Natural Foods, a midsize chain of organic grocery stores, has chosen to donate to a super PAC that plans to fund ads promoting political candidates with strong pro-business platforms. When one of those candidates takes a controversial stance against gay marriage and news of the company's connection to him is exposed, customers and employees stage protests and ask the company to reconsider its policy on campaign contributions. One board member urges the CEO to get out of politics completely, but the head of government relations believes that the company just needs to be more strategic about how it makes political donations. Can the company have the political influence it needs without making campaign contributions? With commentary from Ken Cohen, the vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil, and John Harrington, the president and CEO of Harrington Investments.

Natural Foods, a midsize chain of organic grocery stores, has chosen to donate to a super PAC that plans to fund ads promoting political candidates with strong pro-business platforms. When one of those candidates takes a controversial stance against gay marriage and news of the company's connection to him is exposed, customers and employees stage protests and ask the company to reconsider its policy on campaign contributions. One board member urges the CEO to get out of politics completely, but the head of government relations believes that the company just needs to be more strategic about how it makes political donations. Can the company have the political influence it needs without making campaign contributions? With commentary from Ken Cohen, the vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil, and John Harrington, the president and CEO of Harrington Investments.

Natural Foods, a midsize chain of organic grocery stores, has chosen to donate to a super PAC that plans to fund ads promoting political candidates with strong pro-business platforms. When one of those candidates takes a controversial stance against gay marriage and news of the company's connection to him is exposed, customers and employees stage protests and ask the company to reconsider its policy on campaign contributions. One board member urges the CEO to get out of politics completely, but the head of government relations believes that the company just needs to be more strategic about how it makes political donations. Can the company have the political influence it needs without making campaign contributions? With commentary from Ken Cohen, the vice president of public and government affairs for Exxon Mobil, and John Harrington, the president and CEO of Harrington Investments.

The focus of the case is on understanding firms' campaign contributions and lobbying strategies - and their limits. The case centers on controversy facing Target Corporation in 2010. In the wake of the Citizens United decision, Target was one of the first companies to take advantage of their newly acquired freedom to use corporate treasury money (rather than money in a corporate-linked PAC) to make a contribution to an independent expenditure committee (aka "Super PAC"). The company decided to make a donation to Minnesota Forward, a political action committee that had the primary goal of supporting job creation within the state. Pro-gay rights activists discovered that Minnesota Forward primarily backed Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, who had previously supported traditional marriage. After this, Target, despite its liberal and socially responsible positioning, was subject to harsh criticism and activist protests as its donation was viewed as a contradiction to its social policies. The events put CEO Gregg Steinhafel in a position to revisit the company's policies towards political activities. Should there be constraints on what the firm would do on the political front? If so, what should those be?

The El Coyote Mexican Caf�, more commonly known as �El Coyote,� is a family owned restaurant located in Los Angeles, California. The restaurant faced criticism from pro-gay rights activists after the manager, and daughter of the owner, made a personal donation to support California Ballot Proposition 8, which activists associated with the restaurant rather than the individual. The case transpires over an eight-day period from November 4, 2008, which was the election day when the ballot proposition passed, to November 12, 2008 which was when the manager held an open breakfast at El Coyote to publicly discuss the issue.The central tension in the case revolves around how the manager�s donation to support a measure that legally defines marriage as �between a man and a woman� has garnered the restaurant with unwanted attention despite being a personal contribution separate from and not endorsed by the business. The goal of the case is to challenge students to think about tensions firms face in managing the external environment of their businesses in the face of both: (i) campaign finance and election issues; and, (ii) activists who may not understand all of the underlying facts.

This article offers two integrated strategies managers can use in the face of environmental regulatory uncertainty. As integrated strategies, they both recognize non-market forces while taking into account market realities. Advocating for pragmatic, progressive policies enables firms to shape future policy around existing environmental strengths; this strategy raises competitors' costs when competitors have yet to develop identical competencies. Systematically embracing advancing regulation enables firms to satisfy activists who are pressuring policymakers to force firms to conform to higher environmental standards in other jurisdictions; this strategy allows managers to adapt to coming regulation at their own pace while leveraging market competencies. This article presents four case studies that highlight how some firms have implemented these strategies, and why some have been successful at mitigating regulatory uncertainty and some have not.