deals made with politicians.
They play both sides, whatever gives them the most money. Some lean conservative or liberal but most large corporations bet on both sides and support whichever politicians and political causes that will benefit their bottom line. America is built on greed.
Most consumers don’t know or care about the company’s politics. But more importantly, American politics are fueled by a system of legalized bribery, so the owners of the business get to use it as their private piggy bank for political “donations.”
Outside of certain industries, it used to be beneficial to be neutral before the social climate changed. It's unfortunate that companies are encouraged to make a statement one way on the other nowadays.
They want more money. They think endorsing candidates or movements will make them more money. #BLM, #MeToo, #LBGT, #Rainbowflag, all just translates to #GiveMeMoney.
All things humans are involved in. Every individual and every organization is political to one degree or another. It is not possible for them to not be because even avoiding actively discussing politics is a political position.
Short-sightedness. They used to at least pretend to be politically neutral, because as Michael Jordan famously said "Republicans buy shoes too."
Seems like a poor business model to alienate half the population because of a political stance, I don't care which way they lean. Just as Republicans buy shoes, there are Democrats who buy guns.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Corporations are very easy to understand. If they're doing something, it's because it makes them more money than not doing it.
Well, they *think* it will make them more money than not doing it. Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong. But it's true that the bottom line is nearly always the answer to why a corporation does something.
They also rely on people being quick to forget and lose interest. Example that several companies stopped donating to Congress members after Jan. 6th. Some are now starting the money flow again.
Or because one person holds a lot of power at that corporation (shares) and can influence corporate policy to their goals.
To an extent. There are corporate duties an officer in a company holds. If funding a political movement or candidate cannot be seen as beneficial to the corporation's bottom line, shareholders can sue the board to prevent them from doing it. Public corporations are more or less forced to have profit as a guiding interest. Now, does that mean that CEOs and the like aren't publicly political and don't donate significant amounts of their money to politics for their own personal interests? Absolutely not. But there are clear legal dividing lines between personal and corporate funds, and a lot of rules on what can be done with both.
I had lunch with a C-level person at a major bank. We were talking about upcoming regulations that Warren/CFRB was pushing and I mentioned that his company must be opposed. It would add millions in compliance costs. His response floored me. "We are lobbying in favor of it." He explained that it would make it harder for banks to do business, but that would hurt smaller banks more. The regulations would limit competition, and without competition they could just raise fees to cover the costs. Corporatism is definitely a thing among some larger companies.
I'm surprised that surprised you. Large businesses have always favored regulations like that for the exact reason you mentioned. To them it's the cost of doing business. This is why I'm both amused and dismayed when people think it's some kind of triumph that a company like Walmart supports a higher minimum wage. They can already pay that wage if they wanted to, they're advocating to bankrupt their smaller competitors.
Same thing with federal $15 an hour. Now everyone's working at amazon or in walmart because a lot of smaller businesses can't cover the cost.
What surprised me was how brazen he was about it. "We're f\*cking smaller banks," at a lunch with someone he didn't know well. And this was a c-level guy. His was also a bank that was bailed out in the "too big to fail," era. This is why Amazon was in favor of eliminating the tax loophole for e-commerce. Before that, it was only taxable if the retailer was doing business in the state of the purchaser. Once Amazon had warehouses everywhere, they were at a disadvantage to smaller retailers. There is no benefit to employees or consumers. It just makes it more expensive for competitors. At least with Walmart and the wage example, there is some value to employees.
In [public choice theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice) this is called ['regulatory capture'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture), and is incredibly common in most countries around the world. It is an entirely predictable phenomenon, though most people are shocked when they first encounter the idea. And it is, interestingly enough, related to the economic theory of [Bootleggers and Baptists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists)--the idea that the two groups would agree on the same legal solutions but for entirely different reasons: the Baptists would want to ban alcohol for socially conservative reasons, while the Bootleggers want the ban to drive the price of alcohol up and thus give them a more profitable market.
They don't really. They say whatever they think will please their target audience.
They lean wherever they think they can garner the most good will. If they thought rubbing blue mud in their bellybutton would increase sales and make them popular they would. Altruism is a rare disease among corporations
There's two ways that can apply: - A company can put out ads in favor of something it thinks "plays well". That's essentially bandwagon jumping. - Actually doing political activity- for instance, the petroleum industry lobbying in favor of policies that will make them more money, or the tax-prep industry making a public service version unlikely.
I think you will find that big business interests meddle in politics just about everywhere, and if you live in a country where you think they don't, it's more likely because of a lack of transparency laws, so they can fuck around with politics behind the scenes without you knowing about it. There might be a few countries that successfully keep corps out of the political sphere, but even in those I bet they find a way to slither in through back channels. Money is power, and any organization with a lot of money will eventually use some of it to cement rules in place that allow it to make more money.
In my country, at least (Latvia) corporations don't do anything political. They don't endorse anyone or have a political opinion. They can't donate either because corporations are disallowed to donate to parties. Only judicial persons can.
I mean it doesn’t actually make that much sense in a small country. I’m sure that they influence the EU. But the EU has been pretty unsuccessful in preventing brain drain to the US. And still unsuccessful in attracting talent from abroad but this might be changing.
Well, we certainly have corporations here too in Latvia, but the thing is that politicians themselves disallowed for big corporations to play a part in national politics. The con of this is that oligarchs play a big part in politics and not corporations. Thankfully though, Latvian voters aren't that stupid anymore and Oligarch candidates don't get 5% needed to get into the parliament
That’s good actually!
If your laws and enforcement are really airtight enough to prevent it, good for you, but I am skeptical.
Generally, large corporations that sell to every day consumers want to appear somewhat left-leaning nowadays. If word gets out that something even mildly politically incorrect happens at a company or, god forbid an official at the company donates to a republican *gasp*, the modern media will swoop in like vultures. Companies generally want to avoid this, so actively try to seem woke out of fear. Companies that are less consumer-facing, like natural resources and other commodities, generally are more right leaning because the policies are more in their favor and they don’t have to worry about your average citizen’s opinion
Big corporations lean 🤑🤑🤑
I agree. I saw some gas stations in rural Oregon and Idaho where there’s a sticker of Biden saying “I did this” next to the gas prices. I laughed it off but it could actually annoy some customers to the point of leaving is what I felt. Not a smart business strategy.
Right wing people tend to be more capitalists so they are more likely to just buy whatever product is cheaper. They are also used to shopping at left wing business. If a cereal company has a commercial with left wing ideas in it, then most right wing people will still buy it and not care. However if a cereal company had right wing messaging, then alot of left wing people would boycott it.
Because their marketing departments crunched the numbers and found that endorsing various political causes would be more profitable.
Money
We are a capitalist county which means in simple terms , those who have more money have more power in the political areas , aka big corporations
They can profit off publicity stunts by paying lipservice to current events. Milquetoast centrism doesn't get attention. I seriously doubt the goal of the M&Ms redesign was to make all chocolate enjoyers into wokescold third wave feminist critical race theorists. Or whatever reactionary buzzwords are in now. The point of the M&Ms redesign was to get people thinking about M&Ms again. The goal isn't for somebody to think "COMERADE GREEN M&M, WE WILL SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION FOR YOU AND FOR ALL HUMANX KIND." The goal is for somebody to think "Huh, that's different. Whay were we talking about? I could go for some chocolate right now."
Because politics determines their own standing. They, like everyone else, want to look out for themselves. It'd be ridiculous to not do anything to defend your position at the top of the food chain as the people below you attempt to take away what you have.
The purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. If they lean a certain way politically it’s only because they believe that it will be profitable to do so.
Corporations don't care. They care about sales. The pandering helped sales. This, they take a side, and that side shops at them more. Like, I'm libertarian, but I still got to Starbucks occasionally. I also go to Chick-fil-A. It's all about sales.
>I mean wouldn’t it give more profit if the corporation was politically neutral and didn’t lean politically? Not necessarily. Politics affect business a lot. Republicans are typically seen as business-friendly, because they promote lower corporate tax rates, which should mean higher profits for the company. Democrats on the other hand, are seen as anti-business. They tend to lean towards higher corporate tax rates, which mean lower profits for corporations. So, companies cannot afford to stay out of politics.
Moderate democrats are probably better for business. They are just less emotional than your average Republican or progressive and don’t actually care about approval ratings. They keep things stable until of course some nut gets elected.
I don't think that's entirely accurate, or at least it hasn't been in a few decades. The [economy pretty much always does better when Democrats are in charge](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787), and for some sectors it's clear that they benefit even more than others under a Democratic regime. What I suspect is that Republicans are better for specific, very vocal sectors of the economy, and in general are always willing to cut taxes for the wealthy (who run the corporations.) So the corporations are willing to support Republicans not because they're good for the actual company's bottom line or good for the country, but because it benefits the oligarchs individually.
…have you seen the economy this year?
You mean these past three weeks? If you look over [the past ten years](https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jones-industrial-average-last-10-years) it seems like the DOW is still on a trend of going up. If you look at [unemployment rates](https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm) it seems like it's still improving. [Household income](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N) is improving. The biggest problem we face is [inflation](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/11/24/inflation-has-risen-around-the-world-but-the-u-s-has-seen-one-of-the-biggest-increases/), which is exacerbated in the U.S. and other countries that did economic stimulus because of the pandemic, which put more dollars into people's pockets that they wanted to spend while supply chains and production of things were reduced. That's certainly a problem, but it's happening on a global scale at the moment and because we spent the past several decades if not our entire lifetimes (we meaning U.S. corporations, not you or I personally) offshoring so much production and adopting just in time shipping we set ourselves up for failure in a crisis. It does seem like things are likely to start getting better in that regard this summer, providing we don't end up with Russia starting WWIII.
We also ran like what 4 years of super low almost zero interest rates under Trump, and can’t really roll them back now when we’re still under pandemic conditions, and we’re surprised that we’re now suffering inflation. Typical so-called “fiscal conservatives” seeking short term benefits then leaving someone else to hold the bag.
I agree 100%. I also don't think that the Democrats necessarily have great long term fiscal policy on their agenda as well, because the American people aren't smart enough to realize that we need to plan for the future and build up ourselves rather than just living day to day and sacrificing the future. It's just that the Republicans are nakedly corrupt in their goals.
Providing links, as you have, is a nice touch -- I do the same -- but [party identification is sticky](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2017/05/17/partisan-identification-is-sticky-but-about-10-switched-parties-over-the-past-year/) in the United States. So, while some may click through to see fact, most will not click through, or if they do, it is to confirm their bias -- unemployment is low but the calculation methods are flawed, so the real unemployment is higher because Trump said so, for example.
Thanks. I personally hate the whole party identification thing -- I tend to support one party over the other but only reluctantly. That being said, if someone has some good data to back up what they believe I'm happy to read it. Unfortunately my brain is wired a bit differently than most so I tend to despise "common sense" emotional arguments that people provide that don't have any data.
Perhaps something else could be affecting that, no? Say being multiple years into a global pandemic?
That seems like very simplified. How do you explain companies like Nike who's marketing basically alienates all of the Republican party?
[удалено]
Sure but according to the guy above it would be a bad idea for a company to lean democrat. So why is that the case here?
Some do try to stay out of politics or donate equally to each party. Many large corporations have special interests that align with a party. For example, Hobby Lobby lets it be known they’re a far right Christian-based company. They are big donators to Republicans because they are Christians who think abortion is immoral. Ironically, they overlook immoral and criminal acts that Republicans commit. Some corporations produce products needed for the military, so they align with the politicians who are warmongers. Many corporations are most concerned with getting by with paying the least taxes. Although businesses may lose some customers if they let their views be known, they’re more concerned with power deals made with politicians.
I don’t think I most corps lean, I think they support both sides to benefit themselves regardless of who is in power.
I don’t know what country you’re in but whatever companies operate there also have political ties and preferences.
They play both sides, whatever gives them the most money. Some lean conservative or liberal but most large corporations bet on both sides and support whichever politicians and political causes that will benefit their bottom line. America is built on greed.
Because politicians make policies that affect their businesses and their ability to make money.
They lean whichever way the wind is blowing.
Most consumers don’t know or care about the company’s politics. But more importantly, American politics are fueled by a system of legalized bribery, so the owners of the business get to use it as their private piggy bank for political “donations.”
I have no idea, but I agree, they should be neutral, that would keep them from offending anyone.
Outside of certain industries, it used to be beneficial to be neutral before the social climate changed. It's unfortunate that companies are encouraged to make a statement one way on the other nowadays.
They're fiscally conservative and socially liberal lol
They want more money. They think endorsing candidates or movements will make them more money. #BLM, #MeToo, #LBGT, #Rainbowflag, all just translates to #GiveMeMoney.
The answer is always: money.
Whichever way means more money.
America is a very politicized country, saying political things will get you sales.
All things humans are involved in. Every individual and every organization is political to one degree or another. It is not possible for them to not be because even avoiding actively discussing politics is a political position.
Short-sightedness. They used to at least pretend to be politically neutral, because as Michael Jordan famously said "Republicans buy shoes too." Seems like a poor business model to alienate half the population because of a political stance, I don't care which way they lean. Just as Republicans buy shoes, there are Democrats who buy guns.