The Brooklyn body of the National Labor Relations Board has gathered more evidence that Target intimidated workers by threatening to close a store if a union was approved in a vote this summer.

The new charges could be enough evidence for an administrative law judge to recommend that the election results be overturned, Alvin Blyer of the regional NLRB told the Minnesota Independent.

The union lost the June election at Valley Stream, N.Y., 137-85, but has filed a number of objections with the NLRB for intimidation and illegal firing of a union supporter, according to the National Labor Relations Board.

The NLRB has already filed one complaint of its investigation of Target. Blyer told the Minnesota Independent that the regional NLRB would likely file a second complaint documenting the agency’s findings next week.

If the administrative law judge agrees with the agency, it could lead to a new election. However unions are often unsuccessful in second elections. Blyer said it may be the case that some companies are willing to engage in unfair labor practices during the first union elections because they face no fines or other punishment—the worst that can happen in most cases is another election.

One of the objections filed by the union, although recently withdrawn, related to the firing of Target union organizer Tashawna Green at the Valley Stream facility, where Target faced its first union vote in 14 years. The United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 told Crain’s they planned to refile the complaint.

In a statement following the June vote, UFCW Local 1500 President Bruce Both complained that workers had been subject to a  “campaign of threats, intimidation and illegal acts by Target management.”

The union targeted a campaign at over two dozen Target stores earlier this year. The union didn’t immediately return a request for comment, but Crain’s reports that the union plans to continue to pursue unionization at Target, which currently has no unionized stores.

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

Minnesota-based big box retailer Target is coming under fire from anti-gay groups for commercials it bought during airing of a teen drama on a Nickelodeon offshoot.

Caton’s organization, the Florida Family Association, is an affiliate of the American Family Association, a group the Southern Poverty Law Center has labeled an anti-gay hate group. They take issue with advertising Target has bought during the show Degrassi on Nick Teen.

“Target is the only major retailer that is advertising on this irresponsible and shameful show,” wrote David Caton of the Florida Family Association. “This is a point that I will remember when choosing where to shop.”

One Million Moms, another affiliate of the AFA, joined the campaign against Target.

“Upon discovering that Target Corporation is one of the main advertisers during the shameful and inappropriate program Degrassi,” the group wrote. “OMM is disappointed and the retail chain needs to be held accountable. At least three Target advertisements appeared during each episode of Degrassi this past weekend.”

The Florida group also pressured Minnesota-based General Mills in August for advertising on an ABC Family show that had a lesbian character. Caton and the FFA declared victory, but General Mills disputed that and said they didn’t pull any ads over LGBT issues.

Both the FFA and OMM have launched email campaigns to Target headquarters asking them to pull advertising from Teen Nick.

Target found itself at the other end of the issue in the fall of 2010 when it made donations to an independent expenditure committee supporting Republican Tom Emmer for governor. Emmer’s position against LGBT rights sparked a large-scale boycott of the retailer.

The Florida groups are also targeting ads on the network for the Trevor Project, a toll-free hot-line for LGBT teens at risk for suicide, because they say it indoctrinates children.

“I was disappointed to learn that Target is a leading advertiser during a television show that affirms and promotes the homosexual and transgender lifestyles, as well as other inappropriate behavior to an audience that is almost exclusively young teens and children,” wrote Caton. “It was equally concerning that Target advertised three times during the October 17, 2011, 9:30 p.m.“Beat It” episode of Degrassi, when Teen Nick aired a promotion for TheTrevorHelpline.org.”

According to the Trevor Project, the group is the “leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) youth.”

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.

Twin Cities Pride is asking the LGBT community for feedback over the decision by Target to stay neutral on an anti–gay marriage amendment that will appear on the ballot in 2012. The Minneapolis-based big box retailer has long been a major sponsor of Twin Cities Pride, one of the largest LGBT celebrations in the country, but political giving to candidates who oppose LGBT rights has prompted Twin Cities Pride to defend itself over accepting Target’s sponsorship.

Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel told shareholders last week that the company would not take a stance on the amendment, and that has fueled further controversy over the retailer’s sponsorship of Pride.

Target’s independent campaign expenditures to Minnesota Forward in support of Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer sparked outcry and protest during the 2010 election, but Twin Cities Pride defended its decision two weeks ago when it announced Target as a major sponsor.

“Twin Cities Pride strongly opposed Target’s contribution to Minnesota Forward and deeply regrets that a Pride sponsor chose to align itself with this particular PAC,” the group said in a statement. “However, Pride draws a clear distinction between the views of the candidate in question, and companies that chose to support this PAC. Target is a model employer in the community and a champion of LGBT equality in the workplace.”

The group, which holds its annual festival June 25 and 26, said that Target continues to make donations to LGBT causes that exceed $500,000 each year in Minnesota and cited changes that Target announced in February to its political giving process.

“A continued sponsorship is a step in the right direction for Target and excluding them from this year’s event would unfairly prevent Target from repairing their reputation in the LGBT community,” the group said.

But Steinhafel’s statement on the anti-gay marriage amendment at a shareholders meeting last week reignited the controversy. “Our position at this particular time is that we are going to be neutral on that particular issue,” he said, “as we would be on other social issues that have polarizing points of view.”

To that Twin Cities Pride said, “Our Board of Directors was appalled this week to learn that Target has publicly stated a neutral position on the Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.”

The group says it will use the opportunity to educate Target about the amendment and solicited comments on its Facebook page to send to Target. Those comments ran the gamut.

“I don’t like how it is seeming that Target is jumping on the ‘band-wagon’ when it benefits them, but then jumping off or feigning neutrality when asked to stand by their actions,” wrote one community member. “You can’t have your cake and eat it too Target. Choosing to throw themselves in the ring politically and by sponsoring Pride, I feel, opens them up for needing to state where they are on this issue.”

Another commenter had even stronger words. “Pride is a sacred space because it is often the only time LGBT people get to experience full inclusion and welcome in a public space. It is HIGHLY offensive that a company who has funded politicians who are virulently anti-gay would be allowed to have a presence at our event. There will be a very public response.”

Others were eager to give Target a pass based on the chain’s pioneering work on workplace inclusion and hefty giving to LGBT charities.

“Guys, these companies are LEADERS, I’ll say it again, LEADERS in GLBT equality in the workplace. Just because they don’t shout from the heavens like Home Depot has done, doesn’t mean they aren’t equally as important to the GLBT community,” wrote a commenter.

Wrote another, “Yes, it is upsetting that they are ‘neutral,’ but given their strong internal non-discrimination policies I think we can take a “we are disappointed but we’ll wait and see.”

Some called for pulling support from any business that stays neutral on the marriage amendment. “With the anti-gay amendment on the ballot next year, we have to ask ourselves if we really want the support of ‘neutral’ businesses,” one comment read. “We should be embracing the companies that actually appreciate us and want us to have equal rights! Neutral will not give us civil rights.”

And another commenter snarked, “Target is like getting medical care from someone who just shot you on purpose.”

Minneapolis-based retailer Target told investors on Wednesday that the company will not be taking sides on the anti–gay marriage amendment slated for the 2012 ballot. The shareholders meeting in Pittsburgh, the first held since a nationwide boycott targeted the stores last fall over its corporate contributions to Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer, drew protesters critical of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and members of the LGBT community. Target’s announcement comes as Twin Cities LGBT Pride festivities get under way — an event for which Target is a major sponsor.

The Minnesota Legislature passed an amendment last month that would let voters decide whether to codify a ban on same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution. State voters will decide that issue in 2012, though same-sex marriage is currently illegal in Minnesota.

“Our position at this particular time is that we are going to be neutral on that particular issue, as we would be on other social issues that have polarizing points of view,” CEO Gregg Steinhafel told shareholders. “We’re a retail store, we welcome everybody,” he added. “We have a broad team-member base, every shape and size and color. And so we are a very inclusive organization… We’re going to continue to monitor, we’re going to continue to assess, and see how that develops.”

Target took heat last fall when campaign finance reports showed Target giving $150,000 to MN Forward, an independent expenditure committee that produced ads in support of Emmer who has been a staunch opponent of rights for LGBT Minnesotans. The revelation sparked a nationwide boycott.

And at Wednesdays’ shareholders meeting the issue came up again and again. Nearly a dozen shareholders grilled Steinhafel on Target’s political giving, according to the Pioneer Press.

Target made some changes to its corporate political expenditures in February but, as the Minnesota Independent reported at the time, it was not enough to dissuade those critical of Target’s donation to Emmer.

Thomas Waters, advocacy chair of the Delta Foundation, an LGBT group in Pennsylvania, also attended the protest and noted that it’s incorrect to label Target as homophobic.

“One problem with that boycott effort was that Target got painted as being ‘homophobic.’ This isn’t really accurate,” he said. “Target, the corporation, has had business values of respecting everyone and being pro-gay in the sense of being welcoming and supporting of the LGBT community. That was still true, even while, as a corporation, they were giving vast sums of money, which was knowingly going to anti-gay politicians.”

He said that corporate giving to politicians that oppose rights for LGBT people was not in line with Target’s typical policies on inclusion.

“They acted in a way that was not aligned with their corporate values. That doesn’t make them homophobes, but it does call into question their value system,” he said. “Is their support for the LGBT community real? More likely, it is real, but there is a problem in the way the corporation acts and makes decisions regarding how they will use profits.”

Target has in the past been a major sponsor of Twin Cities LGBT Pride, where Target temporary tattoos and tchotchkes are ubiquitous. And the retailer will again be one of the prime sponsors of the monthlong series of events.

But on a larger scale, protesters at Wednesday’s shareholder meeting are concerned about unbridled corporate spending in political campaigns.

Mike Dean, executive director of Common Cause Minnesota, a group that works for more transparency in politics, attended the demonstration at the shareholders meeting in Pittsburgh.

“Target should stick to business and stop meddling in our democracy,” he said. “Target Corporation has failed to learn from the controversy last year by continuing to make corporate political donations.”

In the wake of a controversial donation to MN Forward that riled LGBT activists and sparked boycotts cross-country, Target has changed its process for making corporate independent expenditures. The retail giant will now run its political donations through a policy committee that would determine if the donations “advance issues that are important to our business.” But will the change be enough for LGBT community members still hurt by Target’s 2010 donations?

In July, Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward, an independent expenditure campaign that produced and distributed ads in support of Republican Tom Emmer, a gubernatorial candidate who opposed marriage for same-sex couples. His campaign had also donated to the anti-gay ministry You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International and he had attended a 2009 fundraiser for the group.

Target, which had been a big supporter of LGBT causes in Minnesota, suddenly found itself facing protests by the LGBT community in Minnesota and became the target of a nationwide boycotts.

On Thursday, Target announced a new set of policies around corporate political contributions.

Now, before general corporate funds can be used for political donations, they’ll have to go through a policy committee comprised of senior Target executives that’s “responsible for balancing our business interests with any other considerations that may be important to our team members, guests or other stakeholders,” according to the new policies posted on the Target website.

The policy committee will be in charge of those decisions regardless of whether the contribution is to an independent group such as MN Forward or to a political action committee:

The use of general corporate funds for political contributions is permitted if the Policy Committee determines that would be an appropriate means of advancing issues that are important to our business. The Policy Committee reviews and approves any use of general corporate funds for electioneering activities or for ballot initiatives. This approval process applies whether the contribution is made directly to a candidate or party, or indirectly through an organization operating under Section 527 or 501(c)(4) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

“These changes are really reflective of that perspective that we gained over the 2010 election cycle,” Jessica Carlson, spokesperson for Target, told the Washington Blade yesterday.

The Blade asked her if the controversy surrounding MN Forward contributed to the policy change. Carlson said, “Well, this has been an evolution, and so based on just generally the 2010 election cycle, we made some changes.”

But the change doesn’t necessarily mend any fences with local LGBT advocates.

“It sure took Target a long to time react to the boycott,” said Randi Reitan, the mother of a gay son who took her Target card to a local store and tore it up in front of management. Her protests, captured on YouTube and at The Uptake, made her the face of the boycott.

“But language like this, establishing a policy committee made up of senior executives, really doesn’t say much to me,” she said.

“I wish they would have addressed the fact that they — as a corporation — gave to a group who wanted to elect a person who would do all he could to take rights away from their gay employees,” she added. “As a company, Target has great benefits and internal support for their gay employees and that is wonderful, but if Target gives large sums of money to elect a person who wants to take rights away from the gay community in the ‘real world,’ they loose my respect and my business.”

For Reitan, the bigger issue is Gregg Steinhafel, Target’s President, CEO and Chairman of the Board. Steinhafel, a devout conservative Christian, has a reputation for supporting conservative candidates.

“I do not respect Gregg Steinhafel,” Reitan said. “I feel — and a number of Target employees expressed to me in the months since Target donated the $150,000 — Steinhafel is personally not supportive of marriage equality, and he gave to Emmer in part because of that viewpoint.”

She added, “I have no plans to return to Target until he is replaced.”

The controversy, she said has made her reconsider shopping at large corporations because of political giving in the wake of the Citizens United Supreme Court case.

“I am against any corporation giving to political campaigns,” she said. “Companies like Target are wealthy enough to have the ability to actually sway an election with their donations.”

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.