Some stores just give off a vibe—that certain universal gut feeling that earns them their reputation.

The way walking into a Walmart can make you feel like you must be going home to a trailer or entering a Hot Topic makes you feel like a poser teenager, there’s just something about the atmosphere at Urban Outfitters that successfully instills you with the urban hipster chic vibe.

One vibe you aren’t likely to get from Urban Outfitters though, is the conservative Republican vibe.

Despite the clothing chains largely liberal client base, Urban Outfitters’ founder and president Richard Hayne is actually a conservative who has donated large sums to Republican campaigns.

Urban Outfitters isn’t the only company faithful customers may be surprised to learn is generous with right-wing donations. Other companies that market themselves to a young, hip, probably liberal demographic such as Pepsi Cola and Verizon Communications, are also big-time donors to the Republican Party.

Pepsi, whose ads regularly feature the hottest stars de jour, is owned by parent company 3M and was a big soft money donator to the Republican party prior to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Between 1999 and 2000 alone, the Pepsi company donated $397,000 to various Republican party organizations. In comparison, Pepsi gave just $80,000 to Democratic Party organizations.

Verizon Communications, a company that, unlike many cell phone providers, rarely emphasizes family plans in its advertisements, donated $1,218,906 to the Republican Party in 2002 and more than $900,000 in 2000. Though Verizon’s Republican donations fell short of family-oriented rival AT&T both years, subscribers to the service provider who focuses on having the sleekest phones and caters its ads to an urban twenty-something crowd, probably wouldn’t expect the conservative bias from the company’s higher-ups.

With the passage of BCRA, large corporate sponsorship on behalf of political parties has greatly decreased, since the act closed many of the loopholes that allowed for so-called “soft money.” The difference between “hard” and “soft” money is regulation: namely, the uses of hard money are regulated while the use of soft money was not. That is, while there are set guidelines regarding hard money (such as how much can be donated per group or individual and for what it can be used), soft money was generally used under the generic umbrella of “party building” or “get out the vote,” rather than officially for the support of a specific candidate.

As a result, great amounts of soft money was used to fund “issue” commercials and ad campaigns that only differed from the candidate’s official campaign advertisements in that the candidate’s name was not specifically mentioned. Often these ads would, in indirect but obvious ways, bash the opponents or praise party candidates.

The effects of BCRA were felt in 2004, when major corporations suddenly represented considerably fewer of the Republican Party’s top 20 contributors. In 2002, the last year before BCRA went into full swing, companies Philip Morris, Microsoft Corp, AT&T, and Verizon Communications made the list.

Though it may not be surprising to find that a company like Philip Morris backs the Republican party, hearty conservative donations companies like Verizon, Pepsi and Urban Outfitters that cater themselves to a young, “hip” crowd may come as more of a shock. It’s doubtful that these company’s young, liberal-minded customers would appreciate the irony of their supporting the very things they think they’re rebelling against.