The outdoor industry has a long history of political engagement. Over the years, countless brands have thrown their influence (and dollars) behind causes like climate protection and the conservation of public lands. Until 2018, however, no company had gone so far as to endorse a political candidate by name. In the last midterm election, Patagonia聽expressed its support for candidates running for federal office in Montana and Nevada, a move that drew praise from some corners and criticism from others.
With November’s presidential contest just around the corner, we felt the question merited revisiting. We asked聽two of the industry’s biggest powerhouses鈥擱EI and Patagonia鈥攚here they stand on the issue of endorsing candidates for public office. These are their responses.
Patagonia’s Stance
Yes. We support candidates who support the home planet.
From Patagonia鈥檚 first catalog essay about clean climbing, published in 1972, to our most recent film, 鈥淧ublic Trust,鈥 we have worked to foster an honest and direct conversation with our community about the value of wild places. These conversations are guided by an important rule: We always communicate as friends and equals.
It was with these principles in mind that, in 2018, we decided to do something no large outdoor company had ever done before. Ahead of the midterm elections鈥攁nd with our name and label front and center鈥攚e endorsed candidates running for federal office in Montana and Nevada. We wanted to make it clear to voters in those states who we thought would best champion public lands in the U.S. Senate.
These endorsements were neither supported by dark money nor intended to turn the Senate blue. Instead, they were about continuing a conversation we started 48 years ago. They were about naming candidates who would protect America鈥檚 鈥渂est idea.鈥 As our founder Yvon Chouinard put it in a letter to members of 1 percent for the Planet this April, 鈥淩emember, vote the assholes out鈥攁ll of those politicians who don鈥檛 believe we should do anything about climate change. Vote for the planet and against those who would do nothing.鈥
Patagonia鈥檚 mission statement is: We鈥檙e in business to save our home planet. We see an important opportunity for protecting our planet by making our position crystal clear on who we think will champion clean air over reckless profits, wild rivers over greenhouse gas-emitting dams, public lands over mines and wells, and a regenerative organic food system over industrial, chemical-intensive factory agriculture.
In the end, we think our friends want to know.
鈥擟orley Kenna, Patagonia director of global communications and public relations
REI’s Stance
No. It’s not our job to pick candidates.
For decades, REI Co-op has believed in the power of engaging and partnering with lawmakers on issues affecting the outdoors. We鈥檝e also deliberately chosen not to engage in individual campaigns for public office.
This approach has roots in the co-op structure that is core to who we are. We align business, member, employee, and social goals, all to awaken a lifelong love of the outdoors. This commitment to shared purpose鈥攂uilding bridges rather than widening political divides鈥攊s central to our co-operative business model.
Individual campaigns for office are inherently multi-faceted. Candidates鈥 campaigns compel strong positions on the environment, individual liberty, gender and racial equality, healthcare, character, and more. For REI, it鈥檚 natural to engage on outdoor issues. Yet we ultimately serve our member-owners, a community of 19 million with a breadth of perspectives and beliefs well beyond the outdoors.
We鈥檙e committed to championing and acting in accordance with our values, but we don鈥檛 see the role of the business as taking 鈥渟ides鈥 around individual candidates. Recent court decisions may make it easier for corporations to influence campaigns, but that doesn鈥檛 mean it鈥檚 a good thing. We celebrate informed voting but believe it鈥檚 better for individuals, not companies, to choose their candidates
鈥擬arc Berejka, REI Co-op director of government and community affairs