retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The New York Times has the story about how the In-N-Out hamburger chain is facing the threat of a boycott because the company donated $25,000 to the California Republican party.

It is not the first time that In-N-Out, a company with conservative and religious leanings, has donated to the GOP. But, the company points out, it also has given to California Democrats.

Apparently Eric Bauman, chairman of the California Democratic Party, either didn’t know or didn’t care about those donations, because when he saw a reference in the news to the chain’s donation to the Republicans, he went on social media and called for a boycott.

There is no evidence to this point that sympathetic Democrats are willing to give up their In-N-Out burgers, though some Republicans have taken advantage of the moment to call for people to patronize In-N-Out as a way of showing support.

Arnie Wensinger, the chain’s executive vice president, said in a statement that “while it is unfortunate that our contributions to support both political parties in California has caused concern with some groups, we believe that bipartisan support is a fair and consistent approach that best serves the interests of our company and all of our Customers.”
KC's View:
Personally, I think the word “boycott” gets thrown around a little too easily. I’m happy not to patronize businesses that I feel are hostile to what I think of as basic, fundamental values. But a fast food chain that gives to both parties because it wants to be heard at all legislative levels …? That doesn’t rise to the boycott level for me.

The real problem is that you have to donate money to political parties in order to be heard.

(Plus, I’m not sure what In-N-Out would have to do in order for me to swear off In-N-Out…)