As much money as I've spent over the years on "cruelty-free" cosmetics and household cleaning supplies, I've never felt the need to send any donations to PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). I'm just not a fan of sensational PR stunts or near-hysterical rhetoric. (Meat is murder? Really? Odd, but most murders aren't committed with the intent of eating the victim. It's one thing to oppose factory farming--on top of baby veal and foie gras--but seriously...)
But my estimation of the organization--from a tactical standpoint, anyway--went up this morning when I read that they had switched from protesting Talbot's clothing stores to buying its stock. (Warning: photo in link somewhat graphic in nature.) The only other advocacy organization--that I know of, anyway--that works from an ownership angle is The Nature Conservancy.
For the sake of the notion of ownership advocacy, I hope that this is the warning shot across the proverbial bow to the mountaintop miners, the groundwater poisoners, the financiers of terrorist tactics throughout the un(der)-developed world, and the rest of the rogues' gallery.
And I can't help but wonder whether, in the long run, it's cheaper to simply buy a stake in the company/industry whose behavior you're trying to correct. Because for every dollar you--meaning the rabble-rouser-- spend on lobbying, the entrenched interests can likely spend ten, a hundred, or even thousands. But when you buy enough shares to allow you into the gated community that is the annual shareholder's meeting, you've effectively become a saboteur behind enemy lines.
That's power. Shouting from the outside can be ignored, but dead Presidents talk. When stocks are publicly-traded, anyone with enough Green Georges can buy their way into the country club and make life uncomfortable for the Judge Smailses of this world.
