A study released today ranked the top 100 S&P companies on how well they disclose their political activities, finding that many companies are moving towards adoption of disclosure policies, although others, such as 3M, are being left behind.

The ability for corporations to spend huge amounts of cash on elections without disclosure arose with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. The first high-profile example of citizen discontent with corporate influence on the political system came when Target gave $150,000 to a business association backing the gubernatorial bid of Tom Emmer, who opposes same-sex marriage. The backlash provoked many companies to take a second look at their political disclosure and spending policies.

The study was done by the Wharton Center for Business Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania and the Center for Political Accountability. It ranked the top 100 S&P companies based on their policies involving disclosure of contributions, independent expenditures, payments to trade associations and other tax-exempt groups and payments to ballot measure committees. I also took into account whether a company publicly archived spending reports and their level of board oversight over political involvement.

Fourteen national companies received a score of zero, meaning they offered little to no disclosure of their political activity. Those companies include Berkshire Hathaway, Walt Disney and Halliburton.

On the other side of the scale, Merck, IBM and Exelon all offered very good disclosure policies (the full ranking is at the bottom of this post).

Minnesota companies ranked for political transparency

For Minnesota companies, US Bancorp ranked at the top of the pack for transparency and disclosure. US Bancorp voluntarily reported dues paid to trade associations that fund lobbying in 2010 at more than $700,000, according to the Sunlight Foundation. There’s no legal requirement to disclose those sort of dues.

Statement on political involvement from the company’s website:

“U.S. Bancorp does not make contributions to other political actions organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code or to special interest lobbying groups organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code, even when legally permissible.”

3M came in at the bottom of the ranking, offering little disclosure to the public or stockholders of the company’s political activities. 3M also consistently involved itself in state ballot measures, from attempts to limit people’s rights to sue companies to Minnesota’s transportation amendment, according to the Center for Political Accountability:

“In 2002, it contributed $10,000 to the committee Yes on 64 Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits, which was formed in support of a successful proposition to create certain limitations on an individual’s right to sue a company because of unfair business practices. In 2006, the company contributed $5000 to Governor Schwarzenegger’s California Recovery Team, which supported an unsuccessful proposition to increase from two to five complete years the amount of time public school teachers must wait to become permanent employees.”

Neither shareholders nor the public has access to the full amount of money 3M pays to trade associations that then lobby on the company’s behalf.

Target, which served as an example for what could go wrong when corporations try to influence politics, is ranked in the middle of the study. Target has no policy on independent expenditures, but doesn’t allow dues for trade associations to be used for political purposes.

Source: Center for Political Accountability

As Congress draws nearer to considering three new free trade agreements, union members are putting pressure on their congressional representatives to oppose them, arguing that they’d cost the state more manufacturing jobs, even as corporate supporters see new hope for quick passage.

Laura Askelin, president of the Southeast Minnesota Labor Council, said members of her union have been writing letters to the editor and organizing rallies to urge lawmakers to oppose the free trade agreements in Panama, Colombia and Korea. These local mobilizations are part of the AFL-CIO’s nationwide push against the agreements.

“Jobs are shipping oversees, and we’re not getting jobs here because of the trade deals,” Askelin told the Minnesota Independent. “We’re definitely feeling it here in rural Minnesota.”

Minnesota has lost about 90,000 manufacturing jobs in the last decade, according to the Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal. At least 13,700 Minnesota manufacturing jobs were lost because of NAFTA, according to an Economic Policy Institute (EPI) study this year.

The United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement, signed in June 2007 but not yet approved by Congress, is the biggest of the three trade deals. The Office of the United States Trade Representative describes it as the “most commercially significant free trade agreement in more than 16 years.” President Barack Obama calls the deal a “win” for American workers.

Although a study from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) projected that the United States would win out slightly in the trade deficit with Korea due to the Korea Free Trade Agreement, an EPI study last year found the deal could cost about 159,000 American jobs.

The U.S. Department of Commerce has said the Korea deal would add more than $10 billion to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, which an April Commerce statement said would lead to the creation of tens of thousands of American jobs.

Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota’s First Congressional District, who opposes the Colombia and Panama trade agreements, has been contacted by members of Askelin’s union. Walz’s spokesperson, Sarah Severs, said the congressman is still waiting to see the final form taken by the Korea agreement before he makes a decision.

“He feels that potential exists, but he hasn’t taken a position on it yet because he’s still waiting to see how it comes up,” Severs told the Minnesota Independent. “There have certainly been trade deals brokered in the past that have had a negative impact, and that is the result of poorly brokered deals.”

Severs said Walz is concerned about potential job losses, but also wants to help open borders to Minnesota manufacturers. He’s currently talking to all concerned parties, Severs said.

Republican Rep. Erik Paulsen of Minnesota has been a vocal advocate of the trade deal. Other members of the Minnesota congressional delegation have yet to take sides.

While unions like the AFL-CIO are pushing against the Korea Free Trade Agreement, hundreds of corporations are pulling for it in the U.S.-Korea FTA Business Coalition, which includes Minnesota companies like Target and 3M. The Huffington Post also points to a number of other groups that are lobbying for the agreement, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the Business Roundtable, the Financial Services Roundtable and the Retail Industry Leadership Association.

The free trade agreements have been delayed by the debt ceiling debate at the Capitol. They aren’t expected to be introduced until after the August congressional recess, although supporters of the agreements are hopeful of earlier passage as Senate Republicans throw their weight behind the trade deals.

For decades, 3M has manufactured perfluorochemicals, or PFCs, in the broader Twin Cities area. The chemicals, used in a variety of 3M products, including fire retardants and paint, have left a toxic legacy: contamination of drinking wells and the Mississippi River. That pollution, at issue in a recently filed state lawsuit, is drawing attention to the broader impacts of industry in the area: One community group is asking the state Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to take into account the total effect of industrial pollution on community health as Minnesota revises several of 3M’s environmental permits.

“The problem with the regulatory process is it looks at air, it looks at water, and it looks at solid waste separately,” said Alan Muller, a former chemical industry consultant, in an interview with the Minnesota Independent. “And even with those categories, the permits are done within individual facilities, and they don’t really look at the cumulative impacts.”

Muller is working with the Coalition of Concerned Cottage Grove Citizens (CoCCGC), a group that opposes 3M’s plans to import waste for an incinerator in the town. The incinerator provides power to the company, but historically has used only waste generated on site. 3M and the mayor say that bringing in the waste would not add more pollution to the air, but CoCCGC member Brian Quinnell said his group firmly opposes the idea.

“We kind of look at it and say, you know, any increase in pollution of the community is unacceptable,” he said. “I don’t care if it’s within the tolerance of the PCA.”

The PCA has not yet issued the draft permit to burn the imported waste but Myron Bailey, mayor of Cottage Grove, a community southeast of St. Paul, says that the incinerator will continue to be “a clean-running process” and that the community concerns have simply spilled over from worries about 3M’s former, unlined PFC dump in Woodbury. Although 3M phased out the use of PFCs in 2002, the state alleges in a new lawsuit that groundwater pollution from the dump continues to impact drinking water and the Mississippi River.

“As a result of the injury caused by 3M to the state’s natural resources by the discharge of PFCs into the environment, the state and its citizens face substantial costs to provide alternative sources of groundwater for domestic and other uses and to restore surface waters for the full use and enjoyment of the public,” according to the complaint filed Dec. 30 by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson.

But Bill Nelson, a spokesperson for 3M, said the clean-up is working.

“In terms of managing PFCs in the environment, it is happening,” said Nelson. “So the lawsuit is not needed.”

But the mayor says that even though 3M is pumping water out of the ground in Woodbury, piping the water to Cottage Grove for treatment, and then discharging it into the river, the groundwater in Woodbury is still heavily contaminated.

“People don’t trust 3M right now because of what happened with the water,” Bailey said in an interview. “And they say, ‘How many years from now will we find out that what was burning in the incinerator is poison for us?’”

But Nelson says that importing waste is only necessary due to the “environmental achievements” of the company in its own use of high-energy solvents. And he says that 3M agreed to install air monitoring equipment, set a cap on the volume of solvent that can be imported, and refrain from operating the facility as a commercial incinerator.

“There are citizens in the community that have opposed this from day one,” Nelson told the Minnesota Independent, adding their concern isn’t based on facts. “It’s based on spreading fear in the community.”

Quinnell said he was dissatisfied with the promises 3M has made, particularly in regard to the monitoring. His group wanted the company to monitor the air that comes directly out of the smokestack, rather than at a spot adjacent to the facility. And he sees 3M’s resistance to cleaning up the drinking water as evidence that the company no longer cares about the community.

“It was a great plce to work, you know, your dad worked there and your mom worked there, and you wanted to work there and retire there,” he said. “3M has become a global enterprise and there’s no loyalty to the community anymore. It’s about the bottom line.”

The level of contamination in the city’s drinking water system lies below health-based standards, meaning it is considered safe despite the presence of PFCs. But the mayor argues that 3M should go beyond what the law requires and pay to install a system to filter out the residual contamination, a step that 3M doesn’t intend to take.

The cost of two treatment facilities for the city supply would reach $112 million. In addition, pipes to the outlying Langdon and River Acres area would cost $1.2 million and $6 million, respectively, and yearly maintenance of the facilities would cost roughly $12 million per year. The costs are based on the type of carbon-filtration technology used in Lake Elmo, another Twin Cities area town impacted by the company.

“We’re asking 3M to be a good steward of the community and help us make the citizens of Cottage Grove feel safe about their drinking water,” Bailey said. “And the way to do that would be to create a water treatment system that takes PFCs out of the water.”

In a parallel process, the state on Jan. 3 announced it is revising 3M’s permits for releasing water into the river from its Cottage Grove facility. The PCA said that an area downstream from the plant is contaminated by a type of PFC known as perfluorooctanoic sulfonate and that the new permit, if finalized, would keep the company’s water releases from impairing the Mississippi even further. Mayor Bailey agreed that the draft permit is extremely stringent.

“The water that’s going into the Mississippi will be cleaner than the water we’re drinking, which is really crazy when you think about it,” he said.

The PCA will hold a public information meeting on the river discharge permit at 6pm on Jan. 26, at the Washington County South Service Center in Cottage Grove.

TCF Bank is one of the largest corporate contributors to independent expenditure committees in Minnesota this election cycle. The financial institution gave $250,000 to the State Fund for Economic Growth, LLC, which in turn gave money to MN Forward and the Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota, a group engaged in a lawsuit to strike down portions of Minnesota’s campaign finance disclosure laws. The arrangement has largely shielded TCF from scrutiny of the kind Target and Best Buy have received for their political contributions, and while it appears to be legal, watchdog groups wonder if its an effort to avoid transparency.

TCF gave the State Fund for Economic Growth (SFEG) $100,050 on Aug. 2 and another $150,000 on Sept. 19. Combined, the two donations make for one of the largest corporate expenditures this cycle. SFEG then directed $100,000 to MN Forward, a group that backs Republican Tom Emmer for governor, and $50,000 to the Taxpayer’s League.

SFEG registered with the state as an independent expenditure group on Aug. 16, two weeks after receiving TCF’s first contribution. The group, which also uses TCF Bank as its financial institution, is entirely funded by contributions from TCF.

The process of using an LLC as a mechanism to funnel money from a corporation to an independent expenditure committee has been used several times this year by both right- and left-leaning groups. Minnesota’s Future, its LLC and the Republican Governor’s Association came under criticism for using a similar setup, which is currently being investigated by the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board after a complaint from Common Cause Minnesota.

That group’s director, Mike Dean, said that while they are similar, TCF and SFEG followed the rules.

“This group is set up in very different ways,” said Dean. Minnesota’s Future LLC didn’t register with the finance board, while SFEG LLC did.

But he said the arrangement raises questions about why SFEG exists. TCF could have simply made its donations directly to MN Forward and the Taxpayer’s League. Dean suspects the added layer of an LLC is to help shield TCF from scrutiny.

“They created this scenario to disguise those contributions, and in that they were largely successful,” he said. He said the fallout from Target’s donations to MN Forward seems to have prompted the need to add the extra layer. In July, news of Target’s donations to the pro-Emmer committee launched protests and boycotts of the retail giant, forcing Target to respond and take a hit to its reputation.

That might be why TCF funneled money to the Taxpayer’s League of Minnesota. That group is pushing a lawsuit to overturn Minnesota’s requirements that corporations disclose their contributions. They lost their first case, but are appealing that decision. If they are successful, no company will face the kind of controversy Target has because the public will never know which corporations gave to independent committees or how much.

“It’s a clear example of how some corporations are reacting to the Target backlash,” said Dean of TCF’s maneuvering.

He noted that when MN Forward’s finance reports were released earlier this month, TCF was not listed among those contributors and the media missed it because it was funneled through the LLC. While 3M and Best Buy took some flak from liberal groups, TCF got a pass.

But because TCF and SFEG followed the rules, following the paper trail eventually reveals the donations. “That’s how we know the donations came from TCF,” said Dean.

Yet the setup between TCF and MN Forward and the Republican Governor’s Association and Minnesota’s Future are very similar, and for good reason: Both have LLCs that were set up by the same attorney, Dean said.

State Fund for Economic Growth

In the new 2011 Corporate Equality Index (CEI) released by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), three Minnesota corporations’ ratings were decreased due to political activity. Target, Best Buy and 3M all were given an 85-point rating after each received a 15-point reduction for their donations to independent expenditure group MN Forward.

Those donations were protested by LGBT-rights groups as Emmer opposes civil rights measures and has ties to a controversial Christian rock band. In last year’s index, each of those company received a perfect score. The HRC had already announced that Target and Best Buy would be dropped from the organization’s buying guide.

In judging U.S. businesses, the CEI measures a number of factors such as non-discrimination policies, providing partner benefits to same-sex couples and diversity training. They also include a category titled “responsible citizenship,” worth 15 points, that examines whether corporations have “a large-scale official or public anti-LGBT blemish on their recent records.” Best Buy, Target and 3M were granted perfect scores in all categories except the responsible citizenship measure, where all three lost the full 15 points.

In July, Target and Best Buy contributed $150,000 and $100,000 respectively to MN Forward, an independent group that has spent almost all of their funds running advertisements supporting Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer or attacking Mark Dayton, the Democrat in the race. 3M joined the list of MN Forward donors in September, contributing $100,000 to the organization. Progressive organizations had been largely mute on that latest donation until the new edition of the CEI.

Explaining the downgrade in the three companies’ ratings, the HRC’s report says:

This summer, it came to light that Target Corp., Best Buy Co. Inc. and 3m Co. – all of which had outstanding workplace policies and 100 percent scores on the CEI – had donated substantial sums to an independent expenditure committee supporting an anti-LGBT gubernatorial candidate. HRC confronted the companies about their donations, which could help block marriage equality in Minnesota if this candidate is elected. In doing so, HRC highlighted the dangers of a post-Citizens United world and channeled the LGBT community’s anger toward what HRC hoped would be a reasonable solution. As of this writing, the companies have chosen to take no corrective action and are being penalized under the existing CEI criteria not for the donation itself, but for failing to respond to significant community concerns.

The downgrade for Target, Best Buy and 3M was outside the general trend for U.S. companies in the CEI. The report granted a perfect rating to 337 businesses, an increase from the 2010 CEI, which gave a 100 percent rating to 305 companies.

Patrick Caldwell is the American Independent’s Minnesota correspondent.

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.

Tom Emmer Via Wikipedia

Despite public backlash against Target Corporation’s political donations to a Republican-run independent expenditure committee that is backing GOP-endorsed candidate Tom Emmer for governor, other Minnesota businesses continue to contribute to the very same group, MN Forward.

3M is the latest major contributor to MN Forward, as revealed in a new campaign finance report (PDF) released Wednesday morning. The Minnesota-based corporation added $100,000 to the independent organization on Sept. 10. A number of other business have contributed small amounts to MN Forward since the last campaign finance filing, but a $10,000 donation from Frandsen Financial Corp. is the only other major money transfer besides 3M’s $100,000.

MN Forward’s campaign activity came under the spotlight after Target’s $150,000 in donations became public. At the time, the independent expenditure organization had run ads solely supporting Republican gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer. Groups supporting LGBT rights and other progressive organizations latched onto Target’s contribution, tying the corporation to Emmer’s anti-gay rights views and his support for controversial Christian rock band You Can Run But You Cannot Hide. Target’s donation later became the prime example for the dangers of corporate political activity after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling.

After the group was criticized as solely an extension of the state GOP, MN Forward trumpeted endorsements for a bipartisan slate of down-ballot candidates. However, the new report indicates those other endorsements are a minor part of the group’s operations, with almost all of their attention and money devoted to the Emmer campaign. Over 95 percent of their expenditures on behalf of candidates have been for the gubernatorial race. The group reports spending $300,000 against Democratic candidate Mark Dayton, $344,000 supporting Emmer and only $31,000 on the six other candidates’ races.

Reports for all independent expenditure groups were due Tuesday, yet another Republican independent group’s funding remains a mystery. Minnesota’s Future — an organization run by Republican activist Jeff Larson — purchased in late August an ad buy criticizing Dayton’s tax proposals. The state Campaign and Finance Disclosure Board does not yet have the required form from the organization. However, Tuesday’s reporting deadline was a postmarked date, so the board says the report may not be late and could still be available later Wednesday.

Minnesota’s Future is a relatively new player in the campaign, with no contributions taken in this year before the August primary.

Patrick Caldwell is the American Independent’s Minnesota correspondent.

Photo: iStockphoto

More than 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals were dumped into Minnesota’s waterways during 2007, according to a new report (pdf) by Environment Minnesota. 3M was by far the most prolific dumper of pollutants, with more than 1 million pounds discharged into the Mississippi River.

Nationwide at least 232 million pounds of toxic chemicals were released into the country’s waterways, according to the report. Indiana led the nation in total volume of toxic discharges, with 27 million pounds of pollutant’s released into the state’s waterways. Virginia, Nebraska, Texas and Louisiana rounded out the top five.

“Pollutant releases from factories, power plants and other industrial facilities are a key contributing factor to the pollution that leaves 46 percent of the nation’s assessed rivers and streams and 61 percent of its assessed lakes unsafe for fishing, swimming or other uses,” the report notes.

Nitrate compounds, which can cause serious health problems for children when found in drinking water, were responsible for 90 percent of the pollutants dumped into the nation’s waterways. But more than 1.5 million pounds of chemicals linked to cancer were released into streams, rivers and lakes. In addition, 450,000 pounds of substances linked to developmental disorders and roughly 266,000 pounds of chemicals linked to reproductive disorders were discharged into the country’s waterways. The Mississippi River was among the top four recipients for each of these categories.

The Ohio River received the highest overall volume of toxic discharges, followed by the New and Mississippi rivers. More than 12 million pounds of pollutants were dumped into the Mississippi River in 2007. It was the only Minnesota river to earn the dubious distinction of being among the nation’s 20 most polluted waterways.

The data is culled from the federal government’s 2007 Toxic Release Inventory. Industrial facilities reported the release of 244 different toxic chemicals or classes of toxic pollutants into the country’s waterways during that year.

Environment Minnesota is calling on the federal government to more stringently enforce the Clean Water Act. Most notably the advocacy group wants the federal law applied to all the country’s waterways. Owing to court rulings, some small bodies of water are currently exempt from federal environmental regulations. Minnesota Rep. Jim Oberstar has championed the Clean Water Restoration Act, which would beef up federal enforcement of pollution prohibitions.

“There are common-sense steps that should be taken to turn the tide against toxic pollution of our waters,” said Samantha Chadwick, of Environment Minnesota, in a press release announcing the report’s findings. “We need to clean up our water now, and we need the federal government to act to protect our health and our environment.”

One of the more interesting aspects of the reply brief that Coleman filed at the Minnesota Supreme Court Friday is what it didn’t say. As the Politico observes, the former senator had nothing to say in response to a major point that Democratic rival Al Franken made in his brief: that the high court should direct Gov. Tim Pawlenty to issue an election certificate as soon as the state’s judiciary is done with Coleman’s appeal.

That silence could mean Coleman is ready to bow out if he loses his current appeal (wrong, says a staffer). Or, Coleman could be readying a request for an injunction from the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent Pawlenty from issuing Franken the certificate he would need to take Coleman’s old seat in the Senate.

Meanwhile, one Minnesota corporate leader is talking as if Coleman never left. Here’s 3M CEO George Buckley in USA Today (via Dan Haugen’s Business Agenda):

Leaders make unpleasant decisions. They often face unpalatable choices. Norm Coleman, our local senator (R-Minn.), asked me if it was right to bail out the automotive companies. I said it’s not about good choices and bad choices, but making choices that are bad or worse. I wish we weren’t rewarding people for what they have done. But leaders had to choose between the unpalatable and the unthinkable. The unpalatable is supporting the banks. The unthinkable is the collapse of the banking system. Leaders aren’t given the choice between dandelions and roses. It might be dandelions and chickweed.

A few observations: First, it’s weird that Buckley — a donor to Coleman’s 2008 campaign — still refers to Coleman as “our senator” more than four months after the Republican’s term ended. And it’s even weirder that USA Today follows Buckley’s lead and IDs Coleman (“R-Minn.”) as if he’s still in office.

Then there’s the question of when the Coleman-Buckley conversation occurred. The topic of bailing out banks and the present-tense reference to a Sen. Coleman suggests it could have been last fall.

But the common-sense assumption, reinforced by the auto-industry bailout topic (and the dandelion metaphor), would be that Coleman’s consultation with Buckley was recent. In which case it’s interesting that the former senator is reaching out to corporate leaders on matters before his once-and-perhaps-future colleagues in the U.S. Senate.

In light of a recent report released by West Virginia University showing levels of PFOA in residents of Parkersberg, W.Va., the site of the DuPont plant where Teflon is still manufactured, exceeding five times the median national level, The Ethicurean has a great informational piece on the history, health implications and continued production of PFOAs.

As previously reported by Minnesota Monitor, PFOAs have been detected in human breast milk, linked to low birth-weight, and found in lakes, rivers and drinking supplies throughout the Twin Cities as a result of years of dumping and seepage from 3M waste sites.