Anti-Prop. 8 campaign gets a boost from Apple
Apple Inc. said Friday that it was donating $100,000 to fight the proposed ban on same-sex marriages in California, taking a rare political stand that may win over some customers and irk others.
The computer and gadget maker joined such companies as Google Inc., Qualcomm Inc. and Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in declaring opposition to Proposition 8, which would define marriage as only between a man and woman.
“We strongly believe that a person’s fundamental rights -- including the right to marry -- should not be affected by their sexual orientation,” Apple said.
Wading into a social issue with a six-figure donation is unusual and risky for a company that sells goods primarily to consumers, according to marketing and corporate governance experts. Although Apple has long pitched itself as a counterculture brand, products such as the iPod and iPhone have brought it into the mainstream.
James Klein, a designer and writer in Newport Beach who uses many Apple products, cheered the company’s stance. “It makes me feel so much better about the company I purchase from,” he said.
But Apple’s decision could drive away some potential customers who disapprove of same-sex marriage, said Peter Sealey, adjunct professor of marketing at the Peter Drucker Graduate School of Management at Claremont Graduate University and former head of marketing at Coca-Cola. Sealey said he personally opposes Proposition 8 but thinks Apple’s decision was “wrongheaded.”
“It will hurt shareholders of Apple,” he said. “People will not buy a Mac because of this decision.”
In a statement, the Cupertino, Calif., company said it saw same-sex marriage as a “civil rights issue” for its employees, not just a political one. Apple noted that it had been one of the first California companies to offer equal rights and benefits to its workers’ same-sex partners.
So far, the largest big-name corporate donor to the No on 8 campaign appears to be PG&E;, which gave $250,000 in July. Qualcomm, a San Diego-based maker of wireless chips, this month gave $5,000.
Google declared its opposition to Proposition 8 in September but has not given a corporate donation to fight the measure. Founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin recently gave $40,000 and $100,000, respectively, to the No on 8 campaign.
“It is extraordinarily rare for companies to do that,” said Steve Smith, a campaign consultant for No on 8. “It’s a bold step on their part. We’ve seen companies with strong anti-discrimination workplaces jump into this.”
Some supporters of Proposition 8 have said they would protest businesses that actively oppose the measure unless they make similar donations to Protect Marriage, the group trying to overturn the California Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriages.
Supporters of the initiative have sent letters to 100 businesses or organizations, saying they would publicize their contributions unless they give to Protect Marriage, said Sonja Eddings Brown, deputy communications director for the Yes on 8 campaign.
“Our campaign is a campaign of the people,” Brown said. “We knew we would never be able to compete with the large corporations and Hollywood. We represent the families. We are standing up and pushing back with everything we have.”
Corporations frequently donate to political causes that directly affect their bottom lines. Though Apple’s contribution is just a fraction of the $23 billion in cash the company holds, its shareholders may cry foul about putting corporate funds toward social issues.
“I’m surprised a company would spend shareholder funds for something not related to Apple,” said Charles Elson, chair of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.
But some companies signal to investors that they are inclined to take stands, and Apple is one of them, said Tom Campbell, former dean of the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley and a former Republican congressman.
Given its past support for same-sex partner benefits, Campbell said, “it’s not surprising or inappropriate for Apple to take the position it has.”
“If the company makes clear to shareholders that [it] will from time to time take positions, any potential conflict is resolved,” he said.
--
