Uncowed by Target backlash, 3M jumps into political donation game

On Sept. 10, Minnesota-based corporation 3M contributed $100,000 to MN Forward, an independent expenditure organization that has taken in large sums of money from numerous Minnesota corporations, including Target, Best Buy, Holiday gas stations and Red Wing Shoes. A number of other corporations also donated to MN Forward in the last finance reporting period, but 3M contributed the largest sum in becoming the highest profile company to add their name to MN Forward’s roster.

MN Forward has run an expensive advertising campaign supporting Republican Tom Emmer and opposing Democrat Mark Dayton in Minnesota’s gubernatorial campaign. When Target’s contribution to the group became public knowledge, liberal organizations quickly organized a boycott of the big-box store. Progressives criticized Target for providing support for Emmer — a candidate who opposes LGBT equality and has been tied to You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, a Christian rock band with vehemently homophobic views. Liberal groups’ efforts against Target proved largely successful, discouraging many new corporations from making political contributions after the August primary. But these same groups have been slow to organize a response to 3M’s donation, sending a message to Minnesota’s businesses that they are once again free to engage in such political expenditures with little fear of public backlash as the campaign season heads into the final stretch.

3M describes itself as “fundamentally a science-based company. We produce thousands of imaginative products, and we’re a leader in scores of markets — from health care and highway safety to office products and abrasives and adhesives.” Most consumers would recognize the brand for Post-it Notes and Scotch Tape, though the company earns significant funds from industrial products such as abrasives and adhesives.

In their business practices, 3M has a strong record of supporting LGBT rights. The company receives 100-percent ratings on the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) Corporate Equality Index and a perfect rating on the HRC’s Buying for Equality guide. Target and Best Buy both received similarly high marks prior to their donation to MN Forward, which was part of the reason LGBT-rights groups were so shocked by the political contribution. As part of the fallout from those donations, the HRC plans to drop both Best Buy and Target from their buying guide.

“[Target's donation] was significant because they have been such a leader, both in their workplace and how they treat their employees and also supporting so many different events,” said Monica Meyer, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, a LGBT-rights group that played an early role in the protests against Target’s contributions. “3M also has been out there as well, being supportive of their employees, offering domestic partner benefits. They also have a presence at the HRC dinner, and they have a presence at [Twin Cities] Pride. Obviously we really support good corporate values that really stand up for fairness and equality for all people, and by contributing to the campaigns in this way… it’s basically letting consumers know that their dollars are going for something that they may or may not agree with.”

3M’s donation only became public through campaign finance disclosures last Wednesday, but so far, response from progressive organizations has been muted compared to the reaction against Target’s donation. Some have called for boycotts, and a petition was started on Change.org, though it has only garnered around 200 signatures at the time this article was posted. The two organizations at the forefront of the Target boycott — MoveOn.org and the HRC — have remained largely mute on the further corporate donations to MN Forward. A spokesperson for the HRC said the organization reached out to 3M to inquire about the donation; HRC declined to comment until 3M responds. MoveOn did not respond to the Minnesota Independent’s request for comment.

Like Target before it, 3M claims that the decision to become engaged in politics was about supporting sound business policy in general, rather than a specific candidate’s platform, let alone social issues.

“That donation is about advancing public policy that will foster a more competitive business environment,” a 3M spokesperson told the Minnesota Independent. The company declined to elaborate further on the motivation for the contribution, and would not say if they were directly supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Emmer. But a quick glance at MN Forward’s expenditure records reveals that any contribution to MN Forward essentially serves as a donation to Emmer rather than support for general “business policy.” Over 95 percent of MN Forward’s campaign spending has been devoted to Minnesota’s gubernatorial campaign, with only minimal amounts directed at lower ballot races.

“They say they’re supporting candidates that have a strong business interest, but really what is that? I think that many would argue that all three candidates can be considered strong on business issues. What it appears to be is that they are concerned about one particular issue, and that is lower taxes for themselves,” said Mike Dean of Common Cause Minnesota. “My larger concern is that that is not what they’re trying to do, to create a strong business climate. They’re trying to buy influence. When corporations give this type of money, they’re trying to get something in return, and many of them called it an ‘investment.’ When you make an investment, you expect to make a return on that investment.”

Dean noted that 3M, like many local businesses, has interests that will likely come before the next governor and legislature.

“Some of their [3M's] practices have been scrutinized in terms of how they handle, basically how they manufacture products and chemicals that they’re putting into the environment, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has a role in overseeing that process,” Dean said. “My concern is that by giving this, are they hoping that the next governor will look the other way when it comes to these type of political contributions?”

Though 3M’s donation represents a significant sum in the gubernatorial campaign, the protests against Target appear to have made corporations at least hesitate before donating.

“We did not see that many new corporations get into the fold,” Dean said. “At least big corporations [did not give] at all. And a lot of the new money was a lot smaller. One of the key things is that after the controversy regarding Target’s donation, I really think that corporations are thinking twice about whether they want to get involved in this arena because of the backlash they can experience from both customers and shareholders. They’re realizing it is not in their best interest as good corporate citizens to get involved in this arena at all and get into the business of trying to buy or influence elections.”

With less corporate money affecting the election, national organizations will play an increasingly important role in campaign funding. The Republican Governors Association (RGA) has funneled money through a group called Minnesota’s Future in order to run ads attacking Mark Dayton. The national organization has poured almost half a million dollars into the independent expenditure group, allowing the RGA to essentially spend money freely without the ads identifying the true source of the funding.

That type of spending is not solely contained on the Republican side. The Democratic Governors Association (DGA) contributed $250,000 to WIN Minnesota, an organization which has in turn sent significant sums to the independent expenditure committee Alliance for a Better Minnesota (ABM). That group that has then poured money into ads attacking Emmer. But both WIN Minnesota and ABM have drawn their funds from a wide number of sources beyond just the DGA, while Minnesota’s Future has the appearance of a front organization, with almost every dollar of their expenditures funded by the RGA.

Socially conservative institutions are also heavily investing in Emmer’s election. The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) — a conservative group that runs numerous state campaigns opposing same-sex marriage — has already produced two television ads and one radio spot for the gubernatorial campaign. The group has skirted through loopholes in Minnesota’s campaign finance laws, so unlike the groups discussed previously, NOM’s campaign spending and fundraising remains largely a mystery. However, a recent investigation by sister publication The Washington Independent revealed that the Catholic organization The Knights of Columbus contributed $1.4 million to NOM in 2009, and many have long speculated that Mormon groups provided a substantial portion of NOM’s funding for their campaign against California’s Proposition 8, a referendum on same-sex marriage.

In spite of the fact that corporations appeared more hesitant to make political donations during the last reporting period, Dean predicts that there may be an influx of corporate spending as Election Day approaches. “As we get closer to the election, I think there is going to be even more pressure placed on corporations to get involved, because they’ve already sort of put their chips in on one candidate,” Dean said. “If we see this race continue to stay tight, or get tighter, than I think you’re going to see them [corporations] say, ‘Hey, we’ve already invested this much, in order to get the true return on our investment we need to put even more money down on the table here.’”

Whether Dean’s vision comes true will largely depend on the level of public pressure placed on the new corporate contributors. If LGBT and other progressive organizations rally against 3M, it will likely discourage further donations from companies who must directly sell their products to consumers. But unlike Target, 3M is a difficult institution to organize a boycott against. Whereas Target’s retail locations provided easy photo opportunities for groups to protest around or make viral videos inside stores, it is significantly more difficult to host a rally just inside the Post-it aisle of a Wal-Mart. Even then, 3M is far less reliant on their consumer divisions, so progressive organizations would have to get businesses that use 3M products to buy into a boycott.

With any large protest against 3M looking unlikely, other corporations may very well notice a landscape where they are free to contribute funds to political campaigns without experiencing the backlash faced by Target.

Patrick Caldwell is the American Independent’s Minnesota correspondent.