I read this three times and it still doesn't make any sense to me. It comes across as being really tambiguous.
So they donated money to a Political Committee, though it's not made clear what the relationship between said entity and the potential Governor. Likewise, it's not clear what exactly connects the candidate to the band which allegedly advocates violence and frankly, that's a really tenuous accusation regardless. I don't feel like I understand anything being supported or opposed here at all.
After a little looking, it appears that the link to the band is a $250 donation from a previous campaign to be elected to the House of Representatives in 2008. The money was donated by his campaign and not him personally to You Can Run But You Cannot Hide Intl. Inc., a ministry run by a guy called Bradlee Dean. Dean plays in a Christian rock band but the comments supporting killing reportedly come from a radio programme he presents and that Emmer previously appeared on. I was actually surprised the link was something as concrete as a donation, since it is presented so ambiguously.
Here's the article I got most of that information from.As for the organisation Target and Best Buy donated to, they used the money to make and run adverts supporting Emmer's campaign.
You can see it here. The organisation claims to support pro-business candidates but it will have been clear to anyone donating this meant Republican candidates, and they will have known who the Republican candidate is. Donating to a group like that instead of to a candidate directly serves two main functions. One is to distance the donor from any unpalatable policies or failures by the candidate. The other is to influence the candidate and the wider debate by pushing the issues the donor finds important, seemingly tax cuts and reduced government expenditure in this case.
It is actually less tangential than that makes it out to be - I believe the man in question is called Emmer, and he opposes gay marriage (ultra conservative). It does seem an overreaction though. I mean, every multi-store retail brand has some shady moral issues, why pick this one?
It appears that fairly recently US corporations had their legal rights extended so that they can make political contributions in the same manner private individuals can, since in law they enjoy most of the rights and few of the responsibilities of people. A lot of the reports I've read have been focussed on this, they seem to be looking at this instance to see how political finance might be changing after the law change and that explains some of the interest in this particular bit of unpleasantness. There are also a lot of surprised people who thought Target were a nice corporation since they have played up their equality in employment policies. You're right that they shouldn't be shocked that a corporation is acting like a corporation. I don't think overreaction is quite right though, since although their actions should be expected it doesn't make them any less appalling.
